moralityO
Barry Streek In barring a Rastafarian, Gareth Prins, from being admitted as an attorney because he had twice been convicted of possession of dagga and said he would continue to use it, the Supreme Court of Appeal had Odisplayed a mindset deeply rooted in the Calvinistic morality espoused by the apartheid stateO, Professor Pierre de Vos told a conference on crime and human rights at the University of the Western Cape this week.
The court had Odismally failed a test to engage the ConstitutionO and it had demonstrated Opharmaceutical CalvinismO, De Vos said. He said the court had failed to analyse the nature of the constitutional right to freedom of religion and had Oignored all the evidence and arguments placed before it regarding the relatively benign nature of cannabisO, stating that the harmful consequences of dagga were so notorious Othat we need not dwell on themO. De Vos, who teaches at the University of the Western Cape, concluded: OFor true Rastafarians the smoking of ganja is not merely something pleasurable to be done with friends. It goes to the heart of their religious identity. OViewed in this light, the prohibition on the use of dagga by Rastafarians constitutes an extreme invasion of their right to freedom of religion. OLife must be hard for Rastafarians in South Africa as they form a small and often misunderstood minority. And to top it all off, their most sacred right, the right on which their religious identity is based, is prohibited by the state. In other words, they are made criminals by the state merely because they adhere to their religion. OOnly the Constitutional Court can now rectify the situation.O De Vos said that although the outcome of the judgement was not surprising, the reasoning employed by the court Ois a shocking travesty of constitutional adjudicationO.
It appeared as if the court had chosen not to engage in any evaluation of competing interests and not to consider what values lay at the heart of an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. OThere is no evidence to suggest that the moderate use of dagga is harmful to the individual or that it leads to physical and mental dependency. Even regarding heavy users, there is no scientifically verifiable data to prove that dagga leads to physical or mental dependency.O He quoted from a World Health Organisation study into the use of dagga, tobacco and alcohol that concluded: OOn existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies.O