Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Please ask Senators today to reject religious job discrimination this Wednesday

  • 08-04-2014 12:29am
    #1
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭


    This Wednesday 9 April, Irish Senators will discuss a Bill that aims to amend Section 37 of the Irish Employment Equality Act. This is the Section that allows religious institutions, including schools and hospitals, an exemption to discriminate against employees to protect the religious ethos of their institution.

    Atheist Ireland has sent a briefing document to all Senators about this issue. We have previously made a written submission to the Equality Authority, and a joint submission along with the National Secular Society UK to the European Commission in which we argued that the Act contravenes the European Equality Directive 2000/78.

    This is a link to the Bill that the Senators will be debating on Wednesday.

    It essentially amends Section 37 as follows:
    • Subsection 1(a) allows religious bodies, educational or medical institutions to discriminate on the ground of religion or belief, where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution (i.e. maintains the status quo).
    • Then Subsection 1(b) places further specified restrictions on such institutions where they are maintained or assisted by recurring grants provided out of public funds (i.e. cannot also be discrimination on another ground; religion or belief is required having regard to the institution’s ethos; and action must be justified by a legitimate aim and proportionate means).
    The Bill therefore starts with the most conservative implementation possible of the European Equality Directive 2000/78. The State avails of an option that it may allow certain limited discrimination to continue. It then seems to follow the restrictions on such discrimination that are outlined in the Directive, but does so in a way that still discriminates disproportionately against atheists. Also, in a sleight-of-hand, it only applies the new inadequate restrictions to State-funded bodies, and allows other bodies to continue to discriminate on the basis of the existing law (which contravenes the Directive).

    This is a link to the briefing document that we have sent to all Senators.

    Atheist Ireland argues that the State should move each of these subsections a step closer to equality.
    • State-funded institutions should not be allowed to discriminate at all on the ground of religion or belief. The State should should not fund discrimination against its own citizens.
    • Non-State-funded institutions should be allowed very limited exemptions to allow, for example, religions to employ clerics who share their beliefs, but this should not apply to primarily secular jobs such as teacher or doctor.

    This is a link to email addresses of all Senators.

    Please email today any Senators that you feel might be supportive, and ask them to amend the law to effectively remove all unjustified religious discrimination from the Act.

    .


«1

Comments

  • #2
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    how did this type of lobbying work out in regard to your criticism of the civil regsitration bill


  • #3
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    expectationlost wrote: »
    how did this type of lobbying work out in regard to your criticism of the civil regsitration bill
    For the last year, Atheist Ireland has been trying to find out exactly what standards are being used to decide if a body fulfils the requirements of the Civil Registration Act.

    We decided to seek the rules, guidelines and criteria that the Civil Registration Service will use to ensure that a secular humanist body will comply with these standards. We have a right to this information both within and outside the FOI Act but despite this to date we have not got access to this information.

    This article explains the detail of this religious discrimination and our efforts over the last year to obtain the information we need to combat it. It includes a summary of our correspondence with the Civil registration office and the Information Commissioner.

    Rules for secular marriage? The Irish Civil Registration Service is making it up as they go along.


  • #4
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    For the last year, Atheist Ireland has been trying to find out exactly what standards are being used to decide if a body fulfils the requirements of the Civil Registration Act.

    We decided to seek the rules, guidelines and criteria that the Civil Registration Service will use to ensure that a secular humanist body will comply with these standards. We have a right to this information both within and outside the FOI Act but despite this to date we have not got access to this information.

    This article explains the detail of this religious discrimination and our efforts over the last year to obtain the information we need to combat it. It includes a summary of our correspondence with the Civil registration office and the Information Commissioner.

    Rules for secular marriage? The Irish Civil Registration Service is making it up as they go along.

    so, unfortunately, it didn't work at all


  • #5
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    expectationlost wrote: »
    so, unfortunately, it didn't work at all
    Well, not yet, in terms of that specific outcome, but it is all part of a process.

    We are gradually getting our message into the political discourse, in a way that wasn't the case before we were founded.

    We are building up a bank of researched policy proposals supported by legal obligations on the state through international treaties etc.

    When the breakthrough happens, as it is now starting to happen for gay rights, all of the seemingly ignored work will be seen as retrospectively necessary and useful.


  • #6
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Well, not yet, in terms of that specific outcome, but it is all part of a process.

    We are gradually getting our message into the political discourse, in a way that wasn't the case before we were founded.

    We are building up a bank of researched policy proposals supported by legal obligations on the state through international treaties etc.

