Call for Applications: One-Year International Research and Advocacy Exchange

The Centre for Sexualities, AIDS, and Gender (CSA&G) at the University of Pretoria seeks two (2) participants to join a one-year international exchange focused on countering anti-rights forces impacting historically marginalised communities. This exchange, hosted in partnership with the Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund (SAIH) in Norway and Colors Rainbow (CRB), a leading Myanmar LGBTIA+ organisation (currently based in Chiang MAI, Thailand), offers a unique opportunity to conduct impactful research and build advocacy skills within an international framework.

Funded by the Norwegian Agency for Exchange Cooperation (Norec), the CSA&G, SAIH and CRB are launching this exchange to empower participants through hands-on experience across three countries: South Africa, Norway, and Thailand. Participants will spend three months each in Pretoria, Oslo, and Chiang Mai, developing research and advocacy strategies that bolster the work of their host organisations.

Participation in this project constitutes a one-year paid commitment. All accommodation, travel, and activity costs will be covered by the project.

For more details on the project background, timeline and activities, see the project’s concept note here

Eligibility Requirements:

  • Must be a recent graduate of the University of Pretoria (within the last five years) and under the age of 35, or will have completed their studies by January 2025;
  • Have studied in a field relevant to the project e.g. gender studies, development studies, human rights, environmental studies;
  • Have a particular interest in or knowledge of authoritarianism, anti-gender and/or anti-environmentalism;
  • Availability to fully participate in the year-long program, including international travel;
  • Must have research experience and be familiar with quantitative or qualitative research methods;
  • Preference will be given to Just Leaders alumni who fit the above criteria.

To apply, please send your CV and a short letter of motivation to Pfarelo Matsila (pfarelo.matsila@up.ac.za) by midnight Monday 02nd December 2024. Please direct any questions about the project or application process to Pfarelo.

Children and Corporal Punishment: A Brief Exploration of Physical Violence Against Children as a form of Discipline

By: Chegofatso Maponya 

Section 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa asserts the right everyone in the country has to freedom and security of their person. This right includes (amongst others) the right to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources as well as the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhumane or degrading way. This is an extremely important right, especially as it relates to children.

Children are a vulnerable group in society, who, to some extent or another, are susceptible to all types of abuse. Where violence is inflicted on a child, especially by an adult, it can be difficult for a child to defend themselves. This is almost always the case if the violence inflicted is hidden under the guise of discipline. Corporal punishment, as a form of discipline, has been evident across cultures throughout history. The prevalence of this form of discipline has resulted in abuse against children being justified and overlooked. This justification is done by most, if not all, the adults in a child’s life. From their parents to their grandparents to (in some cases) their teachers at school. However, the use of physical violence to punish or discipline a child can never, in my opinion, be justified. Surely, there are much more effective methods that do not involve violence that one can use to modify and rectify a child’s behaviour as well as their understanding of right and wrong.

There are alternative methods to physical punishment, these include requiring a child to sit on a chair and think about their bad behaviour as well as ways not to repeat the behaviour going forward (a time-out).[1] Additionally, a child could be disciplined by asking them to do “non abusive physical tasks” such as gardening and cleaning up messes they have made.[2] It is also effective to praise and acknowledge desired behaviour (positive reinforcement) while also making clear what is considered right and wrong so that the child may act accordingly.[3] Finally, by simply speaking with the child, the adult may better understand why the child acts in a particular way. In this way, children will also be more likely to open up to the parents and understand the reason why their behaviour is bad and thus be able to make positive change moving forward.

This position against corporal punishment was confirmed in the South African case S v Williams in 1995 by the Constitutional Court. The Court declared that the use of corporal punishment of juveniles is unconstitutional. For context, the corporal punishment, in this case, involved the use of a cane to whip or strike the intended victims. The Court’s ruling highlights the brutal and inhumane nature of this type of punishment; even in cases of those who society deems deserving of some form of punishment. Although the use of corporal punishment constituted a norm in South Africa, the Constitutional Court asserted that courts plays a role “in the promotion and development of a new culture founded on the recognition of human rights”.[4] The court continued to state “that old rules and practices can no longer be taken for granted; they must be subjected to constant re-assessment to bring them into line with the provisions of the Constitution”.[5] As a result, the court asserted that although cultural norms allow for corporal punishment, this cannot be the legal position because the provisions of the Constitution reign supreme. Despite this case, corporal punishment still remains common across South Africa in the home and in schools.[6] The use of physical violence to discipline a child is degrading and impacts the dignity of the victim. It also sends a message, in my opinion, that violence is an effective and legitimate way to fix a problem, which is not true.

