Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Smit N.O. and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others

Pays/Territoire
Afrique du Sud
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Déc 4, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
KwaZulu-Natal High Court
Juge
Van der Reyden
Numéro de référence
10237/2009
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Droits traditionnels/droits coutumiers
Résumé
This matter dealt with the Zulu practice of ukweshwama. Ukweshwama is a traditional thanksgiving observed by Zulus and is celebrated before harvesting of the crops. The ritual involves about 40 young men killing a bull with their bare hands. It is believed that the warriors inherit the bull’s strength and power when it is killed. The power is then transferred to the king and his kingdom by the warriors when saluting him. Animal Rights Africa sought an interdict against the killing of the bull, arguing that the way the bull is killed constitutes cruelty to animals. The court did not grant the interdict sought because pursuant to expert evidence, it was satisfied that the cultural practice did not in fact constitute cruelty to animals. In enforcing cultural tolerance, the Judge recorded that history is replete with examples of societies that have destroyed each other in consequence of cultural and religious intolerance. He stressed that understanding and respect for others who hold different beliefs and who observe their own cultural heritage promoted harmonious co-existence and helped avoid conflict. He also emphasised that cultural intolerance could be particularly harmful to the development of our multicultural democracy which was based upon respect for diversity. Furthermore he found that the applicant’s attitude and uncritical acceptance of rumours of the true practice was symptomatic of an intolerance of cultural diversity. Viewed in a historic perspective it was indicative of an historic desire to inflict mainstream cultures of Western society on African cultures. This attitude was premised on a misguided belief that the applicant’s had a right to interfere with the religious and cultural practices of others that they found intolerable to their own beliefs.
Texte intégral
COU-159345.pdf