    When the breakthrough happens, as it is now starting to happen for gay rights, all of the seemingly ignored work will be seen as retrospectively necessary and useful.

    and you'll have gained the ear of some politicians and when they get into government and (they'll either drop you) or they'll deliver what you want and ignore another facet of the issue that's just as worthy.

    think the work you and Jane Donelly and others have done is fantastic and detailed ( although I really wish you adopt hyperlinking to sources) I even donated to you


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yup, "hasn't worked yet" is not necessarily the same thing as "won't work at all".

    The intention behind the civil registration Bill was to provide a framework for legally recognising the non-religious ceremonies already being celebrated by the Humanist Association. From memory the first legislative proposal actually specified HAI, but later they changed this to more general language which clearly covered HAI, but could cover other bodies also. I presume the thinking was that specifying HAI as the sole recognised celebrant of non-registrar non-religious weddings would be like specifying a particular church as the sole recognised celebrant of non-registrar religious weddings - open to objection on the grounds that it was discriminatory in conferring an unwarranted privilege/monopoly.

    My guess is that they didn't see any great urgency about developing criteria for recognising other non-religious celebrant agencies; since HAI was the only outfit conducting such ceremonies, perhaps they didn't expect anyone else to apply for recognition. It wouldn't amaze me if it wasn't until AI asked what the criteria were that they gave any though to developing some criteria.

    Hence the delay in responding. But hence also the grounds for hope that there will be a response, even if a late one. And asking the question does achieve something; it gets them to develop criteria which they might not otherwise bother to develop.


  • #8
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    The concerns and proposals raised by Atheist Ireland in our briefing document to Senators were raised in the Seanad today, during the Committee Stage debate on Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act.

    Senators Katherine Zappone, David Norris, Ivana Bacik, Averil Power and Trevor O Clochartaigh raised our concerns and proposals. This means that these issues can now form the basis of formal amendments to be proposed at the next stage of the Bill.

    There were no amendments voted on today, because Minister Katherine Lynch said that the Government wanted to first consider a report on Section 37 that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is preparing, and which is almost ready. Atheist Ireland also made a written submission to that report.

    Here are some selected relevant extracts from today’s debate.

    You can read the full Seanad debate on the Oireachtas website.


  • #9
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    labour back benches get upset over shatter and are thrown a bone

    http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2014040900010?opendocument

    will this bill ever really pass or is it just be used to occasionaly pacify labour, the gov didn't even really debate the issue, amendments dismissed as usual, will there be a proper committee stage.

    again just like with the irish humanists labour and labour government only have time for one lobby group and have no time for actual equality, it's her baby and no one else gets to alter that.


  • #10
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has said that the approach of the current Seanad Bill allowing religious discrimination is undesirable, and may continue to leave the State exposed to a breach of its obligations under the European Employment Equality Directive 2000/78.

    In a new Recommendation Paper, authored by Marguerite Bolger SC and Claire Bruton BL after examining more than sixty public submissions, the Commission also vindicates six key arguments made by Atheist Ireland to Senators last week about the Bill. These are:
    1. That the policy of the current Government is to protect both atheist and LGBT employees from discrimination, not just LGBT employees.
    2. That the European Employment Equality Directive permits, but does not oblige, Member States to make special provisions for religious institutions.
    3. That the strict restrictions on exemptions should apply to all religious bodies, not just to State-funded bodies, and not just to schools and hospitals.
    4. That any exemptions should be strictly related to objective job requirements, and should be broadly speaking similar to the wording of Article 4.2of the European Equality Directive.
    5. That the Bill must take account of the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
    6. That it is not necessary for the constitutional recognition of freedom of religion in schools to be protected in the absolute fashion that it is by Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act.

    You can read further details of these points here:

    Approach of religious discrimination Bill is undesirable, says Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

    The Seanad will be resuming its discussion of this Bill this Wednesday.

    If you have already emailed Senators about this Bill (or even if you haven't) please consider doing so between now and Wednesday to ask them to implement (as a minimum step) the recommendations of the Commission.


