<P> 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 . </P> <P> 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 . </P> <P> 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 . </P> <P> The court noted that the matter concerned a multiplicity of intersecting constitutional values and interests, some overlapping and some competing . The overlap and tension between the different clusters of rights reflected themselves in contradictory assessments of how the central constitutional value of dignity was implicated . </P>

Christian education south africa v minister of education 2000 4 sa 757 (cc) 2000 10 bclr 1051 (cc)