Court Backs Mothers’ Cane Stand (Press, 27 February 1982)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Court Backs Mothers’ Cane Stand (Press, 27 February 1982)
On 26 February 1982, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of British parents wishing to refuse corporal punishment for their children. The Court found that the British Government breached the European Human Rights Convention by not respecting the wishes of parents who oppose physical discipline in schools. The Convention guarantees that education for children should align with the religious and philosophical beliefs of their parents. The case was initiated by two Scottish mothers, Grace Campbell and Jane Cosans, who sought the right to send their children to schools that did not employ corporal punishment. The Court's decision obligates the British Government to ensure children can attend state schools without the risk of being subjected to physical punishment, such as caning or using a strap. The Court dismissed a related claim that the prospect of corporal punishment constituted degrading treatment. The case highlighted individual incidents, including Mrs Cosans' refusal to allow her son, Geoffrey, to return to Beath Senior High School after he was suspended for not complying with an order for corporal punishment. She argued that she could not be assured that he would not face further beatings. The Court determined that his nearly year-long suspension from education before reaching the legal school-leaving age violated his rights to education under the Convention. Mrs Campbell's situation involved a similar concern when Strathclyde Regional Council could not guarantee that her son, Gordoh, would not face corporal punishment at St Matthew’s Catholic Primary School. The Court indicated that while a system of separate schools for children of parents opposed to corporal punishment would not align with economic realities, an exemption system for individual students could be feasible without compromising educational quality. This ruling is legally binding across the UK and other nations adhering to the European Human Rights Convention. Notably, the single opposing vote came from British Judge Sir Vincent Evans, who contended that it would be impractical for teachers to enforce discipline fairly if students were treated differently based on their parents' beliefs. Following this decision, the two mothers have the option to pursue claims for damages arising from the case, though estimates of potential compensation were described as difficult. The ruling marks the eighth occasion that the UK has been found to violate the Convention, following earlier rulings against British mental health legislation, laws concerning homosexual acts in Northern Ireland, and "closed shop" labour laws.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand