Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Abolition of Corporal Punishment Act, 1997 (Act No. 33 of 1997) is an act of the Parliament of South Africa that abolished judicial corporal punishment. [1] It followed the Constitutional Court's 1995 decision in the case of S v Williams and Others that caning of juveniles was unconstitutional.
S v Williams and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled that judicial corporal punishment of juveniles is unconstitutional. [1] The decision was taken with respect to five different cases in which six juveniles were convicted by different magistrates and sentenced to receive a "moderate ...
Corporal punishment in schools was banned by the South African Schools Act, 1996, and the application of that ban to private religious schools was upheld by the Constitutional Court in the case of Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education.
[2] [3] Freedom of Religion South Africa, the Christian lobbying group which had been party to the case, described the decision as "dangerous" and "destructive". [4] It was welcomed by children's rights groups including Save the Children South Africa [ 4 ] and the Children's Institute at the University of Cape Town , [ 5 ] as well as by the ...
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 [2] (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.
Abolition of Corporal Punishment Act, 1997; C. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997; F. First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa; M.
In 1990, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child established an obligation to “prohibit all corporal punishment of children.” The U.S. was the convention's lone holdout.
The following year, in October 2017, Keightley handed down a landmark ruling on the unconstitutionality of corporal punishment by parents, finding that neither religious defences nor the common-law defence of "reasonable chastisement" sufficed to overrule the best interests of the child and justify corporal punishment.