SA's judges are courting disaster
The judgment by chief justice Mogoeng on parental spanking of their kids is extremely distressing. It is not the supreme court that is supreme, the constitution is.
The principle of the rule of law demands accountability.
Certain judges have made themselves guardians over the constitution rather than being guardians of the constitution.
Judges are the depository of all the laws; the living oracles who must decide all cases of doubt, and who are bound by their oath to decide according to the law of the land.
Many are now asking has the apex court overstepped its limits and engaged in overreach?
Children today are defiant at school and uncontrollable at home.
Kids are being brainwashed by television and music to have no morals, and to talk back to their parents.
The purpose of this subversive campaign is to destroy the sanctity and unity of the home. We ignore this pattern of behaviour at our peril.
Farouk Araie, Johannesburg
ConCourt can't endorse corporal punishment
Let me start by mentioning a point I have raised for the umpteenth time, and that is that the majority of African people didn't take part in the drafting of the constitution of SA.
The country's constitution as it is now is against unusual and cruel punishment. It also endorses the right to life, which means it is against capital punishment.
If the Constitutional Court rules against capital punishment, it means it follows the letter and spirit of the constitution. It cannot, therefore, endorse corporal punishment. Even if there was no such provision in the constitution against unusual and cruel punishment, do people who are against the Constitutional Court judgment on corporal punishment expect it to endorse corporal punishment?
Corporal punishment is violence and by endorsing it the court would, in essence, be endorsing violence.