Atheist Ireland submission to Dept of Education on school enrolment

Michael Nugent

This is Atheist Ireland's submission to the Department of Education's discussion paper on a regulatory framework for school enrolment, submitted to the Department today.

Atheist Ireland submission to Department of Education on school enrolment

I read through it all. It's several minutes of my life I'm unlikely to get back, but given that I don't object to the concept behind the submission I can't really complain.

I note that section 5.8 says:

5.8 Earlier this month Ireland accepted the following recommendations at the United Nations under the Universal Periodic Review.
“106.27 Malaysia : “Accelerate efforts in establishing national network of schools that guarantee equality of access to children irrespective of their religious, cultural or social background.
106.45 Switzerland :” Amend Article 37 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act in order to prevent such discrimination against homosexual and unmarried parents.”
106.47 Turkey: “Encourage diversity and tolerance of other faiths and beliefs in the education system by monitoring incidents of discrimination in access to education”
106.48 Egypt : “Eliminate religious discrimination in access to education”.”

A reasonable Irish person could be forgiven for suggesting that we should have told the Malaysians and the Egyptians to **** off and get their own houses in order first.

The document does itself no favours whatsoever by citing two countries who aren't exactly role models in the area of religious freedom.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

I read through it all. It's several minutes of my life I'm unlikely to get back, but given that I don't object to the concept behind the submission I can't really complain.

I note that section 5.8 says:

5.8 Earlier this month Ireland accepted the following recommendations at the United Nations under the Universal Periodic Review.
“106.27 Malaysia : “Accelerate efforts in establishing national network of schools that guarantee equality of access to children irrespective of their religious, cultural or social background.
106.45 Switzerland :” Amend Article 37 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act in order to prevent such discrimination against homosexual and unmarried parents.”
106.47 Turkey: “Encourage diversity and tolerance of other faiths and beliefs in the education system by monitoring incidents of discrimination in access to education”
106.48 Egypt : “Eliminate religious discrimination in access to education”.”

A reasonable Irish person could be forgiven for suggesting that we should have told the Malaysians and the Egyptians to **** off and get their own houses in order first.

The document does itself no favours whatsoever by citing two countries who aren't exactly role models in the area of religious freedom.

Man, a good idea is a good idea whether it comes from the Christ or the Anti-Christ. Ideas should be judged on their inherent merit, not on who put them on the table, and it's just good manners to cite people.

Michael Nugent

Deleted User wrote: »

I read through it all. It's several minutes of my life I'm unlikely to get back, but given that I don't object to the concept behind the submission I can't really complain.

It's written in a manner that focuses on the legal obligations that Ireland is committed to. That's (in our opinion) the best approach for documents like this, and it can make them somewhat heavy to read, though we also make political and emotional arguments in other circumstances.

Deleted User wrote: »

A reasonable Irish person could be forgiven for suggesting that we should have told the Malaysians and the Egyptians to **** off and get their own houses in order first. The document does itself no favours whatsoever by citing two countries who aren't exactly role models in the area of religious freedom.

The United Nations, for all of its flaws, allows countries to examine and make recommendations on the human rights records of other countries. This enables Ireland to help to protect the human rights of people in other countries. Based on your criteria, those other countries could tell Ireland to **** off and get our own house in order first. We should of course get our own house in order, but we should do it at the same time as we examine human rights abuses in other countries.

UDP

Deleted User wrote: »

A reasonable Irish person could be forgiven for suggesting that we should have told the Malaysians and the Egyptians to **** off and get their own houses in order first.

The document does itself no favours whatsoever by citing two countries who aren't exactly role models in the area of religious freedom.

Why should we tell them to **** off and get their own houses in order first when they are correct in the recommendations?

MagicMarker

Deleted User wrote: »

The document does itself no favours whatsoever by citing two countries who aren't exactly role models in the area of religious freedom.

All the more reason to cite those two countries imo.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The United Nations, for all of its flaws, allows countries to examine and make recommendations on the human rights records of other countries.

