Atheist Ireland Submission to Council of Europe on Protection of National Minorities

Michael Nugent

Atheist Ireland has made a written submission to the the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee for the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM).

This is a follow-up to our meeting with this group in February when they were in Dublin monitoring Ireland’s record in protecting human rights.

You can read the full submission here.

Submission by Atheist Ireland to FCNM, March 2012

beerbuddy

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland has made a written submission to the the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee for the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM).

This is a follow-up to our meeting with this group in February when they were in Dublin monitoring Ireland’s record in protecting human rights.

You can read the full submission here.

Submission by Atheist Ireland to FCNM, March 2012

Sorry Michael are you calling Athiests now a National Minority ?

Gregor Samsa

beerbuddy wrote: »

Sorry Michael are you calling Athiests now a National Minority ?

Well, they're certainly not a majority.

MrPudding

phutyle wrote: »

Well, they're certainly not a majority.

Hmmm, help me out here. If they are not a majority then what does that make them...?

MrP

Gregor Samsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, help me out here. If they are not a majority then what does that make them...?

MrP

That was exactly the point I was making.

I think when people hear the term "minority", they automatically think of ethnicity. But clearly atheists are a legitimate minority in terms of religious belief (and no, I'm not saying atheism is a religion). And as the submission spells out, atheists suffer a degree of discrimination under the Constitution, laws and practices of the country.

Michael Nugent

The Framework Convention deliberately contains no definition of the notion of “national minority”.

The Council of Europe decided to adopt a pragmatic approach, based on the recognition that it was impossible to arrive at a definition that everyone would support.

However, the Convention aims to ensure equality without discrimination based on various elements of personal identity, including religion.

We are focusing on the religious element of those protections, from the perspective of non-religious people.

In practice, the protection of identity-based human rights involves quite a lot of overlap of ethnic, gender, religious, cultural and other elements.

qrrgprgua

beerbuddy wrote: »

Sorry Michael are you calling Athiests now a National Minority ?

Look at the 2011 census figures and draw the conclusion... Its there in black and white.

Lucy8080

rights for nationals to be athiest, catholic or whatever ,without infringment of personal liberties.

but lets stay away from the minority nonsense....all of a sudden mrs. murphy next door is suppressing me because ive changed my beliefs....

thats how it reads to the layman.

i would guess most of the majority religion in this country are in favour of equality of esteem.

and i would also guess that the high percentage on the census claiming to be catholic, is because on this island its associated with being deprived parity of esteem....and little to do with allegiance to the vatican....i think its allegiance to our past and our reach for equality for all.

and athiests might find common cause in those sentiments...if they stop mocking it on the basis of religion.

MrPudding

phutyle wrote: »

That was exactly the point I was making.

I think when people hear the term "minority", they automatically think of ethnicity. But clearly atheists are a legitimate minority in terms of religious belief (and no, I'm not saying atheism is a religion). And as the submission spells out, atheists suffer a degree of discrimination under the Constitution, laws and practices of the country.

Ummm, I was kind of backing up your point... Sorry, I can't find the sarcasm smiley.

MrP

Lucy8080

^^^^^^^^^^^^

yup. mr . p. was backing up your post. thats how it read to me anyhows.

no smilies needed .

Gregor Samsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Ummm, I was kind of backing up your point... Sorry, I can't find the sarcasm smiley.

MrP

Sorry MrP, I took your sarcastic response to my sarcastic post, and use the mathematics of the multiplication of negatives to come up with the wrong answer, where I should have used simple addition to clearly see you were backing me up. I live and learn.

I'm not being sarcastic. Seriously. Dammit, now I sound really sarcastic...

Beruthiel

We need to bring back Whitewashman's sarcastic smiley in order to prevent further confusion.

Sarky

While you're at it get the viking one back too. Rock&Metal just isn't the same without it

TheChizler

A very interesting submission, is it likely that anything could come from Council of Europe influences? I'm not incredibly familiar with the Council of Europe, but I know they have agreements with their EU counterparts to cooperate in the enforcement of human rights.
It seems like article 40.1 is the key to unlocking equality in our education system. Change that and all others follow.

Lucy8080

why do we need europe on this issue ..thats more interesting to me.

the key to unlocking this issue is us. why are we outsourcing it to brussels or berlin?

can we not talk/listen to each other anymore?

article 40.1......

....is that what we have come to?

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

why do we need europe on this issue ..thats more interesting to me.

Europe has an underlying principle of non-discrimination. Ireland has an underlying principle of discrimination.

MrP

The outlaw

I don't think I can thank you enough Michael and your colleagues for how much effort you have clearly put into this submission -this silly blasphemy 'law' in particular has caused us so much international embarrassment that I really can't see myself living in Ireland again until we are no longer such a backward country. The previous government should be ashamed of themselves.