  • #11
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    We can either bend over and take it, or work to make changes. Giving up every time something doesn't work will definitely never change anything. We have to keep pushing forward and eventually the tide will change and we will start to make progress.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    vibe666 wrote: »
    We can either bend over and take it, or work to make changes. Giving up every time something doesn't work will definitely never change anything. We have to keep pushing forward and eventually the tide will change and we will start to make progress.:)

    I just think campaigners should give a reasonable prospect of outcome, the reason for the manoeuvre by various parties, and say why they are asking people to do something Michael has said that writting letters re the civil registration was not done in the hope of changing the bill at that time but for in the hope it would change in the future, I bet thats not what he said when he ask you to write the letter, I think false hope is very damaging. then he asks people to write again on another issue as if writing to the Senators would change the outcome of this bill, I doubt it will, although a number of senators have raised the issues highlighted by AI and others and submitted amendments I doubt any will pass or be adopted by the government in later stages, certainly not enough to achieve that stated aim of the letter he wants you to send.

    Atheist Ireland composes these very lenghty and detailed briefs yet they are very difficult to follow expecially becuase they lack links, the blog post above was posted and discussed the bill text in detail but never linked to it, just baffling. They would get read and spread and understood far more if all their sources were linked to citing various laws and regulations and conventions, they rarely link to, not least the bill in question itself, its hard enough to read uncollated laws, but if they spent all that time writing their arguements, they must surely use the web and go to the links to get the quotes and double check they are right, why not include them in the text they publish?, you may say I should help out not give out, I even started to linkify one of their blog posts once, it was taking me ages and wasn't sure what laws they were citing it would definitly easier for the author to do it themselves, at the time they accessing the links anyway.


  • #13
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    interesting to see INTO say the ethos arguement needs to be removed along with the rest that not just about sexual identity http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/12/irish-gay-teachers-amendment-does-not-go-far-enough-to-protect-against-discrimination/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pinknews+%28Pink+News%29

    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/new-bill-wont-fully-protect-gay-teachers-30179327.html


  • #14
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    so it seesm this is off to the attorney general http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2014041600024?opendocument nothing going to happen soon


  • #15
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    http://www.equality.ie/en/Section-37-of-the-Employment-Equality-Acts-Outcome-of-IHREC-Designate-deliberations.html
    Section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts - Outcome of IHREC Designate deliberations

    The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission designate today April 11th 2014, advised the Minister for Justice and Equality of the outcomes of its deliberations of Section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts. The text of the advice is available on the following link. The Commission designate would like to express its appreciation to the many groups, individuals, employers, Trade Unions, advocacy groups and institutions who contributed their views through our public call for submissions in Autumn 2013. These views were all independently analysed and were considered by the Members of the Commission designate in forming its own view as to the most advisable course of action. We will endeavour to acknowledge each contribution individually over the coming days.

    Letter to Minister from Acting Chair.pdf (size 427.7 KB)

    Recommendation Paper re section 37 amendment.pdf (size 145.5 KB)


  • #16
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    TUI Deputy General Secretary Annette Dolan interviewed on RTE 1's Six and Nine news bulletins regarding the Minister's plans to inititiate a forum on bullying, with a particular focus on homophobic bullying. Stated that union's conference taking place and TUI again calls on the Minister to repeal Section 37(1) of the Employment Equality Act. 8/4/12
    http://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/recent-media-coverage.149.html


  • #17
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    With links:

    Letter to Minister from Acting Chair.pdf (size 427.7 KB)

    Recommendation Paper re section 37 amendment.pdf (size 145.5 KB)


  • #18
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    End of section 14:

    One of the only judgments where the non endowment of religion came to the fore was that of Campaign to Separate Church and State v Minister for Education11 where the constitutional right of parents to have religious education provided in schools which their children attend qualified the prohibition on religious endowment as being subject to the principal of State support for denominational education.

    Can anyone translate this bit for me? Grrr....I've tried understanding what it actually means for the last 10 mins.


  • #19
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Obliq wrote: »
    One of the only judgments where the non endowment of religion came to the fore was that of Campaign to Separate Church and State v Minister for Education where the constitutional right of parents to have religious education provided in schools which their children attend qualified the prohibition on religious endowment as being subject to the principal of State support for denominational education.
    Lawyers. And their Engrish. Sigh.

    It means that there was a Supreme Court case (in 1998, far as I can make out) which established that the Constitutional requirement for the state to provide money for religious education took precedence over the Constitutional prohibition against the state endowing religion.

    In summary, on the face of it, the constitution is contradictory, but the SC took the view that the right for the religious to indoctrinate kids is a greater constitutional right than the state's responsibility not to pay for it.

    An odd judgement, I'd have thought.


  • #20
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    robindch wrote: »
    In summary, on the face of it, the constitution is contradictory, but the SC took the view that the right for the religious to indoctrinate kids is a greater constitutional right than the state's responsibility not to pay for it.

