MOGOENG CJ concerns is the apparent conflation of reasonable and moderate chastisement with blatant child abuse and brutal assault by holding them out as being inherently or fundamentally the same. [35] The application of force to the body of another may, subject to the de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) principle,28 take the form of the slightest touch, holding a person’s arm or bumping against them. 29 But the assault may be justified or rendered lawful on the basis of authority or the right of chastisement.30 Had it not been for this defence, this application of force could have led to a parent being convicted of assault. All forms of violence [36] As indicated already, there are several constitutional rights that could be relied on to determine the validity of reasonable and moderate chastisement.31 But the issue can be adequately resolved on the basis of, among others, section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right— ... (c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources.” [37] A proper determination of the constitutionality of chastisement requires that it be located within a criminal law setting, which is its natural habitat. Moderate and reasonable chastisement hitherto constituted an effective defence for parents who had administered it to their children and could be or were charged with assault. And 28 Burchell Principles of Criminal Law 5 ed (Juta & Co Ltd, Cape Town 2016) at 245. 29 Where for example a man touches a woman on her breast or behind without permission or deliberately bumps against those parts of her body, our courts have held that it would amount to assault. R v M 1961 2 SA 60 (O). 30 Id at 55. 31 Sections 9, 10, 12 and 28 of the Constitution. 13