#Schools on fire: Criminal justice responses to protests that impede the right to basic education

IF 0.2 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
A. Skelton, Martin S. Nsibirwa
{"title":"#Schools on fire: Criminal justice responses to protests that impede the right to basic education","authors":"A. Skelton, Martin S. Nsibirwa","doi":"10.17159/2413-3108/2017/V0N62A3090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n  \nIn recent years, schools have borne the brunt of protesters’ frustrations with the lack of access to services in South Africa. A 2016 investigative hearing by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) explored the causes of the protests and examined the failure to prevent the destruction of school property. It found that no one was held accountable for the protest-related damage. This article explores the competing constitutionally protected rights of protest and education. Although the right to protest is central in a democracy, it must be exercised peacefully with minimal disruptions to the right to education. Protest action that causes destruction should be criminally sanctioned; however, action that impedes access to education through threats and intimidation is difficult to deal with in the criminal justice system. This article questions the applicability of section 3(6) of the South African Schools Act, which makes it an offence to stop children attending school, and considers the proposed amendments to the Act in light of these critiques. The article explores possible prosecution relying on the Intimidation Act, and finds that the Act is under constitutional challenge. The article concludes that the focus on prevention as contained in the SAHRC report is not misplaced, given the challenges in holding protesters accountable under criminal law. \n","PeriodicalId":54100,"journal":{"name":"South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2017/V0N62A3090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

  In recent years, schools have borne the brunt of protesters’ frustrations with the lack of access to services in South Africa. A 2016 investigative hearing by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) explored the causes of the protests and examined the failure to prevent the destruction of school property. It found that no one was held accountable for the protest-related damage. This article explores the competing constitutionally protected rights of protest and education. Although the right to protest is central in a democracy, it must be exercised peacefully with minimal disruptions to the right to education. Protest action that causes destruction should be criminally sanctioned; however, action that impedes access to education through threats and intimidation is difficult to deal with in the criminal justice system. This article questions the applicability of section 3(6) of the South African Schools Act, which makes it an offence to stop children attending school, and considers the proposed amendments to the Act in light of these critiques. The article explores possible prosecution relying on the Intimidation Act, and finds that the Act is under constitutional challenge. The article concludes that the focus on prevention as contained in the SAHRC report is not misplaced, given the challenges in holding protesters accountable under criminal law.
#学校着火:刑事司法应对阻碍基础教育权的抗议活动
近年来,学校首当其冲地受到了南非抗议者对缺乏服务的不满。南非人权委员会(SAHRC) 2016年的调查听证会探讨了抗议活动的原因,并审查了未能防止破坏学校财产的情况。调查发现,没有人对抗议活动造成的损害负责。本文探讨了受宪法保护的抗议权和受教育权之间的竞争关系。尽管抗议权是民主的核心,但必须以和平方式行使,尽量减少对受教育权的干扰。造成破坏的抗议行为应当受到刑事制裁;然而,通过威胁和恐吓阻碍接受教育的行为在刑事司法系统中很难处理。本文质疑《南非学校法》第3(6)条的适用性,该条规定阻止儿童上学是一种犯罪行为,并根据这些批评意见审议了对该法的拟议修正案。本文探讨了依据《恐吓法》进行起诉的可能性,并发现该法案面临着宪法挑战。文章的结论是,鉴于在刑法下追究抗议者的责任所面临的挑战,SAHRC报告中对预防的关注并非错位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ
South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
自引率
20.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信