Quick, straightforward Q on constitutional law.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Is there ever a legal situation where the constitution can be overruled?
For example, if someone who isn't me had signed a document agreeing to something which compromises one of my constitutional rights, is the document still valid?

Thanks

nuac

MM How does someone else purport to sign away any right you may have whether or not it is a constitutional right?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Guess I'll have to go into a little more detail.

Someone who isn't me (swim from now on) is attending secondary school and is sitting the Leaving this year. This person is 18. Swim does not wish to attend religious education classes, I won't go into the reasons why but it's not out of laziness; swim wants to use this time to study.

Swim attempted to study quietly in the class and was quickly disciplined. When swim tried to negotiate their way out of said class they were told by the deputy principle that the school has a xtian ethos and it is their responsibility to teach swim about religion etc. and if swim didn't want to attend the class they should find another school. This is a public school.

Swim has found that in article 44, section 2, subsection 4 of the Irish Constitution there is a reference to the right of a person to attend a publicly funded school without attending religious education classes.

Swim has not yet brought this to the attention of the school. However swim is fairly sure they signed a document when they were first enrolled in the school to abide by the rules and policies of the school. The school policy quite possibly has rules regarding this situation.

MagicSean

I thought that article is to prevent legislation that would discriminate against schools who do not provide religious education. So if a school does not wish to provide an education in religion they will not receive a reduction in funding.

It conveys rights on the school, not the individual student.

Does the religion class teach about only one religion or all the main ones?

Our man in Havana

The constitution would overrule any policy of the school.

MagicSean

Bond-007 wrote: »

The constitution would overrule any policy of the school.

Yes but in this case is the school policy in breach of the constitution?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

k_mac wrote: »

I thought that article is to prevent legislation that would discriminate against schools who do not provide religious education. So if a school does not wish to provide an education in religion they will not receive a reduction in funding.

It conveys rights on the school, not the individual student.

Does the religion class teach about only one religion or all the main ones?

The teacher has not touched on anything other than christianity all year.

I believe you're correct in saying it bars legislation from discriminating between schools with regards to funding, however it refers to the right of the child:

BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Bond-007 wrote: »

The constitution would overrule any policy of the school.

All I needed. Cheers

EDIT:

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but in this case is the school policy in breach of the constitution?

Now THAT I would like to know.

MagicSean

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

I believe you're correct in saying it bars legislation from discriminating between schools with regards to funding, however it refers to the right of the child

Yes but Swims right to attend a non-religious school has not been affected by prohibited legislation. Swim chose to go to a catholic school.

Our man in Havana

Surely as an adult he has the right to opt out of any educational classes provided by the school?

MagicSean

Bond-007 wrote: »

Surely as an adult he has the right to opt out of any educational classes provided by the school?

I agree. But that is seperate from the constitutional issue isn't it.

Tom Young

I think I dealt with this on here before .... do a search.

Manach

But is there a different between "attending religious instruction" and the other case where the religious teaching might be for subject for the LC and hence part of the normal school curriculum?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but Swims right to attend a non-religious school has not been affected by prohibited legislation. Swim chose to go to a catholic school.

But the constitution doesn't refer to solely non religious school or otherwise, it refers to schools receiving public money, which this school is. Swim's right to attend the school without attending religious instruction has been violated as when swim tried to exercise this right i.e. not attend the religion class, they were threatened with expulsion.

EDIT: Misread you. I am not saying legislation has affected Swim's rights, I'm saying the school has affected a right of theirs which is referred to in that section.

Manach wrote: »

But is there a different between "attending religious instruction" and the other case where the religious teaching might be for subject for the LC and hence part of the normal school curriculum?

Swim's school does not offer religious ed. as an exam subject for the Leaving.

MagicSean

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

But the constitution doesn't refer to solely non religious school or otherwise, it refers to schools receiving public money, which this school is. Swim's right to attend the school without attending religious instruction has been violated as when swim tried to exercise this right i.e. not attend the religion class, they were threatened with expulsion.

EDIT: Misread you. I am not saying legislation has affected Swim's rights, I'm saying the school has affected a right of theirs which is referred to in that section.

Swim still has the right to go to a non-denominational school. Swim has chosen to go to a christian school. The school has a right to be of any denomination it wishes without fear of being discriminated against.

Our man in Havana

I would assume that Swim's parents chose the school. Any contract being entered into by his parents. Once he reaches 18 he can void this arrangement?

Jo King

k_mac wrote: »

Swim still has the right to go to a non-denominational school. Swim has chosen to go to a christian school. The school has a right to be of any denomination it wishes without fear of being discriminated against.

The school is in receipt of public funds. If it expels swim for not attending religious instruction the school is at risk of losing it's funding.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

k_mac wrote: »

Swim still has the right to go to a non-denominational school. Swim has chosen to go to a christian school. The school has a right to be of any denomination it wishes without fear of being discriminated against.

How is the school being discriminated against?

A few small points here:

1. He's not a child. The right which may exist in the Constitution does not vest in him.

2. He is an adult and is free to go to another school if he wishes. If he has attended religious education classes for 5 years without a peep out of him there may be an argument that the right, even if it did vest in him, only operates to stop a person of non-religious beliefs or beliefs other than the ethos of the school from being forced to be educated in a religious ethos other than their own. His justification, that he wants to study, could be argued to be an abuse of the constitutional right.

Our man in Havana

As a minor he could not assert such a right.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Deleted User wrote: »

A few small points here:

1. He's not a child. The right which may exist in the Constitution does not vest in him.

2. He is an adult and is free to go to another school if he wishes. If he has attended religious education classes for 5 years without a peep out of him there may be an argument that the right, even if it did vest in him, only operates to stop a person of non-religious beliefs or beliefs other than the ethos of the school from being forced to be educated in a religious ethos other than their own. His justification, that he wants to study, could be argued to be an abuse of the constitutional right.

1. Could it not be interpreted that the term child in this case refers to anyone attending the school?

2. SWIM attended the classes in the junior cycle without any problem as it was an exam subject. It is not for senior cycle. SWIM's religion teacher in 5th year rarely attempted to teach the subject and let the class study. SWIM has been trying to leave their 6th year religion class since september, when they were still a minor.
I think it is safe to say that nobody must justify why they want to exercise their rights.

32minutes

i) that provision is in place mainly to safeguard people's freedom to profess religion, not their freedom not to be professed to.

ii)no constitutional right (even the right to life) is absolute and can always be balanced and mitigated against others

iii) i don't believe any school should operate on an a la carte basis, the state provides numerous schools, all free and space notwithstanding people generally have a choice of where they want to send them so if someone wants to decide what class they want to go to the school does also have a right to stick to it's curriculum.

iv) I would also include in this that the class is called religion and not catholicism so if the curriculum of the school dictates that he must attend classes to be educated about all matters religious while they are preparing him for an exam (also an optional exam) I don't think a court in the land will say they are breaching his rights

Our man in Havana

I attended a catholic secondary school and when I reached 18 I simply told the principal I would not be attending any religious classes. I put it in writing. They was no issue with it.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

32minutes wrote: »

i) that provision is in place mainly to safeguard people's freedom to profess religion, not their freedom not to be professed to.

ii)no constitutional right (even the right to life) is absolute and can always be balanced and mitigated against others

iii) i don't believe any school should operate on an a la carte basis, the state provides numerous schools, all free and space notwithstanding people generally have a choice of where they want to send them so if someone wants to decide what class they want to go to the school does also have a right to stick to it's curriculum.

iv) I would also include in this that the class is called religion and not catholicism so if the curriculum of the school dictates that he must attend classes to be educated about all matters religious while they are preparing him for an exam (also an optional exam) I don't think a court in the land will say they are breaching his rights

i) AGAIN, I am talking about the right referred to in the provision, NOT THE PROVISION ITSELF.

ii) Surely only by a state body involved in legal matters i.e. the Gardai and the courts?

iii) The nearest school SWIM could go to has a history of queues of parents forming outside the door up to 3 days before the enrolment day. There's not a chance SWIM would get in, especially this late in the year. This school is 16 km from SWIM's house.

iv) Have you been reading my posts at all? SWIM isn't being educated in all matters religious, they are being educated in all matters Catholic, and nothing else. The school will not make provisions for SWIM to sit the religion exam for the Leaving Cert i.e. The exam is not an option for SWIM. The class is not being taught in preparation for such an exam either.

Bond-007 wrote: »

I attended a catholic secondary school and when I reached 18 I simply told the principal I would not be attending any religious classes. I put it in writing. They was no issue with it.

You're lucky! SWIM's principle apparently doesn't have the time to talk to anyone or their parents anymore. Too busy lounging around in the staff room drinkin' tae and aytin' bishcuits for anything trivial like that.

Skyler Black Ponytail

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

1. Could it not be interpreted that the term child in this case refers to anyone attending the school?

2. SWIM attended the classes in the junior cycle without any problem as it was an exam subject. It is not for senior cycle. SWIM's religion teacher in 5th year rarely attempted to teach the subject and let the class study. SWIM has been trying to leave their 6th year religion class since september, when they were still a minor.
I think it is safe to say that nobody must justify why they want to exercise their rights.

