Share

Spanking judgment sets a dangerous precedent - religious organisation

Johannesburg – Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) on Monday said a High Court ruling which ordered parents to no longer spank their children would set a dangerous precedent.

"The judgment sets a very dangerous precedent for other cases where children's rights have to be weighed against parental and religious rights," FOR SA's executive director Michael Swain said in a statement.

Swain was responding to Thursday's South Gauteng High Court ruling which prohibits parents from physically disciplining their children.

"Parents who disobey the law and continue to spank their children may be charged with assault and face criminal prosecution," Swain said.

'Parental discipline'

He said FOR SA, which made submissions as a friend of the court, argued in favour of reasonable chastisement on the basis of Christian belief permitted by scripture.

"FOR SA argued further that parental discipline is an important part of parents' duty to ensure their children are brought up as responsible human beings with a sense of right and wrong, and that it is therefore ultimately for the child's good and in his or her best interest.

"FOR SA deplores the high rates of child abuse and domestic violence in South Africa, and strongly condemns any form of violence against children," he said.

"There is, however, a fundamental and obvious difference between violence and abuse and reasonable and moderate chastisement in love.

OPINION: To spank or not to spank... is no longer the question

"It is unfortunate that the judgment does not recognise this distinction which is also recognised by the social sciences, and considers chastisement in all circumstances to be detrimental and harmful to children."

The religious organisation was concerned that the judgment encroached on parental authority as well as the freedom of parents.

"Although the judgment states that 'as far as possible, parents should not be criminalised', in law it is possible that criminal sanctions may be imposed and children who are considered to be at risk of abuse or violence in the family home may be removed from their parents."

Swain said the organisation was also concerned that the court had overreached in its judgment and said the ruling "effectively usurps the power of Parliament, [which] has primary responsibility for law reform".

Swain said the appellant had three weeks, from the date of judgment, to apply for leave to appeal the judgment at the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Here's what people had to say on Twitter:

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
Who we choose to trust can have a profound impact on our lives. Join thousands of devoted South Africans who look to News24 to bring them news they can trust every day. As we celebrate 25 years, become a News24 subscriber as we strive to keep you informed, inspired and empowered.
Join News24 today
heading
description
username
Show Comments ()
Voting Booth
Do you think corruption-accused National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula will survive a motion of no confidence against her?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
No, her days are numbered
40% - 55 votes
Yes, the ANC caucus will protect her
60% - 81 votes
Vote
Rand - Dollar
19.08
-0.9%
Rand - Pound
24.03
-0.6%
Rand - Euro
20.57
-0.5%
Rand - Aus dollar
12.38
-0.2%
Rand - Yen
0.13
-0.9%
Platinum
890.97
-0.7%
Palladium
988.99
-1.3%
Gold
2,195.56
+0.0%
Silver
24.43
-0.9%
Brent Crude
86.09
-0.2%
Top 40
67,885
+0.3%
All Share
74,077
+0.2%
Resource 10
56,208
+1.0%
Industrial 25
103,636
+0.4%
Financial 15
16,471
-0.3%
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes Iress logo
Editorial feedback and complaints

Contact the public editor with feedback for our journalists, complaints, queries or suggestions about articles on News24.

LEARN MORE