According to research done by the United Nations, “one in four mothers and primary caregivers expressed that physical punishment is necessary to raise children”.[7] Additionally, UNICEF has asserted that “nearly 400 million children under 5…regularly endure psychological aggression or physical punishment at home”.[8] Such statistics show how widespread the issue is and how many children, globally, are subject of such cruel treatment. All this is done in the name of discipline; however, it is important to note the unfavourable psychological effects that this form of punishment has on a child. Studies have shown connections between “normative physical punishment and child aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life.”[9] The studies were mainly conducted in the United States of America and highlights that physical punishment was more likely to elicit aggression within children. Furthermore, the studies found that “a reduction in harsh discipline used by parents of boys at risk for antisocial behaviour was followed by significant reductions in their child’s aggression.”[10]

Other studies illustrated that there is “no evidence that physical punishment changed the original, unwanted behaviour”[11].  The physical punishment, essentially, results in an increase in aggression, antisocial behaviour, anxiety, depression, poor moral reasoning, an impaired “parent-child” relationship, low self-esteem in the child and potential substance abuse issues once an adult.[12] In addition to all these effects,  studies using brain scans have illustrated that “children who are physically punished are running the same brain circuitry as children who have been abused”.[13] All this shows the detrimental effect that corporal punishment has on a child. Children absorb information from their environment and act accordingly, consequently, when they are exposed to physical punishment it can increase aggression within them and cause many mental health issues that could have otherwise been avoided.

On the international stage, many countries have also placed a prohibition on the use of corporal punishment. Such countries include Sweden, Norway, Germany, Spain, Venezuela, Uruguay, Kenya, Zambia, Mauritius and many others.[14] Approximately, 67 countries have laws that fully prohibit the use of corporal punishment and 27 countries are committed to changing their laws to fully prohibit the practice.[15] This means approximately 93 countries globally agree, to some extent, that corporal punishment is inhumane and that people ought to be protected from it.

Ultimately, it is unfortunate that we live in a society that, throughout history and across cultures, resorts to such measures in bringing up children. As a result of such so-called discipline, the child’s rights are not respected by adults. Although the law, on paper, recognises the rights of the child in this regard, it is time for adults in society to do the same. The main way for change to occur is at an individual and community level. Adults must ensure that they do not use corporal punishment against their own children and that they hold those in their communities who use physical punishment accountable by reporting such cases to the police. Although change is present and strides have been made, there will always be room for improvement. Essentially, the goal is that children should be able to enjoy their rights as prescribed by the Constitution just as much as everyone else.

 

Footnotes

[1] A Busienei ‘Alternative Methods to Corporal Punishment and their Efficacy’ (2012) Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies 3 158.

[2] Busienei (n 1) 158.

[3] Busienei (n 1) 158.

[4] S v Williams and Others 1995 (3) SA 632.

[5] S v Williams (n 4) para 8.

[6] Stats SA ‘Corporal punishment still in schools despite ban’ (2023) https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=16128#:~:text=Of%20those%20that%20reported%20experiencing,Children%20exposed%20to%20maltreatment%2C%202021. (Accessed 19 September 2024).

[7] UN News ‘400 million under-fives regularly experience violent discipline at home’ (11 June 2024) https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150921#:~:text=400%20million%20under%2Dfives%20regularly%20experience%20violent%20discipline%20at%20home,-11%20June%202024&text=Six%20in%20ten%20children%20under,according%20to%20new%20UNICEF%20estimates. (Accessed 19 September 2024)

[8] UNICEF ‘Violent discipline’ (June 2024)  https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/violence/violent-discipline/ (accessed 19 September 2024).

[9] J Durrant & R Ensom ‘Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research’ (2012) CMAJ 1373.

[10] Durrant & Ensom (n 9) 1373.

[11] D Divecha ‘Hitting Children Leads to Trauma, Not Better Behavior’ (2022) https://www.developmentalscience.com/blog/2022/2/10/hitting-children-leads-to-trauma-not-better-behavior (accessed 19 September 2024).