In regard to point 1: no. Or at the very least I sincerely doubt it. The constitution says child and there is settled case law that a child is someone up to the age of 18. At 18 they are no longer a child therefore the right does not vest in him.

MagicSean

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

i) AGAIN, I am talking about the right referred to in the provision, NOT THE PROVISION ITSELF.

.

The right you refer to hasn't been affected. Swim has the right to attend a non denominational school but has chosen a catholic one.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

k_mac wrote: »

.

The right you refer to hasn't been affected. Swim has the right to attend a non denominational school but has chosen a catholic one.

A catholic school which is receiving public money.

32minutes

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

i) AGAIN, I am talking about the right referred to in the provision, NOT THE PROVISION ITSELF.

ii) Surely only by a state body involved in legal matters i.e. the Gardai and the courts?

iii) The nearest school SWIM could go to has a history of queues of parents forming outside the door up to 3 days before the enrolment day. There's not a chance SWIM would get in, especially this late in the year. This school is 16 km from SWIM's house.

iv) Have you been reading my posts at all? SWIM isn't being educated in all matters religious, they are being educated in all matters Catholic, and nothing else. The school will not make provisions for SWIM to sit the religion exam for the Leaving Cert i.e. The exam is not an option for SWIM. The class is not being taught in preparation for such an exam either.


You're lucky! SWIM's principle apparently doesn't have the time to talk to anyone or their parents anymore. Too busy lounging around in the staff room drinkin' tae and aytin' bishcuits for anything trivial like that.

i) semantics, the interpretation of that provision leads to the rights your talking about, theres no list of simple rights in the constitution, the courts interpret and the gardai enforce.
ii) no, a persons rights are balanced against others everyday in real life eg your right to privacy vs my right to freedom of expression, no state body involved.
iii) again does SWIMS remoteness mean that he gets to dictate the classes taught and the schools timetable because the constitution says he's entitled to education ?
iv) i have read your posts and was only offering an opinion. if the school isn't teaching the curriculum set by down by the department of education a supreme court challenge seems a bit overkill, maybe an official complaint might be better.

actually on point number iii im pretty sure there is a case where a group of parents brought a challenge to force a school to act in a certain way in providing education but i can't find a cite for it, the parents lost as far as i can remember though

MagicSean

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

A catholic school which is receiving public money.

The same money a non-catholic school would. To punish the school with reduced funding due to their religious ethos would be a breach of the article.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

32minutes wrote: »

i) semantics, the interpretation of that provision leads to the rights your talking about, theres no list of simple rights in the constitution, the courts interpret and the gardai enforce.
ii) no, a persons rights are balanced against others everyday in real life eg your right to privacy vs my right to freedom of expression, no state body involved.
iii) again does SWIMS remoteness mean that he gets to dictate the classes taught and the schools timetable because the constitution says he's entitled to education ?
iv) i have read your posts and was only offering an opinion. if the school isn't teaching the curriculum set by down by the department of education a supreme court challenge seems a bit overkill, maybe an official complaint might be better.

actually on point number iii im pretty sure there is a case where a group of parents brought a challenge to force a school to act in a certain way in providing education but i can't find a cite for it, the parents lost as far as i can remember though

SWIM isn't trying to dictate the classes run or the school timetable. It is common practice in SWIM's school for pupils to go to the assembly hall and study etc. if they don't have a class or their teacher isn't in etc. SWIM knows 2 others in his year who go there during religion classes, without any problems.

k_mac wrote: »

The same money a non-catholic school would. To punish the school with reduced funding due to their religious ethos would be a breach of the article.

What? I'm not talking reducing the school's funding!

32minutes

Skyler Black Ponytail wrote: »

SWIM isn't trying to dictate the classes run or the school timetable. It is common practice in SWIM's school for pupils to go to the assembly hall and study etc. if they don't have a class or their teacher isn't in etc. SWIM knows 2 others in his year who go there during religion classes, without any problems.



What? I'm not talking reducing the school's funding!

okay i think the point about the funding is aimed at the religious freedom of schools to teach what they like which seemed like the entire point from the previous posts.

what your talking about though seems to be individual treatment of a student as opposed to others in the same school, and in this case it sounds like some type of bullying or coercion. maybe it amounts to a breach of his constitutional rights on a personal level but no more than me standing in a church doorway and trying to stop you from entering.

re your first post though, id be of the opinion that it's certainly possible to restrict some of your own constitutional rights via contract, for instance privacy, well recognized right, if i pay you 100e to be in a big brother esque game show and you pull out that's a breach of contract, not illegal but definitely contrary to contract law eg possible damages.