Freedom of Religion South Africa

Last updated
Freedom of Religion South Africa
FormationJanuary 2014;10 years ago (2014-01)
FounderAndrew Selley
Registration no.K2014099286
Legal status Nonprofit organisation
Website www.forsa.org.za

Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) is a South African nonprofit fundamentalist Christian advocacy group. It was founded in 2014 by Andrew Selley, the lead pastor and founder of the Joshua Generation Church, after parents filed a complaint to the South African Human Rights Commission that alleged that Joshua Generation Church advocated for corporal punishment in the home. [1] [2] In Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development , FOR SA unsuccessfully opposed a ruling by the Johannesburg High Court that deemed corporal punishment to be assault.

Contents

FOR SA is dedicated to "upholding the rights to religious freedom conferred by the South African Constitution, including parental rights and the autonomy of religious organisations to determine their own doctrines and regulate their own internal affairs free from interference by the State or anyone else". [3] It has also advocated against the expansion of LGBT rights [4] and opposed the implementation of comprehensive sex education in South African schools on the grounds of religious freedom. [5]

History

In October 2013, two parents found a parenting manual on Joshua Generation Church's website that gave instructions on how to administer corporal punishment to children. The manual gave specific instructions on the size of the rod that should be used to hit children as well as instruction on how to hit children without leaving marks. The parents filed a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) shortly thereafter. [6] In response to the complaint and the subsequent investigation of Joshua Generation Church by the SAHRC, Andrew Selley, founder and lead pastor of the church, founded FOR SA in January 2014. [2] In 2016, the SAHRC concluded its investigation and released a report that recommended that Joshua Generation Church undertake to stop advocating for corporal punishment, remove references to corporal punishment from its teaching materials, and ensuring its pastors take a training course in non-violent child discipline. It also recommended that corporal punishment of children be outlawed. [7]

Advocacy

Corporal punishment

In 2017, a man who beat his son and was convicted of assault in the Johannesburg Regional Court, appealed his conviction in the Johannesburg High Court. The man argued that the common law concept of "reasonable chastisement" allowed parents to administer discipline in a matter that the parent deems reasonable. FOR SA made representations in defence of "reasonable chastisement" to the court as an amicus curiae . FOR SA argued that reasonable chastisement only allows reasonable levels of physical discipline that are not comparable to abuse and that reasonable chastisement is not an unjustifiable breach of the rights of the child and therefore was compatible with the South African Constitution. FOR SA also added that because scriptures commanded that parents should reasonably discipline their children, sometimes physically, declaring reasonable chastisement unlawful would violate parents' religious freedoms. The court ruled that the reasonable chastisement defence was unconstitutional, effectively outlawing corporal punishment in South Africa. [8] [9]

In 2019, FOR SA appealed the 2017 High Court ruling that made corporal punishment unlawful at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, again arguing that scriptures and other holy writings instruct parents to discipline their children in a matter they find appropriate. The court again ruled that the common law idea of reasonable chastisement was incompatible with several sections of the South African Constitution, namely sections 10, 12(1(c), and 28(2). [10]

LGBT issues

FOR SA claims that the right to freedom from discrimination does not override the freedom of religion and that in some instances, some discrimination may be justified in order to avoid infringing on the freedom of religion. [11] FOR SA has frequently used this argument to support the rights of religious people in cases where they have come into conflict with the rights of LGBT people. In 2014, FOR SA acted as amicus curiae on the side of two guesthouse owners in Wolseley who were sued by a gay couple after the guesthouse refused to offer them accommodation on religious grounds. The guesthouse owners claimed that providing a place for a homosexual couple to have sex would make them liable for sin. [12] In 2015, FOR SA acted as the official spokesperson for the vice-chairperson of the University of Cape Town's students' representative council (SRC), Zizipho Pae, after the SRC voted to remove her from the council for a Facebook post she made criticising the United States Supreme Court decision which guaranteed the right to marry to same-sex couples. Pae was later reinstated when the university found that the SRC decision to remove her did not follow the correct procedure. [13] Selley said the decision to reinstate her was a victory for religious freedom and should cause politicians and activists to "lose confidence in the brashness of driving gay rights forward". [4] In 2019, FOR SA spoke in support of a pastor who allegedly told high school students that gay people were akin to murderers and paedophiles and "just as bad as Hitler". FOR SA executive director Michael Swain said that South Africa's constitution allowed religious sermons in schools and that the constitutional right to free speech included speech that some might find offensive. He added that speech that constitutes incitement to cause harm is not constitutionally protected. The pastor denied making the claims. [14] In January 2020, FOR SA also spoke out in support of a wedding venue in Stanford who refused to allow a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding there. [15]

