South Africa's new Sexual Offences Act includes a clause which could allow youngsters to be criminally charged for kissing or fondling. Twelve to 15-year-olds fall under the new legislation, which covers acts that it describes as "consensual sexual violation". Rights groups say the controversial clause, signed into law last month, should be seen to protect children, despite claims it is unworkable in a country plagued by far greater problems: not least of them, the rape of children. Among the acts defined as "sexual violation" in the bill include "direct or indirect contact between the mouth of one person and the mouth of another person". Where minors are concerned, such acts are illegal even if performed with consent. "I think it's stupid because we should be responsible enough to hold girls' hands without raping them or abusing them sexually," said Luke Singleton, 13. His grandfather, Fred Montague, agreed, saying more time should be spent on dealing with serious offences like rape, hijacking and fraud. "If Luke were to meet his cousin here and kiss her happy birthday, should that be a crime?" he asked. In this country we are trying to get 16 year olds to vote yet they can't kiss and hold hands. It's ridiculous." One 15 year old boy said children would kiss and hold hands anyway. He said, "it's really stupid because the law can't stop kids from doing things like smoking, so they are definitely not going to stop kids from seeing their girlfriends. Superintendent Kenneth Verwey of the Durban Metro Police, meanwhile, questioned who would enforce the legislation. He commented that even though it is important to protect young people, there are far more constructive ways of doing it and added that he saw the law as a “knee-jerk reaction” designed to try to stop all intimacy in the light of the high HIV transmission rates amongst the young. "Can you really picture cops charging in on a party and breaking up two kids huddling in a corner having a kiss?" he asked. But the amended act also includes a new definition of rape which allows men and boys to lay rape charges for the first time. And Joan van Niekerk, national co-ordinator of the anti-abuse charity Childline, explained how the law could be used to help children, especially those growing up without parental guidance. She defended the reasoning behind the clause but questioned its efficacy. "Imagine you have two consenting children who testify against each other; both are going to say, 'He never touched me.'" While non-governmental organisations have hailed some aspects of the new act, such as the new, wider definitions of rape, they say it still fails children and adolescents in court where they are still expected to testify in the presence of the accused. Rights groups say more attention should be focused on these more worrying issues, rather than on a spurious and badly constructed clause. SOURCE: BBC