    An odd judgement, I'd have thought.

    Thanks robin. I was afraid that was what it meant :( Showed it to my eldest last night just for the craic, and ended up explaining what I know of the whole sorry mess. He's pronounced himself to be a proud 3rd generation Irish atheist and now intends to join AI in a seemingly endless quest for equality and fairness :)


  • #21
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    robindch wrote: »
    An odd judgement, I'd have thought.

    No odder than the US supreme's decision that the ammendment which meant that citizens were free to join a state run militia for defense of the state actually meant and I quote: "free guns for everybody!"


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robindch wrote: »
    Lawyers. And their Engrish. Sigh.
    It means that there was a Supreme Court case (in 1998, far as I can make out) which established that the Constitutional requirement for the state to provide money for religious education took precedence over the Constitutional prohibition against the state endowing religion.
    In summary, on the face of it, the constitution is contradictory, but the SC took the view that the right for the religious to indoctrinate kids is a greater constitutional right than the state's responsibility not to pay for it.
    An odd judgement, I'd have thought.
    I read it as the Supreme Court decision was that whilst the State may not endow a religion (in this example with cash), the prohibition is qualified, or modified, by the fact that the State is required to permit religious education in schools. It seems to me that it essentially says when the funding is provided for the purpose of education it is not an endowment; that makes sense and doesn't place one constitutional obligation over another. If that is the correct way of reading it, it would leave the Supreme Court decision open to challenge if it could be demonstrated that all of the funding provided was not spend on education, in which case the balance could be construed as an endowment.


  • #23
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Absolam wrote: »
    It seems to me that it essentially says when the funding is provided for the purpose of education it is not an endowment; that makes sense and doesn't place one constitutional obligation over another.
    That interpretation assumes that religious indoctrination can be construed as "education" - I disagree with that. For me, education is about teaching kids how to think, not what to think.


  • #24
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robindch wrote: »
    That interpretation assumes that religious indoctrination can be construed as "education" - I disagree with that. For me, education is about teaching kids how to think, not what to think.
    Stepping aside from the 'indoctrination' argument which has been doing the rounds, the cash is for education; not religious education, just education. Though admittedly, being the Irish education system, it's still more what to think than how to think.
    Whether that money gets spent on religious education as well as regular education is worth questioning; if so do religious schools get more money because they have an additional expense, or do they spend less per capita on regular education in order to cover the expense? Either would be contrary to the no endowment principle, I think.


  • #25
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    this gives a good general summary of the situation Opinion: Discrimination against the non-religious is being allowed to continue (via @thejournal_ie) http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/discrimination-against-atheists-in-ireland-1562285-Jul2014/?utm_source=shortlink

    in the bit about solemnising
    leaves out any mention of the humanist having the bill written for them but explains how non-religious organisation have stricter rules then any type of religion or spirituality


  • #26
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    expectationlost wrote: »
    this gives a good general summary of the situation Opinion: Discrimination against the non-religious is being allowed to continue (via @thejournal_ie) http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/discrimination-against-atheists-in-ireland-1562285-Jul2014/?utm_source=shortlink

    leaves out any mention of the humanist having teh bill written for them but explains how non-religious organisation have stricter then rules that any type of religion or spirituality

    A secular organisation can't marry people if it is part of political campaigns? Maybe we should treat religious organisations the same.


  • #27
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    so what bill or language is going to be used?

    http://pastebin.com/XYSdwfMP
    Ireland’s appearance before the UN Human Rights Committee
    on International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
    14 – 15 July 2014

    Opening remarks by Ms Frances Fitzgerald TD, Minister for Justice and
    Equality


    One of the elements of our existing employment equality framework that has

    come in for criticism is section 37 of Employment Equality Act 1998.

    Section 37 is the provision that allows religious-owned institutions to

    discriminate against employees or prospective employees if that is

    necessary to protect the religious ethos of the institution (i.e. a school

    or hospital). When this provision was introduced into our law in 1998, the

    Supreme Court had found, in an earlier judgment, that it represents a fair

    balance between the competing rights of freedom of religion and the right

    of employees to be protected from discrimination.



    Experience subsequently has shown that the balance has not been a fair one

    in practice – the provision has been described as having a chilling effect

    on LGBT teachers in particular. We have a commitment in our Programme for

    Government to ensure that



    “people of non-faith or minority religious backgrounds and publically

    identified LGBT people should not be deterred from training or taking

    up employment as teachers in the State”.



