Children deserve their rights of expression, association, education and care among others. However countries differ in how they balance a child’s rights and the parents’ and caregivers’ rights to discipline in the name of protecting and nurturing.

Parents and caregivers, including teachers, who constitute elders in society, have some degree of control over children. However for the control to be enforceable there is supposed to be a degree of conventional allegiance on the part of children. In Shona culture any elder has the right to control and discipline a child based on the saying: “Mwana ndewe munhu wese” – meaning a child belongs to everyone. At the same time children are obliged to respect and obey elders in society. This is meant to ensure that children are put under control irrespective of the presence or absence of their parents.

This form of communal responsibility over children has a basic assumption that “every elder is equally responsible and caring for all young children”. It is not surprising therefore that in some communities, if an elder disciplines a child, the parent is not quick to get angry unless there is evidence that the child has not done anything wrong or unless the punishment is excessively abusive. This trend has changed in modern societies, with parents claiming responsibility of their own children and claiming all rights. Governments are also gradually reducing even the parents’ rights. For instance, beating children by parents or caregivers is illegal in many countries.

This does not come without a reason; there is general understanding that the “Mwana ndewe munhu wese” adage does not hold water anymore. There are abusive elements in contemporary society, robbers, rapists and kidnappers among others. Obviously one cannot cede rights to discipline a child to everyone in such communities.  Some parents have also joined the abusive element by raping, killing and harassing their own children.

Does this however justify the stance that teachers and parents should not discipline children? Children are being increasingly protected against abuse, however children happen to abuse the rights, in a manner that apparently threatens their safety and future, yet parents, teachers and other caregivers are continuously having little or no powers to foster discipline.

We are looking forward to the government, youth organisations, and parents to properly define how far we should take the right to discipline, balancing children’s rights as well as fostering the authority of parents and caregivers in a bid to ensure the necessary allegiance in environments like schools and other communities.

Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum today co-hosted a press conference about the anti-gay statements in The Herald last week. Here is the press statement they released today:

Open letter to the principals in the GNU

We the undersigned individuals and organisations committed to the development of a positive rights discourse in Zimbabwe, are very concerned at recent statements made as part of International Women’s Day celebrations in Chitungwiza, where the theme was “Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities: Progress for All.”

The statements, which make reference to attempts to include gay rights in the Constitution, undermine public tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Issues of sexuality impact on the dignity, privacy, identity and freedom of people. We urge you not to undermine the dignity of these individuals by making such homophobic statements.

We call on the principals to desist from making statements likely to promote hate and prejudice. Zimbabwe is going through a transition from a period characterised by hate, violence and economic suffering and moving towards national healing.

As Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai said in his weekly newsletter today:

There can be no place in the new Zimbabwe for hate speech or the persecution of any sector of our population based on race, gender, tribe, culture, sexual orientation or political affiliation. All of us are entitled to our own opinions on certain values and beliefs, but in order to move our nation forward and achieve national reconciliation and healing, we have to uphold and foster the fundamental principle of tolerance, including tolerance of people that have chosen to live, believe and vote differently from ourselves. For too long, many of you, my fellow Zimbabweans, have not had the freedom of choice. Our new constitution shall be the cornerstone of a new society that embraces this particular freedom of choice and tolerance of both majority and minority views.

We support a Constitution that protects Zimbabweans against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, just as it prevents discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, ethnicity, or religion.

The immediate challenge the nation is facing is overcoming social deprivations in areas such as hunger, health, education, unemployment and violence against women and children and above all the functionality of the GNU. These are the areas in which the Principals in the GNU should be providing leadership; rather than fostering antipathy and intolerance.

I don’t care about the colour* of the foot pressing on my neck – I just want to remove it.
- Wole Soyinka

* gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation (fill in the blank)

There are not so many women besides Mbuya Nhenda and a few women mentioned in our history. Allow me to introduce you toVenia Magaya. This woman should not only   be put in history books but she should be given hero status in the community and the country at large. She led to the reformation of our inheritance laws that stipulated that only a male heir is entitled to his fathers property even if there is an eldest child who is a girl.

Based on our culture, the section 23 of the inheritance law says a girl child cannot inherit her father’s estate because she is a woman. Only in the absence of a male child can she be an heiress. However this section was amended after Venia lost a case against her younger brother who later sold the house thereby leaving her destitute.

Venia’s father died in 1999 and was a polygamous man with two wives of whom Venia was the eldest from the first wife and her brother the eldest from the second wife. Venia was recognized as the heiress in the community court by virtue of being the first child but the provisional court refused her the right to have her father’s estate. Yes that’s right it became a human rights issue because it was her right to be the heir.

And as such I would encourage people yet again to make sure during the constitution making process that we get to make sure that there is a clause that will say that no customary law is above a person’s human rights. This heroine died penniless and homeless. Had it not been for her to push the matter forward to the Supreme Court such loopholes in our governance structure could not have been realized and thus the inheritance law was amended from saying that only the male child is allowed to inherit.

This however is not the end of the road because section 23 still exits and is still in play today. For us to make sure it is not put into practice and better still, it does not exist, we need to make sure to include that in the constitution. What made Venia lose the case before the Supreme Court is that it looked at what the supreme law of the land says about her situation? The constitution being the supreme law did not back her up at that time because it did not have a clause that says nothing takes precedence over any human rights.

Thank you Venia for at least being instrumental to some change in women’s lives. It is up to the living woman, man and every father to make sure their daughters are not discriminated against upon their death. And I urge all to seriously consider writing up wills to ensure the future of their children.

To Venia, I salute.

In an encouraging move, Prime Minister Tsvangirai used his weekly newsletter column to speak out on tolerance of difference, and effectively responded to the anti-homosexual remarks attributed to him in The Herald recently. Thank you Tsvangirai for clarifying your position on tolerance of difference. Does this mean we can expect to see sexual orientation included with race, gender, tribe, culture, and political affiliation in the Constitution as areas of prejudice which Zimbabwe will not condone?

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

There can be no place in the new Zimbabwe for hate speech or the persecution of any sector of our population based on race, gender, tribe, culture, sexual orientation or political affiliation. All of us are entitled to our own opinions on certain values and beliefs, but in order to move our nation forward and achieve national reconciliation and healing, we have to uphold and foster the fundamental principle of tolerance, including tolerance of people that have chosen to live, believe and vote differently from ourselves. For too long, many of you, my fellow Zimbabweans, have not had the freedom of choice. Our new constitution shall be the cornerstone of a new society that embraces this particular freedom of choice and tolerance of both majority and minority views.

This is just one of the powerful photos from the recent ZimRights photo exhibition, Reflections. Despite Zimbabwe’s inclusive government, and claims of “progress” in opening up Zimbabwe’s democratic space, this exhibition has faced numerous challenges. Read and see more here.