Best interests of the child; violence against children; corporeal punishment in school settings

The case concerned whether, in enacting legislation which prohibited the use of corporeal punishment in schools, Parliament had infringed the rights of parents of children in independent schools who, in line with their religious beliefs, had consented to its use. The applicant, a body which represented a large body of Christian independent school, averred that corporeal punishment was an integral part of their ethos and the closet ban violated their individual, parental and community rights to freely practice their religion. Parents have a biblical responsibility to ‘correct’ their children, and delegate this responsibility to teachers when the child goes to school. 
Interestingly, the Court assumes that their rights have been infringed, and turns immediately to whether this infringement is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, freedom, and equality. The Court found that the infringement was reasonable and justifiable. The school were not prevented from practicing their religious ethos, they were only prevented from using corporeal punishment. The parents were similarly not being asked to choose between their religion and the law of the land, they were just prevented from authorising teachers to administer corporeal punishment. Furthermore, the State had a duty to promote the rights of all persons, including children, to be free from all violence.