    Last year, the Government agreed to support a Private Members’ Bill that

    seeks to restore a fair balance to the equation. Given the constitutional

    implications, the Bill was of course examined very carefully by our

    Attorney General’s Office. Just last week, we completed that scrutiny

    process when the Government approved the Heads of a number of technical

    amendments to the Bill. These amendments will be published later in the

    year, with a view to the Bill being enacted before end-2014. The Bill as

    published is essentially sound and the amendments are largely technical in

    nature.

    the pmb http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=23053&&CatID=59&StartDate=01%20January%202013&OrderAscending=0


  • #28
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    That interpretation assumes that religious indoctrination can be construed as "education" - I disagree with that. For me, education is about teaching kids how to think, not what to think.
    One of the judges in the case specifically mentions that indoctrination can be a school subject.
    Barrington wrote:
    ‘[Article 44.2.4º] makes it clear beyond argument, not merely that the State is entitled to provide aid to schools under the management of different religious denominations, but that such schools may also include religious instruction as a subject in their curricula. It is subject to two qualifications; first, the legislation must not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations and, secondly, it must respect the right of a child not to attend religious instruction in a school in receipt of public funds.’

    Some more discussion of this case here, very readable too. This case discussed on Page 5 of the doc.

    IMO if the case was being heard today, no judge would give that opinion. Things have moved on a lot since then. Attitudes have changed. Society has changed. The RCC is no longer held in awe. Certainly it would be ridiculous to say it is "clear beyond argument" the words he used then.

    An important quid pro quo as pointed out by the same judge was that all pupils had the right to opt out of religious instruction. That means that all publicly funded schools must provide an adequate alternative, that is a supervised class elsewhere. It is not an option for the school to say they have not got the staff or the spare room for that. If they can muster the resources to provide an indoctrination class, they must have the resources to provide an alternative too. I'm not aware that anyone has tried to enforce this right through the courts though. It would be expensive and traumatic, which is what the faith schools rely on to dissuade people.


  • #29
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    part of primetime on section 37 http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10325222/ starts at around 7 minutes



    ok so they had the teacher who is gay speaking in the video but then they have in the studio is a Minister who is implementing s37 as it stands verus somebody who wants to keep it with no change this is RTE PT balance they should have had that teacher in the studio

    no mention of atheists, the problem thar faith supposed to be in every subject, the lack of choice of schools

    are labour going put through half measures again on s 37

    Catholic teacher guy at the end said 'gay catholics' could get promoted, even with Labours proposed change will this only protect ppl who are gay + catholic


  • #30
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    other thread on this issue http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87487374


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    I've read and re-read, read the debate and the Atheist Ireland submissions, this its seems in regard to atheists, no reworking for the section 37 will work, particuraliy with rule 68 still there.


  • #32
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    whats the actual status of legislation in relation to section 37 and employment equality act? is it this stalled one http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2013/2313/document1.htm aodhan "powerless junior minister" o'riordan is bleating about this again, labour brings this bill every time its supporters get a bit anxy


  • #33
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Department's present policy of creating multi-denominational patronages will ultimately lead to a religious apartheid education system https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-01-27a.960&s=%22School+Patronage%22 again they are working avoiding that, but not hard enough it would be too much trouble for them


  • #34
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    INTO wants equality legislation repealed http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0406/692306-ps-annual-congress/

    RTE is just writing headlines in opposite world now

    its discriminatory legislation they want appealed


  • #35
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Joe Higgins TD ‏@JoeHigginsTD 1d1 day ago

    Today AAA Employment Equality Bill introduced in #Dáil against religious ethos discrimination. Major issue in our schools #dubw #LGBTQ
    6 retweets 9 favorites


    Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2015 [PMB] http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=29082&&CatID=59
    An Act to provide equality for employees of education, medical and other services under
    the direction of religious organisations.
    Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:
    Exclusion of discrimination on particular grounds in certain employments

    1. Section 37(1) of the
    Employment Equality Act 1998 is amended by the substitution of the following:

    “37.(1) (a)
    A religious organisation shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II by giving favourable
    treatment on the religion ground to an employee or a prospective employee where the religion or belief of the employee constitutes a
    justified occupational requirement.
    (b)
    No religious organisation, or body under the direction or control of a religious organisation, may give less favourable treatment on
    gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, traveller community, disability grounds or the ground of race
    to employees or prospective employees in services it operates including educational or medical institutions.”.