[12] D Divecha (n 11).

[13] D Divecha (n 11).

[14] End Corporal Punishment ‘Progress” https://endcorporalpunishment.org/countdown/ (accessed 19 September 2024).

[15] End Corporal Punishment (n 14).

Vulnerability and Protection: Revisiting Legal Definitions through Intersectionality and Sexual Citizenship

By Pfarelo Brandy Matsila and Hulisani Khorombi

Introduction

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2021 represents a crucial advancement in South Africa’s legal framework. It designed to provide enhanced protection to individuals who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and violence. This Act plays a critical role in addressing sexual offences, particularly for children, individuals with mental disabilities, and women under the age of 25 who are engaged in higher education or vocational training. It has been instrumental in ensuring that institutions such as educational facilities and workplaces are held accountable for safeguarding these populations.

The Act’s focus on protecting vulnerable groups is both timely and essential in a society where sexual violence remains a pervasive issue. By codifying protections for these groups, the Act acknowledges the importance of safeguarding bodily autonomy and addressing imbalances in power that can lead to exploitation. However, as valuable as the Act is, it is equally important to scrutinize the inclusivity and adequacy of its definitions—particularly the notion of “vulnerable persons.” When examined through the lenses of Intersectionality and Sexual Citizenship Theory, significant gaps emerge that call for a broader and more inclusive understanding of vulnerability.

The Importance of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act

The Act’s inclusion of specific protections for children, individuals with mental disabilities, and women under the age of 25 within education and vocational training environments is commendable. These groups have historically faced significant risks of sexual exploitation and harassment. The Act’s recognition of their vulnerability represents a forward-thinking attempt to provide legal safeguards where they are most needed.

Particularly important is the Act’s emphasis on higher education institutions and vocational training settings, where young women are often at risk due to imbalanced power dynamics, exposure to predatory behaviour, and lack of sufficient institutional accountability. These provisions aim to create safer environments for young women to pursue their education and careers without the constant fear of sexual harassment or violence.

Moreover, the Act is a vital step towards addressing the rights of persons with mental disabilities, who often lack the legal and social protections necessary to defend themselves against sexual violence. This inclusion strengthens the legal protections for individuals who are most at risk of exploitation due to their inability to give informed consent.

Critique: Gaps in the Definition of Vulnerability

While the Act makes substantial strides in protecting certain groups, its current definition of “vulnerable persons” is limited in several key areas. These limitations, when viewed through Intersectionality and Sexual Citizenship Theory, reveal the ways in which the legal framework overlooks important social and contextual factors that contribute to vulnerability.

1.      Women Under 25 Not in Education or Vocational Training

The Act identifies women under the age of 25 who are in higher education or vocational training as vulnerable, providing them with essential legal protections. However, women under 25 who do not fit into these categories—such as those who are unemployed, working in informal sectors, or in low-wage jobs—are excluded from this definition. This exclusion creates a narrow view of vulnerability that ignores the realities of many young women’s lives.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Sexual citizenship, as described by Richardson (2000), involves the right to bodily autonomy and safety for all individuals, regardless of their institutional or employment status. Vulnerability should not be confined to educational or training environments. Women in precarious or informal work environments, or those who are unemployed, face significant risks of exploitation and harassment. The law’s failure to include these women leaves many vulnerable individuals unprotected.
  • Intersectionality Critique: Intersectionality emphasizes how multiple social identities—such as race, class, and gender—interact to create different experiences of oppression. A young woman of colour from an economically disadvantaged background, for example, may face heightened risks of sexual violence despite not being in education or vocational training. Ignoring these intersecting identities perpetuates a system of exclusion, leaving out those who are most in need of legal protection (Crenshaw, 1989).