And? :rolleyes:

The point is not what the UN is for and what some countries had to say about Ireland.

The point is that you should have put more thought into what you were putting into your submission before you released it.

Malaysia declares itself to be a secular country that protects religious freedom, but it is no such thing. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists make up the minority in Malaysia, and the Sunni Muslim majority dominate the political and legal landscape. If a Catholic in Ireland walks away from his church and declares himself an atheist, it might prove inconvenient for him. If a Malay Sunni Muslim does likewise, he can be tried and he can be fined, flogged or jailed.

Egypt's Coptic Christians have to apply for permission to renovate, repair or build churches - Muslims don't. Baha'is in Egypt have also been the subject of persecution by the police and other authorities. Atheists have to keep a very low profile in Egypt. Here's a question for you: what is the name of the Egyptian equivalent of Atheist Ireland, and where in Cairo will one find its offices? Bear in mind that converts from Islam (to another religion or to atheism) are regarded as apostates and subject to being sued by other citizens - although the position as regards criminal prosecution is less clear cut than in Malaysia.

Is religious education in schools still compulsory in Turkey? It was in 2007 when the country was cited for its discriminatory practices by Minority Rights Group International. It still was in March 2011 when the leader of Turkey's opposition called for the practice to be ended.

That leaves Switzerland. I haven't the foggiest what the state of play is with regard to religious freedom and respect for atheism in Switzerland. Having said that, I'm sure their comments will be welcomed by unmarried people and gays.

So there we have it. Malaysia, Egypt and Turkey took a swipe at Ireland, which they are all entitled to do. But (and I'm being really charitable here) they all have their own significant issues when it comes to religious freedom and tolerance, and they don't have a great record when it comes to atheism.

If you want to include their comments in your submission that's your business. All I'm saying is that I'd have asked someone to read the final draft carefully before committing to that decision.

Michael Nugent

Actually, Ulysses, we may be talking at cross purposes here.

I agree that other States can be hypocritical when calling on Ireland to do things that they are not doing themselves (or at least that they are not doing what we would interpret their words to mean in terms of human rights).

I also believe that we should actively challenge those States to apply democratic human rights standards in their own territories. Atheist Ireland, as a member of Atheist Alliance International, plays our role in doing this.

And I would even agree with your overall point if we were just randomly taking allegations made by other States and putting them into our submission.

But the statements we have included are not random allegations. They come from a formal review by the United Nations of the human rights record of Ireland, under a process called the Universal Periodic Review.

The reason that we included them in our submission is not because the other States made them, but because Ireland accepted them (technically Ireland accepted certain recommendations under consideration and there is another part of the process to go). Ireland also rejected other recommendations, and we have not included those in our submission.

So the point that we are making by including these recommendations in the submission is not that Ireland should do what these other countries tell us to, but that Ireland is committing itself at the UN to do certain things and yet is not actually doing them in practice.

What we wrote immediately after quoting those recommendations is this:

"How does the State intend to implement these recommendations when they are in breach of their international obligations in relation to education?"

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Actually, Ulysses, we may be talking at cross purposes here.

I wouldn't say we're talking at cross purposes. I'd say we're talking from different frames of reference. The submission's frame of reference is legalistic. Mine is philosophical. The submission makes sense from a legalistic perspective, but the inclusion in the submission of references from countries that have no sympathy for and considerable hostility towards atheists does not make sense from the philosophical perspective of an atheist.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree that other States can be hypocritical when calling on Ireland to do things that they are not doing themselves (or at least that they are not doing what we would interpret their words to mean in terms of human rights).

Let's tease that out a bit more. When Malaysia, Egypt or Turkey have a go at Ireland over the rights of minority religions, they aren't doing so out of a concern for the rights of atheists. It's a judgment call as to why they are doing so - but I'm satisfied it's related in some way to their perception of issues related to the rights of Muslims in Ireland. That's my interpretation of what their words mean. What's yours?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

....a process called the Universal Periodic Review.

