Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 33 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 Reverting to the question at hand, what is envisaged by s 86(1) of the Constitution is precisely that mutuality of rights and freedoms, to be enjoyed and exercised in a manner that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. In the specific context of freedom of religion, what this entails is that the scope and extent of one’s spiritual rights must be measured within the temporal environment in which they operate. The position of the applicants and their daughters in casu is no different. They have willingly chosen to join and participate in the communal ethos of the School and, furthermore, to abide by whatever its broader curriculum implies. The principle of mutual respect and tolerance requires that they accommodate the institutional rights and interests of the School in pursuing its perceived objectives, so long as those objectives are not pursued unreasonably and, equally importantly, so long as they do not radically undermine the religious beliefs and convictions of any of its pupils. In other words, the School’s policy should not transmute into some tyranny of the majority, imposed without due regard for the rights and sensibilities of the minority. From a purely neutral and secular standpoint, I do not think that attendance in chapel for short stints three times a week would necessarily negate or deracinate the fundamental beliefs of the applicants’ daughters. They are not being called upon to engage in prayer or participate in the Anglican rituals conducted in chapel. They are simply required to attend chapel and remain dispassionately respectful during its proceedings, not unlike the participants at an athletic event or diplomatic function where everyone present is expected to stand in silence whenever the national anthem of any