At this primary school, pupils act as judges: ‘She should go to prison for thousand years!’
At De Schakel primary school in Amsterdam-Zuidoost, a classroom was transformed into a real courtroom last week to deliberate the rights of Jip the Chicken. The lesson was part of the pilot module Law in the Classroom, organized by the Amsterdam Law Hub of the University of Amsterdam (UvA). “Children rarely receive lessons about their rights. With this module, we aim to improve their legal awareness”
It’s a lively scene in Grade 6 of De Schakel primary school. Some children are running through the hallways, while others eagerly take their seats at the tables at the front of the classroom. Two boys are engrossed in a conversation about the latest update of Fortnite, one of the most popular video games of the moment. One of them proudly wears a T-shirt featuring the game. The commotion continues until teacher and lawyer Judith Hoefnagel takes the floor.
Building Legal Awareness
Normally, the children would have gone home already. However, Thursdays are part of their ‘enriched school day,’ during which they can choose from various activities. These could include dance or football, but this year, students could also opt for Recht in de Klas (Law in the Classroom), a pilot program developed by Law Hub, the UvA’s incubator for socially relevant legal initiatives. The project aims to enhance children’s awareness of their place in society.
“This pilot aligns with the global Street Law Movement, which seeks to educate people about law in everyday life,” says Susan Leclercq, the project leader at Law Hub, who co-developed the program with Hoefnagel. “With Recht in de Klas, we aim to introduce children to different kinds of rights, explain how they function, and teach them to debate what is fair and what isn’t. This is rarely done in primary education, even though the law is part of daily life and crucial to understand.”
The Lesson Progresses
“Listen up, everyone,” says Hoefnagel, and after a few final bursts of energy, the class falls silent. “Today, Geoffrey Albertus (23) and Swastika Garib (23) will teach you about animal rights,” she continues. The children’s attention spans are short, and hearing the word “animal” sets off another wave of enthusiasm. Albertus tries to regain their attention.
Albertus and Garib are both law students at UvA and part of a team that, under Hoefnagel’s guidance, takes the children through various aspects of the legal system: from children’s and human rights to a visit to the Amsterdam courthouse. For Albertus, this hands-on way of contributing to society is refreshing: “It’s much more fulfilling than working from the high towers of Zuidas.” For Garib, it’s simply a joy to teach and introduce legal concepts to kids through play.
“But you have salami on your sandwich!”
After another wave of excitement, the lesson on animal rights finally begins. Garib shows the children videos from the Dutch Food Safety Authority, featuring various farm animals such as dairy cows, laying hens, and pigs. Garib asks the children what they think about pig slaughter. “It’s bad!” exclaims the boy in the Fortnite T-shirt, now standing next to his table. His neighbor interrupts: “But you have salami on your sandwich!” The boy falls silent and sits down. The children have clearly grasped the concept of hypocrisy.
When the discussion shifts to the fairness of keeping animals in captivity, such as in circuses and zoos, the conversation becomes more constructive.
“You shouldn’t lock animals up,” says one girl.
Another counters: “Zoos aren’t all bad; they help prevent extinction through breeding programs, like for polar bears.”
“Or capybaras,” another chimes in.
“And tigers, panthers, or rhinos,” adds yet another.
“Rhinos don’t exist!” someone suddenly shouts.
The list of endangered species, according to the children, is further expanded.
The article continues after the image.
After debating whether rhinos exist, the children are tasked with answering questions about animal testing, animals in captivity, working animals like cows and horses, and responsibilities toward pets. Initially, their focus wanes, and they seem unenthusiastic. But when Albertus and Garib sit with them, they become engaged.
At Albertus’s table, the discussion centers on working animals in intensive farming. “Those animals aren’t sad; they’re tasty,” says one boy. Albertus challenges them to think deeper: “We make cows work for us—they give us milk and meat. If farmers were paid more, would they treat their cows better?”
“Yes!” someone shouts. “And we’d get better burgers!”
The Fortnite boy broadens the discussion: “No, chicken is better. We should have chickens so we can eat KFC every day!”
His neighbor adds a capitalist twist: “No, you need to feed them and let them breed first. Then you kill them. That way, you’ll always have unlimited drumsticks!”
However, the ethical implications for the animals are quickly forgotten.
The article continues after the image.
Jip the Chicken
To steer the conversation back to animal rights, Albertus and Garib recount the real-life case of Jip the Chicken. The chicken had been placed in a cage by drama students, and the school voted on whether Jip should live. A concerned animal rights activist intervened, arguing that the chicken was suffering too much stress as a social animal constantly exposed to fluorescent lighting. The question posed to the children: Was this theft, or was Jip in need of help, justifying the activist’s actions?
The classroom becomes noisy again until Hoefnagel suggests turning it into a courtroom. The children channel their enthusiasm into seriousness: desks are rearranged, and the “Animal Rights Codebook”—dubbed the Beestenboek (children's book about animals)—becomes a gavel. Roles are assigned: judge, prosecutor, police officer, activist, and lawyer.
The police officer, a girl, declares: “This is theft. She should go to prison for a thousand years!”
The prosecutor amends the sentence to five years: “She could’ve asked permission and explained what was wrong with Jip.”
The lawyer, wearing the Fortnite shirt, argues: “Good afternoon, everyone. The chicken was stolen for a reason. Jip would’ve gone mad there! My client should be acquitted.” The teachers are amazed at how passionately this child engages.
The judge retreats to the “chamber” (the hallway). “The judge is going to poop,” children yell, prompting laughter.
“Order in the court!” says Hoefnagel as the judge returns, hiding behind the Beestenboek. He delivers his verdict:
“The chicken needed help. She was in danger and vulnerable. A theater school is no place for a chicken. The activist should not be punished. Case closed!”
Cheers erupt from the lawyer and activist as they celebrate with dancing. The police and prosecutor are laughed at. The lesson on animal rights ends with the children valuing Jip’s welfare over theft. Order in the classroom can be restored.