I'm familiar with the process. Although the process is in some ways bordering on the insane, I understand and accept the reasoning behind it. If Ireland can improve its human rights and civil liberties as a consequence, that'll be good. If some of the crackpot countries who are criticising us can by some miraculous means get their human rights and civil liberties to within a country mile of ours, that'll be even better.

I'm particularly familiar with the process because it was in the news when Ireland listed the recommendations being accepted and rejected earlier in October.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

So the point that we are making by including these recommendations in the submission is not that Ireland should do what these other countries tell us to, but that Ireland is committing itself at the UN to do certain things and yet is not actually doing them in practice.

At the risk of repeating myself - ach, sod it, I may as well carry on regardless - I'm particularly familiar with the process because it was in the news when Ireland listed the recommendations being accepted and rejected earlier in October.

That was, er, like, two or three weeks ago. Cut a Government some slack, eh? :eek:

Roger Hassenforder

good luck cobbling together the philosophies of atheists into one submission for come bureaucrats to get the heads around. 'we' cant even agree on a collective noun!

given the UPR mandate is to "undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information....”, a legalistic submisson is what would be expected by them

Dades

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

good luck cobbling together the philosophies of atheists into one submission for come bureaucrats to get the heads around. 'we' cant even agree on a collective noun!

"We" shouldn't be agreeing on anything which is why submitting anything under the name Atheist Ireland irks me. This is a secular issue not an atheist one.

Roger Hassenforder

its a submission by an organization styling itself as representative of Irish atheists, and although not a member, I appreciate that someone took the time to submit it!
It was posted here for info/invite comment/encourage debate etc., not a "here lads, look what Ive done for you"

submit your own if you're so irked, or if doesnt fully represent your views.

Dades

Methinks you've read too much into my post.

Roger Hassenforder

possibly, hope we dont fall out over it!

Michael Nugent

I’ve changed my mind about this and I now think Ulysses is right.

Including the names of the countries who made the recommendations distracts from the main point, which is that Ireland accepted the recommendations under consideration. For completeness of information, we could have included details of the process, including the names of the countries, in a footnote.

Edit: There may be other circumstances in which it might be politically useful to point out the inconsistencies between the human rights records and UN contributions of different States, but this document is not one of them.

Deleted User wrote: »

...it was in the news when Ireland listed the recommendations being accepted and rejected earlier in October. That was, er, like, two or three weeks ago. Cut a Government some slack, eh? :eek:

It’s not just this government. It is the State itself, under various governments, that has consistently failed to implement human rights obligations that it has committed to. I’m actually more optimistic of progress under this government.

Dades wrote: »

"We" shouldn't be agreeing on anything which is why submitting anything under the name Atheist Ireland irks me. This is a secular issue not an atheist one.

Running a website under the name Boards.ie irks me. It doesn’t encompass all discussion boards in Ireland. Or all long flat pieces of wood in Ireland. This is a personal forum, not an arboreal one.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I’ve changed my mind about this and I now think Ulysses is right.

:eek: Now THAT was unexpected.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

....the main point, which is that Ireland accepted the recommendations under consideration.

That is indeed the main point - and a point that needs to be made.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It’s not just this government. It is the State itself, under various governments, that has consistently failed to implement human rights obligations that it has committed to. I’m actually more optimistic of progress under this government.

That's fair comment. But it has to be said that over the last 30-40 years, Ireland has regularly shown as a society that we are capable of updating our thinking on issues. There was a time when the Catholic church had a special status in the Constitution, when divorce was something even a democratically elected Parliament was not allowed to contemplate, when homosexuality was a crime, and when it was both legal and socially acceptable to pay different wages to men and women for the same work. They're just examples, but you know what I mean. If we've successfully tackled some of those rights issues in the past, logic suggests we can tackle more of them in the future.

Rome wasn't built in a day, or knocked down either (see what I did there?), and maybe it's just a case of the right timing and method. Culturally, Irish society is an oddball mix of the principled and the pragmatic. We've often seen how a good idea will stall for what seems like ages, but will then take hold and flourish because it's the right time and people go the right way about persuading society to adopt the change. For that reason, I'd say you're right that there IS reason to be optimistic - not necessarily because of this Government, but maybe just because the time is right.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Running a website under the name Boards.ie irks me. It doesn’t encompass all discussion boards in Ireland. Or all long flat pieces of wood in Ireland. This is a personal forum, not an arboreal one.

