TY - JOUR
T1 - Sideswipes and Backhanders
T2 - Abolition of the Reasonable Chastisement Defence in South Africa
AU - Sloth-Nielsen, Julia
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - This article reviews the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement by the South African Constitutional Court on the grounds that it infringes the Constitution. After detailing the history of the abolition of corporal punishment in a democracy with the Constitution as supreme law, the article dissects the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. It argues that judgment in Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (hereafter FORSA), whilst overall positive in its result, is probably a low water mark in the development of children's rights jurisprudence in South Africa. There are a number of inadequacies and strangely deferential statements in the FORSA decision. Whilst inescapably coming to the constitutionally correct decision, the reluctance of the Court to reach this point, and its desire to accommodate the religious and cultural beliefs of the appellants, is evident. The way forward has, as a result, been left rather obscure.
AB - This article reviews the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement by the South African Constitutional Court on the grounds that it infringes the Constitution. After detailing the history of the abolition of corporal punishment in a democracy with the Constitution as supreme law, the article dissects the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. It argues that judgment in Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (hereafter FORSA), whilst overall positive in its result, is probably a low water mark in the development of children's rights jurisprudence in South Africa. There are a number of inadequacies and strangely deferential statements in the FORSA decision. Whilst inescapably coming to the constitutionally correct decision, the reluctance of the Court to reach this point, and its desire to accommodate the religious and cultural beliefs of the appellants, is evident. The way forward has, as a result, been left rather obscure.
KW - South Africa
KW - South African Constitutional Court
KW - Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (FORSA)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101100675&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/lawfam/ebaa005
DO - 10.1093/lawfam/ebaa005
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85101100675
VL - 34
SP - 191
EP - 203
JO - International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
JF - International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
SN - 1360-9939
IS - 2
ER -