Lucy8080

mr. p.

i dont think we have an underlying principle of discrimination. despite the thanks ya got.

we have a culture that tried address descrimination ...and maybe the way we adressed it in the past is not suitable to todays reality.

i trust our reach for that equality still, more than europes. i believe in the spirit of it.



europe is having a lot of diffuculties right now living up to their laws on nondescrimination...

i think on this island we have the willingness and charity towards each other and new nationals to do it better than europe ....and without the hypocrisy they have tied themselves up in.

new irish or old we can accomodate....europe is struggling to do so.

lets do it our way. lets trust oursleves and each other.

Dades

^^ We have an *Equality Act* that outlines how you can discriminate.

Zamboni

Dades wrote: »

^^ We have an *Equality Act* that outlines how you can discriminate.

The pure irony of this fact does not grow old.

joseph brand

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr. p.

i dont think we have an underlying principle of discrimination. despite the thanks ya got.

we have a culture that tried address descrimination ...and maybe the way we adressed it in the past is not suitable to todays reality.

i trust our reach for that equality still, more than europes. i believe in the spirit of it.



europe is having a lot of diffuculties right now living up to their laws on nondescrimination...

i think on this island we have the willingness and charity towards each other and new nationals to do it better than europe ....and without the hypocrisy they have tied themselves up in.

new irish or old we can accomodate....europe is struggling to do so.

lets do it our way. lets trust oursleves and each other.

Zamboni

joseph brand wrote: »

Put on ignore list. I've never made any sense of any of her posts.

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr. p.

i dont think we have an underlying principle of discrimination. despite the thanks ya got.

we have a culture that tried address descrimination ...and maybe the way we adressed it in the past is not suitable to todays reality.

This is just plain wrong. As Dade has helpfully pointed out, the Equality Act lays out the circumstances where persons or organisations are allowed, by law, to discriminate.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

i trust our reach for that equality still, more than europes. i believe in the spirit of it.

Well, you trust is misplaced.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

europe is having a lot of diffuculties right now living up to their laws on nondescrimination...

The only reason “Europe”, and by this I mean the organs of Europe like the courts, are having trouble is because the individual states, like Ireland, do not have an underlying principle of non-discrimination and therefore conflict is frequent.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

i think on this island we have the willingness and charity towards each other and new nationals to do it better than europe ....and without the hypocrisy they have tied themselves up in.

No we don’t. New nationals are accepted, generally, because of regulations put in place by Europe. The European court is full of cases of people challenging states under free movement of persons regulations. This is not just Ireland, but all states.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

new irish or old we can accomodate....europe is struggling to do so.

lets do it our way. lets trust oursleves and each other.

But for the most part we are fighting them…

MrP

Lucy8080

o.k.

so, we have no recourse to irish law or constitutional rights to solve these issues. is that what is being said here?

if that is the truth im with you.

if it is not.....why do we need europe?

Galvasean

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.

so, we have no recourse to irish law or constitutional rights to solve these issues. is that what is being said here?

if that is the truth im with you.

if it is not.....why do we need europe?

Considering indigenous campaigns have been largely ignored, I would say yes, asking Europe for help appears to be a more viable way forward.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.

so, we have no recourse to irish law or constitutional rights to solve these issues. is that what is being said here?

if that is the truth im with you.

if it is not.....why do we need europe?

It’s not that we ‘need’ Europe. It is that we are part of Europe. Also, we have signed up to various international human rights treaties.

In principle, we have recourse to Irish law, Irish constitutional rights, EU law, and the rights enshrined in treaties to which we have signed up.

In practice, some our Irish laws do not protect our rights under some of the other instruments, so we raise the issues wherever it is most appropriate in order to be able to vindicate our rights.

Lucy8080

thx for ur replies sean and michael.

sean , if frustration is the issue, rather than entitlements under law, i would imagine we can address that issue on our own terms.

michael,

as you have conceded we dont need europe....who invited the human rights inspectors in?

Lucy8080

been a while since ive last posted...not too long....in that time the british are being embarrassed by the european court system and france is giving nearly a twenty percent vote to the right wing.


lets have a think about how we concede authority....even when we admit there is no need for it.

we dont need a rise of right wingers ...or internal frustration that will arise by people claiming they are oppressed minorities ...people who invite human rights inspectors in to this country , will open up a can of worms . every group who want to take your lead., will do so at the expense of the greater good.

if our laws and statutes protect ur interests ...use them....go outside....and we will be used.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

michael,

as you have conceded we dont need europe....who invited the human rights inspectors in?

What I wrote was:

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It’s not that we ‘need’ Europe. It is that we are part of Europe.

The point I was making was that Europe is not somewhere "out there" external to us, that 'we' are 'inviting in' or 'going over to'. We are part of Europe.

So the answer to your question is nobody "invited them in". We and they are part of the same entity.

More accurately, we are part of the same entities and institutions - in this case the relevant institution is the Council of Europe and we along with other States have signed up to the relevant Convention.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

if our laws and statutes protect ur interests ...use them....go outside....and we will be used.

We're not going outside. We are part of Europe.

And the European parts of our laws are better able to protect our interests than are the domestic parts of our laws.

Lucy8080

michael,

are you saying that europe protects ur rights more than our constitution and laws?

if thats the case ... we have a problem of impotency.

if it is not....we are imposing impotency on ourselves little by little.