Not all long flat pieces of wood post here - but the coolest ones do.

MrPudding

Looks like the interim report is out. The NSS have a short article.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/irish-governments-advisory-group.html

Has anyone heard of rule 68? It can't be true, can it?

Rule68 wrote:

of all the parts of a school curriculum, Religious Instruction is by far the most important

MrP

Galvasean

Knowing how banjaxed Ireland's education system is it would not surprise me in the slightest...

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

"We" shouldn't be agreeing on anything which is why submitting anything under the name Atheist Ireland irks me. This is a secular issue not an atheist one.

Submissions have nothing to do with it. Anyone who thinks the government is drumming it's fingers waiting for advice [a] man ... supported by a handful of loyal followers, is deluding themselves. This is just a backhanded attempt at recruitment.

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

Looks like the interim report is out. The NSS have a short article.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/irish-governments-advisory-group.html

Has anyone heard of rule 68? It can't be true, can it?

MrP

Rule 68 is true, I was reading up on it last week after seeing it mentioned in an article.

Managed to find it. It was on the the journal.ie

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Has anyone heard of rule 68? It can't be true, can it?

While it's true, I haven't ever been able to find a copy of this frightful book. The closest I've been able to google is the following:

http://stjosephsclon.com/religion.html

Some Fascist in The Primary School Curriculum, 1999, Teachers&#8217 wrote: »

Of all the parts of a school curriculum, Religious Instruction is by far the most important. God’s honour and service, includes the proper use of all peoples faculties and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use.

Anybody else found anything more complete?

MagicMarker

It seems it was first published by the Dept of Education in the 'Rules for National Schools' in 1965, a copy can be found here. The quote is from the first paragraph in Chapter 9, Religious Instruction.

Interestingly enough, it also says the following...

(2) (a) No pupil shall receive, or be present at, any religious instruction of which his parents or guardian disapprove

Peregrinus

MagicMarker wrote: »

It seems it was first published by the Dept of Education in the 'Rules for National Schools' in 1965, a copy can be found here. The quote is from the first paragraph in Chapter 9, Religious Instruction.

It's much older than that. It goes back to at least the 1920s. Here's a link to a Google books page on a 1929 book called "The New Education in Europe" which quotes - with approval -almost identical language from a 1925-26 "Second National Programme" for education:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MmE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=%22of+all+the+parts+of+a+school+curriculum%22&source=bl&ots=ERN_-2GUNi&sig=I8utf9LlNcx7BA7EpTWa2z1WU7E&hl=en&ei=wIfTTsG7MOGTiQeF_NixDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22of%20all%20the%20parts%20of%20a%20school%20curriculum%22&f=false

It wouldn't amaze me to find that language of this kind went back to the days of the British administration. They understood, I think, that national education was a non-starter in Ireland unless they could keep the Catholic church on side.

Michael Nugent

MrPudding wrote: »

Looks like the interim report is out. The NSS have a short article.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/irish-governments-advisory-group.html

For clarity, that article is about a different consultation process - the forum on patronage and pluralism. It's easy to get confused as there are so many things happening at the same time since Ruairi Quinn became Minister.

The forum on patronage and pluralism recently published its interim report, and will publish its final report by the end of the year. Atheist Ireland has just sent our response to the interim report.

You can read more about it on this thread.

mambo

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is Atheist Ireland's submission to the Department of Education's discussion paper on a regulatory framework for school enrolment, submitted to the Department today.

Atheist Ireland submission to Department of Education on school enrolment

The minister is promising legislation on enrolment policies "this year":

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): "I intend to bring legislative proposals to Government this year, the primary aim of which will be to ensure that every child is treated fairly and that every child has a place at school" (20th Mar 2013)

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013032000062?opendocument