In 2020, FOR SA asked president Cyril Ramaphosa not to sign the Civil Union Amendment bill which would repeal section 6 of the Civil Union Act, no longer allowing state-employed marriage officers to refuse to validate a same-sex marriage. FOR SA argued that the repeal of section 6 would violate the religious freedoms of state-employed marriage officers and that the bill should be sent back to parliament for review. [16] Section 6 of the act provided that:

A marriage officer, other than a marriage officer referred to in section 5, may in writing inform the Minister [of Home Affairs] that he or she objects on the ground of conscience, religion and belief to solemnising a civil union between persons of the same sex, whereupon that marriage officer shall not be compelled to solemnise such civil union.

The bill was signed into law by President Ramaphosa on 22 October 2020, giving rise to the Civil Union Amendment Act of 2020. [16]

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since the Civil Union Act, 2006 came into force on 30 November 2006. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally solemnise their union 229 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span>

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

Chastisement is the infliction of corporal punishment as defined by law.

<i>Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie</i> South African legal case

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19, is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December 2005, gave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006, making South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage.

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments, and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religion in South Africa</span>

Religion in South Africa is dominated by various branches of Christianity, which collectively represent around 78% of the country's total population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African Human Rights Commission</span>

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) was inaugurated in October 1995 as an independent chapter nine institution. It draws its mandate from the South African Constitution by way of the Human Rights Commission Act of 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School corporal punishment</span> Form of punishment

School corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of physical pain as a response to undesired behavior by students. The term corporal punishment derives from the Latin word for the "body", corpus. In schools it may involve striking the student on the buttocks or on the palms of their hands with an implement such as a rattan cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap, belt, or wooden yardstick. Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student with an open hand, especially at the kindergarten, primary school, or other more junior levels.

Iain Tyrrell Benson is a legal philosopher and practising legal consultant. The main focus of his work in relation to law and society has been to examine some of the various meanings that underlie terms of common but confused usage. His work towards an understanding of secular and secularism has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He has also given critical study to the terms pluralism, faith, believer, unbeliever, liberalism and accommodation and examined the implications for various legal and non-legal usages.

The South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms (SACRRF) is a charter of rights drawn up by South African religious and civil organisations which is intended to define the religious freedoms, rights and responsibilities of South African citizens. The aim of the drafters of the charter is for it to be approved by Parliament in terms of section 234 of the Constitution of South Africa.

<i>Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education</i> South African legal case

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education 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 appeared for the appellant, and MNS Sithole SC for the respondent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neopaganism in South Africa</span>

Neopaganism in South Africa is primarily represented by the traditions of Wicca, Neopagan witchcraft, Germanic neopaganism and Neo-Druidism. The movement is related to comparable trends in the United States and Western Europe and is mostly practiced by White South Africans of urban background; it is to be distinguished from folk healing and mythology in local Bantu culture.

South Africa is a secular state, with freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.

The legality of corporal punishment of children varies by country. Corporal punishment of minor children by parents or adult guardians, which is intended to cause physical pain, has been traditionally legal in nearly all countries unless explicitly outlawed. According to a 2014 estimate by Human Rights Watch, "Ninety percent of the world's children live in countries where corporal punishment and other physical violence against children is still legal". Many countries' laws provide for a defence of "reasonable chastisement" against charges of assault and other crimes for parents using corporal punishment. This defence is ultimately derived from English law. As of 2024, only three of seven G7 members including seven of the 20 G20 member states have banned the use of corporal punishment against children.

