Evidence in school clip points to self-defense

THE video clip of a white teacher smacking a black pupil has gone viral and many have blamed the teacher, who holds a school governing body (SGB) post, for applying corporal punishment. The Western Cape education department says only the SGB, and not the department, has the right to fire or retain the teacher.

Section 10(1) of the SA Schools Act of 1996 stipulates that “no person may administer corporal punishment at a school to a learner”. And section 10(2) states “any person who contravenes this is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a sentence for assault”. Further, corporal or physical punishment is defined as a punishment intended to cause physical pain on a person.

For the teacher to be guilty of corporal punishment, one has to first establish whether the teacher’s action was consistent with that. Evidence in the clip reflects that the teacher did not “intend” to cause physical pain to the pupil.

The clip clearly proves that the teacher responded after experiencing pain when the pupil pushed a desk top against the teacher’s upper thigh.

At this point, the scene changed to that of a young girl attacking an older woman, whose response was consistent with that of someone who was under attack and she instinctively defended herself.

It seems no one, including the department, is not supporting the teacher for defending herself. In a court of law, the teacher cannot be fired for applying corporal punishment since none was administered.

Visualise this scene. A teacher hit the knife out of the hand of her attacker with a board-duster. Did she administer corporal punishment? You be the judge. ADIEL ISMAIL Mount View