2.      Infantilization of Women and Exclusion of Men

The Act’s focus on women under 25 reinforces a paternalistic narrative that women need protection solely because of their age. This focus can be seen as infantilizing, reducing women’s vulnerability to a matter of age and failing to recognize that women of all ages face risks of sexual exploitation. Furthermore, the exclusion of men from the definition of vulnerability is problematic, as it reinforces gendered stereotypes that position men as invulnerable to sexual harm.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Sexual citizenship is based on the principle that all individuals, regardless of gender, have the right to bodily autonomy and protection from sexual violence. By excluding men from the definition of vulnerable persons, the Act denies male victims their right to protection. Male survivors of sexual violence, particularly those from marginalized communities such as men of colour or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, are rendered invisible in the legal framework (Richardson, 2000).
  • Intersectionality Critique: Intersectionality underscores how men, too, can be vulnerable to sexual exploitation, particularly when other factors such as race, class, or disability come into play. For instance, a black man working in precarious labour conditions may experience intersecting forms of oppression that make him more vulnerable to exploitation. The law’s gendered approach to vulnerability fails to account for these intersections, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about masculinity and neglecting the experiences of male survivors (Crenshaw, 1989).

3.      Neglect of Economic and Social Disadvantages

The Act does not account for the ways in which economic disadvantage exacerbates vulnerability. People in precarious working conditions, particularly in informal sectors, are at increased risk of sexual exploitation. Yet, the Act focuses on institutional settings such as schools and training centers, neglecting individuals who are outside these environments but face similar or greater risks.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Economic precarity is a significant factor in creating vulnerability. People who are economically disadvantaged, especially women working in informal sectors or low-wage jobs, often lack the social and legal protections available to those in more formalized settings. Sexual citizenship theory demands that the law recognize and address the vulnerabilities created by economic insecurity (Richardson, 2000).
  • Intersectionality Critique: The intersection of race, gender, and class compounds vulnerability for many individuals. A woman of colour in an informal labor setting may face exploitation due to both her economic status and her race, with limited recourse to legal protection. Ignoring the role of economic disadvantage in the legal definition of vulnerability disproportionately harms marginalized groups, leaving them without the protections they need (Crenshaw, 1989).

4.      Insufficient Attention to Race and Disability

The Act fails to adequately consider how race and disability interact with gender and age to create distinct forms of vulnerability. Although persons with mental disabilities are included in the definition of vulnerability, there is no explicit mention of individuals with physical or sensory disabilities, nor is there an acknowledgment of how race and ethnicity affect vulnerability to sexual exploitation.

  • Sexual Citizenship Critique: Vulnerability cannot be viewed in isolation from factors like race and disability. People with physical and sensory disabilities, as well as racial minorities, often experience increased vulnerability to sexual harm. Legal protections should reflect the diverse and intersectional nature of vulnerability to ensure that all individuals have the right to bodily autonomy and safety (Richardson, 2000).
  • Intersectionality Critique: Intersectionality reveals that individuals who are marginalized by both race and disability experience compounded vulnerabilities. For example, a black woman with a physical disability faces distinct risks of exploitation that differ from those faced by women without disabilities or from other racial backgrounds. Failing to address these intersecting identities means that the most vulnerable individuals remain unprotected by the law (Crenshaw, 1989).

Recommendations for a More Inclusive Definition of Vulnerability

To address these gaps, the Act’s definition of vulnerability should be revised to reflect a broader and more intersectional understanding of who is vulnerable to sexual harm. Key recommendations include:

  1. Expand Protections for Women: The law should extend its definition of vulnerability to include women under 25 who are not in education or vocational training, as well as women of all ages in precarious working conditions.
  2. Include Men and Non-Binary Individuals: Legal protections should be extended to men and non-binary individuals, acknowledging that vulnerability to sexual exploitation is not confined to women.
  3. Recognize Economic and Social Disadvantage: Vulnerability should be defined in relation to economic and social factors, particularly for individuals working in informal sectors or facing economic instability.
  4. Address Intersectional Vulnerabilities: The law must explicitly consider the ways in which race, disability, and class intersect to create heightened vulnerabilities for marginalized groups.

Conclusion

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act is a crucial step toward addressing sexual violence and exploitation in South Africa. However, the current definition of vulnerability is too narrow and fails to account for the complex and intersecting factors that shape individuals’ experiences of exploitation. By revisiting the definition of vulnerability through the lenses of Sexual Citizenship Theory and Intersectionality, we can ensure that legal protections are extended to all individuals who are at risk, regardless of their gender, age, or socioeconomic status.

References

Campus Violence statistics. Available at: https://rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 13 of 2021. Available from: https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2021-013.pdf

Lifting the veil on violence against children in South Africa. Available at: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=17023

Richardson, D. (2000). Constructing Sexual Citizenship: Theorizing Sexual Rights. Critical Social Policy, 20(1), 105–135.