"Dubul' ibhunu", translated as shoot the Boer, as kill the Boer or as kill the farmer, is a controversial anti-apartheid South African song. It is sung in Xhosa or Zulu. The song originates in the struggle against apartheid when it was first sung to protest the Afrikaner-dominated apartheid government of South Africa.

<i>Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development</i> South African legal case

Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others[2019] ZACC 34 is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which found that corporal punishment in the home is illegal. The court found that the common law defence of "moderate and reasonable chastisement" is unconstitutional, so that parents are no longer exempt from prosecution or conviction for assault for striking their children. The unanimous judgment was written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and handed down on 18 September 2019.

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Namibia. On 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 4–1 that same-sex marriages concluded outside of Namibia should be recognised for residency purposes. A bill seeking to overturn the ruling has passed the Parliament of Namibia and awaits President Nangolo Mbumba's signature.

Raylene May Keightley is a South African judge of the High Court of South Africa. She was appointed to the Gauteng Division in January 2016 after a career as a legal academic and practising lawyer. She was admitted as an attorney in 1986 and as an advocate in 2006.

<i>Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission</i> South African legal case

Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another is a 2021 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of a statutory prohibition on hate speech. The court found that section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 was unconstitutional insofar as it included the vague term "hurtful" as part of the definition of prohibited hate speech.

Eswatini does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions. The Marriage Act, 1964 does not provide for the recognition of same-sex unions.

References

  1. ↑ Wallace, Dale (2020). "Resurgent Fundamentalism, Politics, and the Anti-Liberal Agenda: Challenges for South Africa's Constitutional Democracy" (PDF). Journal for the Study of Religion . 33 (1): 15. doi:10.17159/2413-3027. ISSN   2413-3027. S2CID   244552476 . Retrieved 2 October 2023. FOR SA is a fundamentalist Bible-based legal advocacy organization...
  2. 1 2 "Our Story". www.forsa.org.za. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  3. ↑ "Who We Are". www.forsa.org.za. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  4. 1 2 Selley, Andrew (13 August 2015). "Zizipho Pae's Case: A Victory in So Many Ways!". www.forsa.org.za. Retrieved 3 October 2023. ...politicians and activists will lose confidence in the brashness of driving gay rights forward and should have a healthier respect for religious freedom...
  5. ↑ Mcewen, Haley (10 November 2019). "America's right is lobbying against South Africa's sex education syllabus". The Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  6. ↑ Hyman, Aron (31 January 2016). "Parents call for ban on smacking". TimesLIVE. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  7. ↑ "Investigative Report WP/1213/0887" (PDF). South African Human Rights Commission. 21 January 2016. p. 59. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  8. ↑ Mabuza, Ernest (20 October 2017). "Parents can't hit their children - it's unconstitutional' court rules". TimesLIVE. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  9. ↑ "YG v S (A263/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 290; 2018 (1) SACR 64 (GJ) (19 October 2017)". www.saflii.org. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  10. ↑ "Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (Global Initiative to end all Corporal Punishment of Children, Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law Governance and Human Rights, and Parent Centre as". www.concourt.org.za. 28 September 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2023.
  11. ↑ Badenhorst, Nadene (1 August 2018). "Religious belief may justify "discrimination"". gatewaynews.co.za. Archived from the original on 18 January 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  12. ↑ Thamm, Marianne (24 June 2014). "God made us to do it: Christian guesthouse owners ask gay couple to be tolerant of their prejudice". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  13. ↑ Igual, Roberto (17 September 2015). "Zizipho Pae demoted by UCT's SRC". MambaOnline. Retrieved 3 October 2023.
  14. ↑ Daniels, Lou-Anne (23 July 2019). "Pastor's anti-gay school talk: Hate speech or freedom of religion?". IOL.co.za. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  15. ↑ Palm, Kaylynn (20 January 2020). "Freedom of Religion SA backs wedding venue for turning away same-sex couple". ewn.co.za. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  16. 1 2 "Freedom of Religion SA petitions for review of same-sex marriages bill". IOL.co.za. 13 July 2020. Retrieved 4 October 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.