Hi please help me with these questions in terms of South African Law

Mr and Mrs Schindler are devout orthodox Jews. They have a son, Johnny, who is 12 years old. They believe in disciplining Johnny with a cane for what they consider to be serious transgressions such as stealing from shops and absconding from school. They draw their belief in disciplining their child in this manner from verses in various religious texts that they follow. Parliament has passed a new piece of legislation known as the Abolition of Corporal Punishment In The Home Act 32 of 2022 (or "ACPITHA"). Section 2 of the Act states as follows: "Prohibition of Corporal Punishment in the Home: - (1) Corporal punishment in all of its forms is prohibited insofar as it concerns a child as defined in section 1 of the Act; (2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) in respect of a child is guilty of an offence and upon conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than 15 years. (3) Religion, conscience or belief in any form does not justify corporal punishment in any form and for whatever reason and sub-section (2) will still apply should any person attempt to inflict corporal punishment on a child for these reasons." Johnny has just been apprehended but pardoned by the local grocer for stealing a bar of chocolate that was on display in the grocery store. Mr and Mrs Schindler wish to give Johnny a hiding with the cane as punishment for the theft but they have questions for you as their attorney about whether they can still discipline Johnny in this manner, given that ACPITHA seems to have removed their The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2022 Page 5 of 7 21; 22; 23 2022 right to administer disciplinary chastisement in respect of Johnny entirely, even though religious observance demands otherwise.(1.3.1 (1.3.2 (1.3.3 (1.3.4 (1.3.5 You question whether Mr and Mrs Schindler have been discriminated against unfairly. Exptain the test for unfair discrimination in terms of Section 9(3) of the Constitution, 1996, with reference to reievant case law. Compare "specific grounds\" with "analogous grounds\" in the test for unfair discrimination in terms of Section 9(3) of the Constitution, 1996. In your answer, you are required to provide any two \"specific grounds\" which could be considered as part of the test in Mr and Mrs Schindler case. Mr and Mrs Schindler seek your advice in that, in the event that they cannot rely on their right to equality in terms of section 9 in the Constitution, 1996, they want to rely on provisions set out in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (or PEPUDA). Explain the difference between the discrimination provisions of the PEPUDA and the discrimination provisions in Section 9 of the Constitution, 1996. Mr and Mrs Schindler are wondering if a court would consider the notion of \"reasonable accommodation\" regarding the use of a cane to discipline Johnny as per their religious beliefs. Discuss the notion of \"reasonable accommodation\" of religious beliefs and practices with reference to Section 15 of the Constitution, 1996. You have concerns about how Mr and Mrs Schindler discipline Johnny in this respect and you are concerned about what this disciplinary chastisement does not only to Johnny's physical and mental well-being, but also to his human dignity as well. Discuss the invocation by the court in Freedom ofReiigion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutionoi Deveiopment and Others 2020 (1) SA (1) (CC) of the right to human dignity, with specific focus on disciplinary chastisement and its impact on the human dignity of children