    Short title 2.
    This Act may be cited as the Employment Equality (Amendment) Act 2015

    what its replacing
    Employment Equality Act, 1998
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/sec0037.html#sec37

    Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2015: First Stage (9 Jun 2015) https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-06-09a.373&s=suicide#g374


  • #36
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Interesting.

    As far as I can see, the Act doesn't contain any definition of "justified occupational requirement", and up to now hasn't employed that term or concept at all, so there is no authority as to what it might mean.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I think section (a) must have been proposed by the religious, and section (b) looks like it would be the union's proposal.
    So instead of deciding which one to go with, the politicians have decided to stick them both in the statute book. But on the face of it, they appear to be contradictory.


  • #38
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Paragraph (a) is a lot like the current paragraph (a), except that instead of allowing discrimination on the religion ground "where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution", it will be allowed "where the religion or belief of the employee constitutes a justified occupational requirement".

    I don't think the religious would have proposed this, to be honest. They probably would have preferred to see no change in paragraph (a). The current paragraph allows religious discrimination where it is "reasonable", which is wider than where it is a "justified . . . requirement". "Required" is a much tougher standard than "reasonable".

    To be honest, new paragraph (b) doesn't look too well thought out to me. As you point out, it's not entirely consistent with para (a), and there's no indication of which of them "trumps" the other. Plus, it forbids discrimination affecting employees or prospective employees in "services" operated by religious organisations, or by bodies directed or controlled by religious organisations. This notion of "discrimination in services" is, I think, new, and I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to mean. Are some of the employees of a religious organisation supposed to be employed in "services" operated by the body, and others not so employed? Or does para (b) protect all employees of the organisation and, if so, what is the point of the reference to "services"?

    Finally, there seems to be a distinction between a "religious organisation", affected by both paragraphs, and a "body under the direction or control of a religious organisation", affected only by paragraph (b). Is a body directed or controlled by a religious organisation not itself a religious organisation? I would have thought it was. This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, and I'm not sure what they are trying to get at by introducing this distinction. And, whatever it is, I doubt that this wording will be effective to get at it.

    Oh, wait. Now that I follow the links in expectationlost's post and look at them properly, I see that this is a private member's Bill. That would explain why (no offence) the drafting is fairly slapdash. In the first place, private members don't have access to the support of the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office to draw up their legislation; they have to do it themselves. In the second place, they're usually not that concerned with the quality of the drafting; they're perfectly aware that the chances of the Bill being enacted are slim-to-zero, and that if by some miracle it does happen there'll be a substantial redraft along the way.

    The fact that this is a private members Bill also means that it's very unlikely either that (a) is based on anything put forward by the church or that (b) is based on anything put forward by the trade unions. To be blunt, lobby groups don't generally waste their time and resources offering submissions about what should go into private members' Bills. They care about what goes into government Bills.


  • #39
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,469 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    That draft legislation is extremely badly worded and unclear.

    A secular state wouldn't have this problem because it wouldn't be trying to define what a 'valid' religion is or to give 'valid' religions privileges over and above any ordinary club, association or business.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #40
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Actually, a secular state very much has this problem. If you're going to outlaw discrimination on the religion ground at all, then you need to be able to recognise "religion" when you see it; otherwise you'll never be able to say that any instance of discrimination is based on religion. So the law needs to be able to do this even if there are no exceptions in favour of religions.

    In short, this problem arises not just when you try to allow religious discrimination in some instances, but when you try to ban it in the first place.


  • #41
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,469 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Couldn't they apply something similar to the US Supreme Court judge's definition of porn - "I know it when I see it" :p rather than tying legislation up in knots. Isn't it up to the complainant to convince the court that they have been discriminated against and under one of the stated grounds?

    I wonder how far followers of Pastafarianism, say, would get (whatever happened in the end in the colander driving licence thread, anyway?)


    Edit: - having looked at the thread this was all discussed before. At length and in circles. Let's not :p


    Also there are two 'Pasta Quest' threads which start off the same but end up different - Mods! Explain yerselves!

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    expectationlost wrote: »
    Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2015: First Stage (9 Jun 2015) https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-06-09a.373&s=suicide#g374
    I didn't notice who was proposing this bill either, at first.
    Its the guy who was arrested after Joan Burton was trapped at an anti water charge protest :)
    And I see Enda Kenny has said that he won't oppose the bill.
    It could develop into something useful alright, after some debate and some tweaking, if its not going to be opposed by the govt. parties.
    Paul Murphy always comes across as very competent when he is interviewed. I could never understand why he was so fixated on the water meters. Whatever gets you elected, I suppose.


