|
''Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education''〔2000 (4) SA 757 (CC).〕 is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Constitutional Court, by Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Cameron AJ, on 4 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 18 August. FG Richings SC (with him AM Achtzehn) appeared for the appellant, and MNS Sithole SC (with him BJ Pienaar) for the respondent. == Facts == The central question to be answered in the present appeal, from a decision in a Local Division, was whether, when Parliament enacted the South African Schools Act〔Act 84 of 1996.〕 (wherein it prohibited corporal punishment in schools), it had violated the rights of parents of children at independent schools who, in line with their religious convictions, had consented to its use. The appellant averred that corporal correction was an integral part of the active Christian ethos which it sought to provide its learners and that the blanket prohibition of its use in its schools invaded individual and parental and community rights to practise religion freely. Having been unsuccessful in the court ''a quo'', the appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the blanket prohibition contained in section 10 of the Act infringed the provisions in the Constitution relating to * privacy;〔s 14.〕 * freedom of religion, belief and opinion;〔15.〕 * education;〔s 29.〕 * language and culture;〔s 30.〕 and * cultural, religious and linguistic communities.〔s 31.〕 The respondent contended that it was the infliction of corporal punishment, not its prohibition, which infringed constitutional rights. He argued that the appellant's claim to be entitled to special exemption was inconsistent with the constitutional provisions relating to * equality;〔s 9.〕 * human dignity;〔s 10.〕 * freedom and security of the person;〔s 12.〕 and * children.〔s 28.〕 The respondent contended further that section 31(1) rights could not, in terms of the provisions of section 31(2), be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights, and that the trend in democratic countries was to ban corporal punishment in schools, and finally that South Africa's obligations as signatory to various conventions required the abolition of corporal punishment in schools, since it involved subjecting children to violence and degrading punishment. Inasmuch as the outlawing of corporal punishment limited other rights, such limitation was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. While the sincerity of the beliefs of the parents could not be doubted, nor their right to practise their religion in association with each other be disputed, and while the right of parents to administer corporal punishment at home was not challenged, such conduct was not appropriate in schools, nor in the education system. In its argument that its rights of religious freedom, guaranteed by sections 15 and 31 of Constitution, had been infringed, the appellant argued that the rights in question should be viewed cumulatively. It argued further that the corporal correction applied in its schools with the authorisation of the parent was not inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, the qualification contained in section 31(2) did not apply. The appellant argued further that, once it succeeded in establishing that the Act substantially impacted upon its sincerely held religious beliefs, the failure of the Act to provide an appropriate exemption could only pass constitutional muster if it were justified by a compelling state interest. In response to this argument, the respondent contended that the governing provision was section 31, not section 15. The corporal punishment was delivered in the context of the community activity in a school; accordingly, it could only attract constitutional protection if, in terms of section 31(2), it was not inconsistent with any other provision of the Bill of Rights. Since corporal punishment violated the right to equality and the right to dignity, it forfeited any claim to constitutional regard. It was argued in the alternative that, if corporal punishment at the appellant's schools did not violate the Bill of Rights, its prohibition by the Act was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|