school or learning, if they are at school. It has always created a great deal of controversy in education and this is not likely to diminish, on the contrary. Controversies span decision-making on the official language(s) of instruction for public schools, the teaching of as well as teaching in minority and indigenous languages (as well as the recognition thereof ), and the teaching of (as well as in) foreign languages. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the right of the state to determine official languages of the country which are thus the languages of instruction in public schools, but denied that there was such a thing as a right to education in a language of one’s choice.31 Governments have been required to respect the right of minorities to set up their own schools in minority languages since the time of the League of Nations. In 1919, the precedent was set by Poland. Alongside education in minority languages in public schools, it affirmed the right of citizens who were members of minorities to establish, manage and control schools at their own expense ‘with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.’32 That right was subsequently confirmed by the Permanent Court of International Justice.33 More than half a century later, dilemmas regarding the language 31 European Court of Human Rights – The Belgian Linguistic Case, Judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A, vol. 6, p.31. of instruction have increased rather than diminishing. Demands that minority schools be made ‘free’ (that is, state-financed) are often made but seldom granted. The right to be educated in one’s mother tongue has been on the international human rights agenda since the 1950s and controversies intensified in the 1990s, when the wisdom of unilingual education, even in one’s mother tongue, has been challenged, adding a new item to this endless controversy. The financial implications of multiligualism in primary school have further exacerbated controversies. From the rights of the child perspective, the obligation to make primary school acceptable goes far beyond parental freedom of choice or the language of instruction, and poses a great deal of challenge for all states. Restrictions upon school discipline are a good example because they have considerably increased in the past decade to protect the child’s dignity against humiliation or degradation. They were, and are likely to remain, subject to litigation. An attempt by parents whose religious doctrine deemed physical punishment of children to be legitimate and necessary to challenge Sweden’s 1979 policy against corporal punishment of children forced the European Commission on Human Rights to revisit the issue that had already been the object of considerable litigation. The parents complained against the encroachment upon their rights, but did not persuade the Commission to rule against Sweden.34 A similar case was litigated in South Africa two decades later, with a similar 32 Article 8 of the Polish Minorities Treaty of 1919, reproduced in Protection of Linguistic and Racial Minorities by the League of Nations, Geneva, 1927. 34 33 Permanent Court of International Justice – Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion of 6 April 1935, Series A/B, No. 64. 30 Right to Education Primers No. 3 European Commission on Human Rights – Seven individuals v. Sweden, Application No. 8811/79, decision of 13 May 1982 on the admissibility of the application, Decisions and Reports, vol. 29, p. 111–112.