  • #43
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Couldn't they apply something similar to the US Supreme Court judge's definition of porn - "I know it when I see it" :p rather than tying legislation up in knots. Isn't it up to the complainant to convince the court that they have been discriminated against and under one of the stated grounds?
    Yes, and that's the current position - there is no definition of "religion" in the Act, which means that somebody who says he has been discriminated against on the grounds of "religion" has to satisfy the tribunal as to that, and somebody who claims the benefit of an exemption or exclusion for "religion" has to satisfy the tribunal that he is covered by the exemption of exclusion.

    The point is, this isn't something that arises only because you have exemptions or exclusions for "religion". It arises equally out of the simple prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of "religion".
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I wonder how far followers of Pastafarianism, say, would get (whatever happened in the end in the colander driving licence thread, anyway?)


    Edit: - having looked at the thread this was all discussed before. At length and in circles. Let's not :p


    Also there are two 'Pasta Quest' threads which start off the same but end up different - Mods! Explain yerselves!
    Some people in the original pasta quest thread objected to discussion of the very issue which just now you and I were teetering on the brink of discussing, so the imperishably wise mods split the thread into two, one where you Could Talk About It, and one where you Couldn't.

    After a couple of rounds of "I dare ya! I dare ya!" it was UDP who eventually put in an application with a colander photograph. Unless the boards search function is unreliable (which is unthinkable!) his last update on the subject was just over a year ago, at which time he was required to put in a submission saying why he thought he was being discriminated against on the religion ground. He was appealing for suggestions as to what he might say. He got a few suggestions, but never posted to say if he had completed and submitted his statement or what ensued after that.

    If he never put in a statement, then his complaint would have lapsed.

    If he did, then I'd love to know what the further outcome was. But presumably it wasn't a ringing endorsement of the rights of pastafarians everywhere, because if it was we'd all have noticed the parades and the celebratory bonfires on the night the decision was handed down.

    (All his recent posts seem to have been in the "cycling" forum. I'm hoping that this doesn't mean that the upshot of his noble struggle was the denial of a driving licence!)


  • #44
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    Its the guy who was arrested after Joan Burton was trapped at an anti water charge protest :)
    And I see Enda Kenny has said that he won't oppose the bill.
    It could develop into something useful alright, after some debate and some tweaking, if its not going to be opposed by the govt. parties.
    I wouldn't get my hopes up. In the context, "not opposing the Bill" doesn't mean adopting a neutral or benevolent attitude to it. It's just a procedural position; it means not calling for a vote on the first reading of the Bill.

    If Kenny had indicated that he was opposing the Bill, there would have been an immediate vote, the Bill would have been defeated, and that would be that. By not opposing it, he's just saying that he doesn't want an immediate vote; he's content for it to take its place in the pending tray for private members' Bills. But it will likely never emerge from that tray; it will stay there until Dail Eireann is next dissolved (which must be in less than a year) at which point the pending tray is automatically emptied into the wastepaper basket.

    If it does get back on to the order paper and come up for a second reading, at that point the government will again decide on whether it wants to oppose the Bill. And, again, it would be unusual to do so; the options are really (a) don't oppose (so, back into the pending tray) or (b) invite the deputy sponsoring the Bill to talk to the Minister for Education (or his officials) to see if the Bill can be withdrawn in favour of a (better-drafted, and usually better-thought-out) government Bill addressing the same issue.

    That does very occasionally happen; it's how we got legal registration of humanist weddings. But it's unlikely to happen here. The Bill never gets back out of the pending tray, and onto the order paper, unless the managers of Government business in the Dail want it to. (The order paper is effectively decided by negotiation between the government and the opposition managers of business; independents have very little influence over it.) They'll occasionally let a private members' Bill back onto the order paper if (a) they want to tackle the issue anyway, and (b) they are happy for the private member to get a bit of the kudos. But if only condition (a) applies they will simply prepare their own Bill in their own time, and introduce it when they are ready, without reference to what might be in the private members' pending tray.


