For centuries, maybe millennia, the skin has raised all sort of discomfort and pleasure in societies across the world, arousing many myths besides its primary functions of protection and sensation.
Recently a skin from a goat has raised the ire of the people in different landscapes across SA. Many of us will know that goatskin has whole lots of uses. It can be used to make rugs, gloves, shoes and other accessories for example.
In the Sahel region of Africa, goatskin is perfect for craft work such us braiding horses' harnesses.
In SA the skin is well known for its ubiquitous presence around the wrists of people in villages and cities with some connections to KwaZulu-Natal, and is called isiphandla. There is no doubt that isiphandla is more steeped in history than the classroom where it sought to make entry at the wish of the parents of an innocent nine-year-old boy just a few days ago.
There is so much furore out there about this goatskin wristband that I find it tricky to separate the magic from the marketing. While folks from Limpopo will offer you a goat at R400, it is a prized commodity in KZN where prices can go anywhere from R1,000 to R2,500.
The price tag underscores the importance. Many Zulu cultural gurus will tell you isiphandla is associated with ancestor worship with all its accompanying muthi charms and rituals.
As compatriots we need to recognise and acknowledge the role played by various belief systems and customs in our diverse country. We need to align ourselves with the fact that isiphandla is not just an innocent bracelet, as others would like us to believe, otherwise there wouldn't be so much noise about it.
Isiphandla is a statement, a message, and form of communication not only with the immediate world, but also the one beyond the realms of ordinary human comprehension.
This kind of understanding of its role in the lives of those who wear it elicits questions that invite answers.
Surely a significant number of our population might not have liked the answers furnished by the Christian Life Private School.
In its own words, the school said "As a Christian institution we stand very strongly against all forms of spiritual connection, charms, rituals and devices for protection other than that of Jesus and the Holy spirit of God".
As a private institution the school has a right to formulate and enforce regulations in keeping with its Christian ethos - that will be in line with constitutional provisions on freedom of association. These in no way infringe on the rights of the boy and his family to practise their cultural beliefs, not unless someone can show otherwise.
We can all agree our constitution does not guarantee me of a right to send my daughter to a Xhosa boys' initiation school, and when she is refused admission, argue discrimination on the basis of gender.
People come with all sorts of arguments that "this is Africa", thereby purporting that since the school is in Africa, its actions are wrong. Such an argument avoids to tell us that Africa as a continent has multicultural and religiously diverse communities. And while some may decide to pursue court a case, we must remember that our courts are not the courts of morals but they are courts of law.
I see the SA Human Rights Commission wants to enter the fray, but I can tell you that it will have no locus standi in judicio and the case will be thrown out of court ab initio as there is no right that has been violated.
I fully agree with the view that the boy must move to a school that allows the wearing of isiphandla, unless the purpose of his parents was to challenge the school's ethos - in which case it will be wrong to use a child as a pawn in a battle he doesn't even understand.
*Molwedi is a lawyer and a social commentator
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.