Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation. This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.
An alert reader points out that the new legislation prohibiting corporal punishment of children by their parents in their own home, is bound to be challenged in the
At the very least, the Court would look long and hard at the fact that the new legislation fails to make an exception for Christian parents who believe that God requires them to hit their children. After all such parents will be able to point to Bible verses like the following:
Proverbs – Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs – Chasten thy son while there is hope and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
Proverbs and 14 – Do not withhold discipline from a child, if you punish with a rod he will not die. Punish him with a rod and save his soul from death.”
This argument was already considered by the
Justice Sachs confirmed in that case that the Court would only question claims that a particular practice is based on religion in the most extreme cases. He therefore assumed that corporal punishment was part of the religious beliefs of the parents who sent their children to the religious schools.
Relevant for this case is that Sachs drew a sharp distinction between prohibiting corporal punishment only at schools on the one hand and placing an absolute ban on corporal punishment on the other hand.
[C]orporal punishment administered by a teacher in the institutional environment of a school is quite different from corporal punishment in the home environment. . . . Such conduct happens not in the intimate and spontaneous atmosphere of the home, but in the detached and institutional environment of the school.
The Court was careful to indicate that it was not deciding the issue of whether a complete ban on corporal punishment of children by their parents would be unconstitutional. However, when deciding whether the restriction on the right to freedom of expression was justified in terms of the limitation clause, Sachs looked at the extent to which the religious rights of the parents had been infringed and observed:
The parents are not being obliged to make an absolute and strenuous choice between obeying a law of the land or following their conscience. They can do both simultaneously. What they are prevented from doing is to authorise teachers, acting in their name and on school premises, to fulfill what they regard as their conscientious and biblically-ordained responsibilities for the guidance of their children.
Of course, if the new Bill is passed, parents who believe that God had instructed them to hit their children will have to make a “strenuous choice” between obeying the law or obeying their God. Christian parents will be able to make a strong case that such an absolute restriction on one of their religious practices cannot be justified in an open and democratic society.
On the other hand (how us lawyers like that phrase!) it is possible that the Constitutional Court will point out that we live in a brutal and violent society in which children suffer incomprehensible harm and will argue that the state’s obligation to protect children should override the right of parents to religious freedom.
If the Court chooses the latter route, Christian parents will suddenly find themselves in much the same invidious position as Rastafarians, who – after a ruling by the Court – must choose between smoking the holy weed or obeying the law.BACK TO TOP