  • #45
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    recedite wrote: »
    I didn't notice who was proposing this bill either, at first.
    Its the guy who was arrested after Joan Burton was trapped at an anti water charge protest :)
    And I see Enda Kenny has said that he won't oppose the bill.
    It could develop into something useful alright, after some debate and some tweaking, if its not going to be opposed by the govt. parties.
    Paul Murphy always comes across as very competent when he is interviewed. I could never understand why he was so fixated on the water meters. Whatever gets you elected, I suppose.

    it will go to second stage maybe and then stall and die


  • #46
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    the AAA/SP employment equality bill debate
    part 1
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16a.316&s=Employment+Equality+%28Amendment%29+Bill+2015#g327
    and 2 resumed
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-06-17a.353&s=%22Anti-Austerity+Alliance%22#g375

    glad some are mentioning atheists (because Atheist Ireland lobbied them on it) Labour party won't https://www.kildarestreet.com/search/?s=atheist+party%3ALab

    passed to the next stage on the nod, Labour didn't want an issue to be made of it, they are still promising their own private members bill thats been stalled for a year.


    main difference


    Jan O'Sullivan
    The attempt at reform in the Private Members’ Bill introduced by the Labour Party in the Seanad in 2013, which was signed by a number of Members of this House, along with the Government’s proposed amendments to it, represents a better approach. That legislation insists that employers who are providing publicly funded services would have to meet a higher standard of justification for any action taken against an employee on grounds of undermining the institution’s religious ethos.


    Paul Murphy
    It is wrong to make a distinction between publicly and privately funded services. The proper distinction is between the way in which a religious order runs its own affairs and way in which it runs a service, irrespective of whether that service is publicly funded. There should be no grounds for allowing discrimination in respect of a service run by a religious institution.


    The second flaw is that religion is maintained as grounds for discrimination regardless of whether public funds are involved, albeit with a higher bar in terms of requiring that the occupational requirement be genuine and legitimate. Even if a school is publicly funded, a religious order could make the case that a teacher's religion is a justified reason for discrimination where he or she is teaching a religion class. This is a clear example of discrimination against atheists and those of a different religion to the institution which controls the school. It might also offer a back door for discrimination against LGBTQ people who, by being openly gay, are not conforming to the teachings of a certain church. There should be no discrimination of any form in church-run health or education services. The only place where we think discrimination can be permitted is within the religious institution itself. That would meet the Constitution's provisions on the right of religious denominations to run their own affairs. Those affairs do not extend to the operation of schools and hospitals but religious orders clearly have the right to discriminate in favour of people of their own religion when appointing priests or ministers.


  • #47
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-06-16a.1742&s=%22School+Patronage%22
    In this regard, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) designate was asked to undertake a public consultation and examine the issues involved in relation to amending Section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2011. The Commission forwarded legal advice it had obtained as well as the options it had considered. These have been considered by the Attorney General's Office.
    My colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will bring forward the necessary amendments to the legislation.

    Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?


  • #48
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    expectationlost wrote: »
    Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
    She means the Minister for Justice and Equality. The title was changed in 2011. The Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act are both administered by her Department, so it will be she who brings forward any Government amendments to those Acts.


  • #49
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    just had to check whether alan shatter as minister of justice had spoken on the bill at any point doesn't seem like he had, https://www.kildarestreet.com/search/?s=%22Employment+Equality+%28Amendment%29+%28No.2%29+Bill+2013%22+party%3AFG im wondering whether they'll just introduce a new government initiated bill


  • #50
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Shatter never spoke on the 2012 Bill because it was only ever discussed in the Seanad, of which he is not a member. While it's possible for Ministers who are TDs to attend and speak in the Seanad in relation to Bills that are relevant to their portfolios, it wouldn't be usual for a cabinet minister to do so for a private member's bill. Kathleen Lynch, who was Minister of State for (among other things) Equality at the time participated in the Seanad debate on the Bill to speak for the government. A quick glance through kildarestreet.com suggests that she didn't get to say very much; the government representative normally speaks last, to respond to what has been said, and the debate ran out of time so they never got to that point.

    I think you're wondering is correct. The government has already said that they intend to bring in their own Bill to amend s. 37. While they could change their minds and adopt the private member's Bill instead I don't see any reason why they would. (And, given the comments made in this thread on the provisions of that Bill, it's probably better if they don't.)


  • #51
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    so why is the Minister of Eucation replying to this bill, if its dept of justice and equality issue? because Labour wants to keep ownership of this issue while FG ain't so keen.

    they were suggesting that they would continue on with bacik's bill, although im not sure that will happen
    Jan O'Sullivan
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-06-17a.353&s=%22Anti-Austerity+Alliance%22#g375
    The Government proposals for improving the 2013 Private Members’ Bill will be finalised very shortly and, once approved by the Government, will be published as amendments to the Seanad Bill with a view to its early passage through both Houses.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement