Bill for secular marriages passes in Senead, but it needs to be amended

Michael Nugent

Seanad Eireann yesterday passed a Bill enabling secular bodies to nominate people who can legally solemnize marriages. Currently only the State or a religious body can do this.

The Humanist Association of Ireland has for years nominated people who can conduct marriage ceremonies, but such marriages also have to be legally solemnized by the State.

The Bill could be a significant step forward for secularism in Ireland, but it has three important flaws that must be amended if it is to serve its intended purpose.

1. The definition of ‘secular body’ should be amended to define ‘secular’ objectively, and to include secular bodies that are not humanist;
2. Secular bodies and religious bodies should be treated equally in terms of restrictions when nominating people to solemnize marriages;
3. The restriction on secular bodies promoting political causes should be qualified to match the wording in the Charities Act 2009.

Please lobby your TDs immediately to let them know about the need for these important changes. It will be debated in the Dail very soon, and it may be inaccurately presented there as providing equality between religious and nonreligious bodies.

Further details on the amendments that are needed here:

Bill for secular marriages passes in Irish Senate, but it needs to be amended to treat all religious and secular bodies equally

Only the state should be able to as far as I'm concerned. Well, it should be a private matter between 2 people but that's not going to happen.

expectationlost

some links for context
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2012/05/02/00005.asp the seanad debate

most of criticism is oh where will it end with alien worshippers?

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/11/10/00006.asp

those for the bill talk of not ruling bodys out in law but michael thinks the bill rule bodys out

Register of Solemnisers http://www.groireland.ie/docs/Monthly-solemniser-report-5-November-2012.xls http://www.groireland.ie/getting_married.htm#section2

so what did ivana bacik say when you sent her this?

Peregrinus

OK, there’s actually two separate Bills involved here.

A Private Member’s Bill was introduced in 2011 by Ivana Bacik.

The Bacik Bill would have amended the Civil Registration Act to provide that celebrants could be nominated, not just by health authorities and by religious bodies, as is currently the case, but also by any body designated for the purpose by the Minister for Social Protection. There was no restriction at all on the Minister’s powers to designate bodies; under the Bill she could, if she wished, nominate the Institute of Chartered Accountants, say, or the Pro-Life Campaign, or (more realistically) a commercial wedding planning company. On the other hand, there was equally no obligation on her to nominate any body; she could choose never to exercise the power granted to her. It was a very short Bill; it contained no policy or guidance on how, or indeed if, the Minister’s power was to be exercised.

That’s poor drafting, and constitutionally questionable on "separation of powers" grounds, but that's not uncommon with Private Member’s Bills like this. The chances that a PM Bill will ever become law are pretty small. They are mainly introduced for the purpose of raising an issue for discussion, testing the waters for support, and putting pressure on the government of the day, and private members don't have the resources of the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office at their disposal. If the cards fall right, and circumstances combine happily, and the gods smile on the enterprise, and so forth, and it becomes apparent that there will be legislation, then the Bill can be amended and tightened up during its progress through the Oireachtas or (more usually) the Bill gets withdrawn, and the government prepares a more well-thought-out and more carefully drafted Bill to cover the same ground.

If you want to know the policy behind a PM Bill, therefore, you usually won’t get very far just by reading the Bill. (The Bacik Bill never mentions the words “secular” or “humanist” anywhere.) Instead, you read the second reading speech, made in the Oireachtas by the sponsor of the Bill in which he or she sets out the purpose of the Bill, and the steps the Bill takes to achieve that purpose.

And in Bacik’s second reading speech she made the policy objective very clear: “the key impact . . . will be to enable members of the Humanist Association of Ireland to be entitled to perform legal civil wedding ceremonies”. In her speech she mentions humanism or the Humanist Association numerous times; the words “secular” and “secularity” do not occur at all. In fact, as she made clear, her first intention when drafting the Bill had been simply to name the HAI as a body which could nominate celebrants, leaving no scope for any other body to be added by the Minister, and she says that she still sees this as an acceptable alternative.

The government’s response, delivered by Joan Burton, welcomed the Bill and approved of the policy in general terms, and referred to the good work of HAI in conducting funeral and wedding ceremonies “with great dignity, sensitivity and solemnity”, but noted that the Bill “does not yet contain criteria by which the Minister would designate a body”, and said that this would have to be addressed as the Bill proceeded through the Oireachtas.

It’s fairly clear, then, that the original policy was one of favouring humanism, and indeed of favouring the Humanist Association of Ireland in particular. And that probably explains why “humanism” turns up as a necessary qualification in the 2012 Bill which the government has now brought forward. That Bill aims to correct the looseness of the 2011 Bill, which established no criteria, guidance, policy or the like with regard to what kind of bodies might be designated, while at the same time preserving the object of the original sponsors, which was that the Humanist Association of Ireland could be designated.

Is there any justification for this obvious preference for the HAI? Well, possibly. They’re in this business already, and have been for some time. The state can recognise their ceremonies because they have ceremonies to recognise, and they have ceremonies to recognise because they see marriage as an event with a significance which goes beyond the purely legal significance, and which is worth engaging even without regard to the legal side of it. That puts them in an analogous situation to the churches. If there are any other secular bodies in that position, I’m not aware of them.

This is consistent with the broad legislative policy that underpins Irish marriage law, which is that Irish law doesn’t create marriage; it recognises marriage, which is an important social reality which precedes the state; the legal consequences of marriage flow from the social reality, not the other way around. And since that is the state’s attitude to marriage, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the state tends to look with favour on celebrants from bodies which share that attitude.

expectationlost

Senator Ivana Bacik today welcomed the introduction of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2012
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/13547901123725834.html

the bill http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2012/10512/b10512s.pdf

expectationlost

Senator Bacik If passed, it will allow for the registration of legal marriages by members of, for example, the Humanist Association of Ireland and of other philosophical and non-confessional bodies who may apply under the criteria we have provided for.

The fact that humanists and other non-religious bodies were excluded from the definition in the Act is clearly out of line with the current situation in Irish society

There is also a clear danger that if we were to name any one organisation in the Bill other organisations might claim discrimination and might launch constitutional challenges.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Atheist Ireland, which is included as one of the philosophical and non-confessional organisations under the European definition


There was also a further concern, that if a non-religious group which was not named but which identified itself as wishing to perform marriages in the future wished to apply and saw the Humanist Association of Ireland had been named, there was a danger it might challenge the Bill under the Constitution as being discriminatory. That concern, having discussed the matter with officials, others and, indeed, the humanists, weighed heavily enough on me and I felt the better of the two approaches we had identified on Second Stage was to go down the route of rigorous criteria.

blaa

Senator Cáit Keane: Naming an organisation would confine the legislation.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Bill should be there for others who may meet the criteria in the future.

expectationlost

seems to be a denial then that all marriage is a commericial activity, in a securing sense.

why would the state not want a commercial body doing it, apart from rash decisions, because it might be used for fraud which may cost them.

Peregrinus

I don't think the state objects, fundamentally, to a marriage celebrant operating commercially. The nominating bodies must be charities but there is no requirement that the celebrants should be, and there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a celebrant from charging fees for his services which would enable him to earn money from his work for his own benefit (as opposed to for the benefit of the designated body which appointed him).

At the same time, this is not about vindicating the rights of celebrants or would-be celebrants; it's about vindicating the rights of people who want to marry. There's a need for a wider range of non-religious celebrants than can be afforded simply by the health boards. The government obviously feels that this need can be met by designating nominating bodies which are "secular, ethical and humanist" (even though it's likely that only one such body will be nominated, at least in the first instance). The question of whether that's fair to bodies which are secular and ethical but not humanist is probably not one that bothers the government greatly. I think the way to attack the "humanist" requirement would be to point to prospective spouses who don't want a religious ceremony because they're not religious, but also don't want a humanist ceremony because they're not humanist.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the state objects, fundamentally, to a marriage celebrant operating commercially. The nominating bodies must be charities but there is no requirement that the celebrants should be, and there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a celebrant from charging fees for his services which would enable him to earn money from his work for his own benefit (as opposed to for the benefit of the designated body which appointed him).

Just on this point, there is a legal objection to this. It is in the principal Act that this Bill is amending, the Civil Registrations Act 2004.

55.—(1) An tArd-Chláraitheoir may cancel the registration of a person on the ground that— (c) the person— (ii) for the purpose of profit or gain has carried on a business of solemnising marriages,

That would apply equally to religious and secular solemnisers alike if this Bill was passed.

recedite

I don't object to the word "humanist" being stuck in there. The word is sufficiently vague that it would not preclude AI or any other thinking group from putting forward their own candidates as official marriage celebrants. Who isn't for the humans?
I actually think it's essential to include this keyword if TD's are to have any grasp of what is being proposed. Without some simplistic context, their eyes will simply glaze over and the bill will lose support and fail.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

I don't object to the word "humanist" being stuck in there. The word is sufficiently vague that it would not preclude AI or any other thinking group from putting forward their own candidates as official marriage celebrants. Who isn't for the humans?
I actually think it's essential to include this keyword if TD's are to have any grasp of what is being proposed. Without some simplistic context, their eyes will simply glaze over and the bill will lose support and fail.

i wouldn't have too much with a problem with 'and/or humanist' but the way wording is now just belies the fact that that it was written for group while half-pretending not to have been, ~bad law.

recedite

Its not bad law, its incremental change. Generally its better to tweak the law and then see how that works out, rather than completely overhaul it.
I'm inserting two quotes from Bacik here which seem to make clear that the proposal is not limited to just one organization, she even mentions Atheist Ireland by name;

Senator Ivana Bacik:There is also a clear danger that if we were to name any one organisation in the Bill other organisations might claim discrimination and might launch constitutional challenges. With all of these issues in mind we examined how best to draft or develop a set of criteria to cover the Humanist Association of Ireland and potentially cover other groups which may wish to apply in future, without being too broad because we are speaking about the very important function of the solemnisation of legal marriages. This is why in amendment No. 1 and those amendments grouped with it the new definition being provided for “body” means the “Executive”, which is the more correct summary of the HSE, “or a religious body or a philosophical and non-confessional body”. This definition is not plucked from the air but already has legal status under article 17 of the Lisbon treaty. It is used in the dialogue process between the European Commission, the Parliament and the Council and groups such as the Humanist Association through the European Humanist Federation and Atheist Ireland. The phrase “philosophical and non-confessional” already has status and this is important. Article 17 of the Lisbon treaty provides that the European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the member states and that it equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

Senator Ivana Bacik:On Second Stage it appeared as if there were two routes we could go down on Committee Stage. One route of amendment would be to name the Humanist Association of Ireland and another route would have been to set down a rigorous set of criteria. As I said, subsequent to the Second Stage debate, I received representations from other groups and individuals who said that they might wish to have authorisation to solemnise marriages in the future.
Senator Paschal Mooney: Could Senator Bacik name them?

Senator Ivana Bacik: Atheist Ireland, which is included as one of the philosophical and non-confessional organisations under the European definition. There are other groups which may not have applied yet but which potentially may do so in the future should they fit rigorous criteria. I certainly did not wish to close off that potential. I do not make any judgment about any group as to whether it might wish to apply in the future, because it is clearly not my place.
There was also a further concern, which I have already set out as a reason for the way in which the amendments are drafted, that if a non-religious group which was not named but which identified itself as wishing to perform marriages in the future wished to apply and saw the Humanist Association of Ireland had been named, there was a danger it might challenge the Bill under the Constitution as being discriminatory. That concern, having discussed the matter with officials, others and, indeed, the humanists, weighed heavily enough on me and I felt the better of the two approaches we had identified on Second Stage was to go down the route of rigorous criteria.
I think everyone is in agreement that these criteria are rigorous and it will be very difficult for non-religious bodies to apply for registration. That is right and proper as nobody wants to see it opened too widely.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2012/05/02/00005.asp

The phrase "philosophical and non-confessional" as a secular body puzzled me a bit at first, as there are many religious and indeed Christian denominations that don't have the sacrament of confession. But apparently it refers to the act of reciting a common creed, which I suppose is more of a generic religious activity.
Anyway, using the terminology that is already in use in EU treaties seems a smart move.

Michael Nugent

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, using the terminology that is already in use in EU treaties seems a smart move.

What you are quoting from there is the previous version of the Bill, which Ivana introduced last year.

It started off just naming the HAI [* see edit at end of this post], then Atheist Ireland suggested to Ivana, and she agreed, that she should use the EU terminology which was established and had legal status in the EU treaties.

The current version of the Bill, which is now a Government Bill, does not use the EU terminology that Ivana had in her version last year.

Instead it defines a secular body as a body whose principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist.

This is really just an old-style Irish solution to an Irish problem, in this case passing a law to benefit one body (or at best one type of body) while pretending that you are encompassing all secular bodies.

* Edit: The original version did not name the HAI. Ivana said in the Seanad that she had originally intended to just name the HAI, but she instead decided to use the phrase "or a body designated by the Minister".
.

recedite

She changed it to include the EU wording, and then changed it back again to just "secular and humanist"?
Does anyone have a link to the current bill? Presumably the current bill can also be amended when it goes before the Dail.

Michael Nugent

recedite wrote: »

She changed it to include the EU wording, and then changed it back again to just "secular and humanist"?

Ivana amended it to use the EU wording, then, after it was passed in the Seanad with that wording, the Government re-drafted it with input from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney-General, and it has now been brought back to the Seanad, and passed there, with the new wording.

recedite wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to the current bill?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2012/10512/b10512s.pdf

recedite wrote: »

Presumably the current bill can also be amended when it goes before the Dail.

That is what we are trying to make happen.

It goes back to the Dail on Thursday 20th December.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

She changed it to include the EU wording, and then changed it back again to just "secular and humanist"?

No. She sought to put "philosophical and non-confessional" into her Bill. Then, when the government brought forward its own bill, they included "secular, ethical and humanist".

Presumably the drafters of the current bill have some reason for preferring the "secular, ethical and humanist" wording. It might be a policy reason, or it might be a technical one. I'd be interested to know what the reason is - and we may find out, if someone puts down an amendment to insert the "philosophical and non-confessional" wording.

Interestingly, Bacik's amendment to introduce the concept of "philosophical and non-confessional body" would have defined the term. (The EU documents use the term but, so far as I know, never say what it means.) Under the Bacik definition, to be considered a "philosophical and non-confessional body" for the purpose of marriage celebration, an organisation would need to have a five-year track record of performing non-legally binding marriage ceremonies for couples who also had civil ceremonies before the registrar - in other words, you couldn't get licensed for recognised marriage ceremonies unless you were already in the business of unrecognised marriage ceremonies for couples who also got legally married. In reality, that would still just be the HAI, wouldn't it?.

recedite wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to the current bill? Presumably the current bill can also be amended when it goes before the Dail.

Oireachtas page for the current bill: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=22346&&CatID=59.

There's a link there to a PDF of the Bill as introduced. As the Bill progressed, this page will be updated with links to amendments, reports of debates, etc.

Yes, the Bill can be amended in the Dail. If that happens, it goes back the the Seanad for the Seanad to consider the amendments, so it can cause a bit of further delay. But as we've waited long enough for this Bill, waiting a bit longer in order to get it right is probably worth while.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. She sought to put "philosophical and non-confessional" into her Bill. Then, when the government brought forward its own bill, they included "secular, ethical and humanist".

It's very slightly different, but the effect is the same.

Ivana's bill at first stage gave the Minister the authority to designate nonreligious bodies. Ivana said in the Seanad that she had originally intended to just name the HAI, but she instead decided to use the phrase "or a body designated by the Minister".

During the Seanad debate, Ivana and a number of other Senators (John Gilroy, Jimmy Harte, Aideen Hayden, James Heffernan, Lorraine Higgins, John Kelly, Denis Landy, Marie Moloney, Mary Moran, Susan O’Keeffe, John Whelan) jointly proposed an amendment to use the EU wording.

That amendment was carried, and the bill was then passed in the Seanad using the EU wording.

The Government then re-drafted it with input from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney-General, and it has now been brought back to the Seanad, and passed there, with the new wording.

Peregrinus wrote: »

in other words, you couldn't get licensed for recognised marriage ceremonies unless you were already in the business of unrecognised marriage ceremonies for couples who also got legally married. In reality, that would still just be the HAI, wouldn't it?.

Yes, for the time being anyway.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, the Bill can be amended in the Dail. If that happens, it goes back the the Seanad for the Seanad to consider the amendments, so it can cause a bit of further delay. But as we've waited long enough for this Bill, waiting a bit longer in order to get it right is probably worth while.

I agree. It's far more important to get it right than to get it in a hurry.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interestingly, Bacik's amendment to introduce the concept of "philosophical and non-confessional body" would have defined the term. (The EU documents use the term but, so far as I know, never say what it means.) Under the Bacik definition, to be considered a "philosophical and non-confessional body" for the purpose of marriage celebration, an organisation would need to have a five-year track record of performing non-legally binding marriage ceremonies for couples who also had civil ceremonies before the registrar - in other words, you couldn't get licensed for recognised marriage ceremonies unless you were already in the business of unrecognised marriage ceremonies for couples who also got legally married. In reality, that would still just be the HAI, wouldn't it?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Yes, for the time being anyway.

Isn't there a likelihood, though, that the position would be effectively "fixed" by the passage of the legislation?

Suppose a Bill with the Bacik definition of "philosophical and non-confessional body" was passed, and the HAI immediately applied for, and obtained, designation as a body which could nominate civil celebrants.

Right. Any other body seeking to be designated has to spend five years organising and conducting non-binding wedding ceremonies for couples who then get civilly married by the registrar. But they can't do that unless they can find couples who want a non-religious ceremony which is not legally binding, even though they now have the option of a non-religious ceremony which is legally binding. Given that, as I understand, the HAI is very flexible about, and indeed committed to, accommodating the values and tastes of the couples they cater for, the number of couples who will turn down the HAI option in favour of a non-binding ceremony organised by someone else, plus a registrar's ceremony, may not be large enough to make it viable to complete the five-year, 20-couple requirement. Hence, it becomes difficult or impossible for any other body to qualify to be designated.

I agree, though, that there is value in not explicitly privileging humanism. Why should non-religious, non-humanist outlooks on life be discriminated against?

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

Isn't there a likelihood, though, that the position would be effectively "fixed" by the passage of the legislation?

Suppose a Bill with the Bacik definition of "philosophical and non-confessional body" was passed, and the HAI immediately applied for, and obtained, designation as a body which could nominate civil celebrants.

Right. Any other body seeking to be designated has to spend five years organising and conducting non-binding wedding ceremonies for couples who then get civilly married by the registrar. But they can't do that unless they can find couples who want a non-religious ceremony which is not legally binding, even though they now have the option of a non-religious ceremony which is legally binding. Given that, as I understand, the HAI is very flexible about, and indeed committed to, accommodating the values and tastes of the couples they cater for, the number of couples who will turn down the HAI option in favour of a non-binding ceremony organised by someone else, plus a registrar's ceremony, may not be large enough to make it viable to complete the five-year, 20-couple requirement. Hence, it becomes difficult or impossible for any other body to qualify to be designated.

They've actually changed that part as well from Ivana's original bill.

The new restriction is that the body has to have been in existence for five years, and has to have had tax exempt status with the Revenue Commissioners for five years.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree, though, that there is value in not explicitly privileging humanism. Why should non-religious, non-humanist outlooks on life be discriminated against?

I think that is the key point.

And I would be just as opposed to the definition requiring the secular bodies to be explicitly atheist.

Also, nonreligious bodies generally should not be put under stricter restrictions than religious bodies are.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree, though, that there is value in not explicitly privileging humanism. Why should non-religious, non-humanist outlooks on life be discriminated against?

I'm having trouble imagining what sort of organizations you mean here?
If its some sort of Nietzsche type philosophy you envisage, it may fall foul of other "public morality" provisions anyway, the secular body cannot be;
3. (2) (f) a body that promotes purposes that are—
(i) unlawful,
(ii) contrary to public morality,
(iii) contrary to public policy,

Or is it the association of chartered accountants you are thinking of?
In which case it would also have been excluded by the EU definition "philosophical and non-confessional".

Does anybody think Atheist Ireland would be excluded by the current (AG approved) definition "secular, ethical and humanist" ?
And if so, why?

Michael Nugent

recedite wrote: »

I'm having trouble imagining what sort of organizations you mean here?

Well, in principle, an organisation that was named The Irish Secular Society, and the principal objects of which included being explicitly neutral between all religious and nonreligious philosophies, including humanism, would not qualify as a secular body under this definition.

recedite wrote: »

Does anybody think Atheist Ireland would be excluded by the current (AG approved) definition "secular, ethical and humanist" ?
And if so, why?

The definition in the Bill is that the principal objects of the body must be secular, ethical and humanist. Atheist Ireland’s principal objects are promoting atheism, reason and ethical secularism.

Atheism is philosophically different than humanism, because atheism takes a position on whether or not gods exist. Humanism does not take a position on this, but merely gives priority to human matters.

Atheist Ireland deliberately did not include humanist in our principal objects, because one of the purposes of the of the organisation was to provide a space for people who self-identified as atheist but not as humanist.

recedite

But even if its not listed as a "principal" object, would you not say that AI is both secular and humanist?
Even though the Humanist Association of Ireland is not necessarily atheist.

Peregrinus

Humanism is a philosophical stance. Like most philosophical stances you can argue about the precise definition and the precise boundaries; that certainly doesn’t mean, though, that the word “humanism” is content-free. Broadly speaking, humanism describes a philosophy which take humans, or humanity, as a central concern, which is predominantly concerned with human interests and welfare, which stressed the inherent value and potential of human life. People can hold a humanist position out of religious conviction, although these days the term is likely to be claimed most often by unbelievers.

But, of course, there may be unbelievers who do not claim the term. Somebody might reject the label, for example, if they saw it as claiming a special transcendent significance for humanity, rather than seeing it simply as one strand of the enormous diversity of the evolved universe. Or a Green might reject the term. And an organisation like Atheist Ireland, seeking to be open to unbelievers whether humanist or not, might reject the term as a label for itself.

The point is, it does mean something. In the context of the Civil Registration Bill (as with all legislation) there is a presumption that every word is there for a reason, and has an effect. the set of “secular, ethical and humanist” organisations is a subset of the set of “secular and ethical” organisations; the requirement for humanism is a restrictive qualification.

If we try to interpret “humanist” to mean something like ‘”not explicitly anti-humanist” we rapidly run into problems. Because, if that’s what humanist means, then “secular” can mean “not positively religious”, and “ethical” means “not actually wicked”. In which case, the (say) Institute of Chartered Accountants is secular, ethical and humanist, and can be designated as a nominating body, which is probably not the parliamentary intention in adopting the “secular, ethical and humanist” test. I think the “secular” requirement means that a body has to be actively secular; secularity is one of the reasons for its existence. The “ethical” requirement means that the body must be actively concerned with personal and/or social behaviour, advocating for particular behaviours or particular principles of behaviour. And the “humanist” requirement means that the body must espouse a philosophy which can meaningfully be called humanist.

In practice, if this Bill passes it will be up to the Registrar General to decide whether any body wanting to nominate celebrants is “secular, ethical and humanist”, and he can ask the body for whatever information he wants to satisfy him on that question. If the body is dissatisfied with his determination, they can appeal it to the Circuit Court. Note that the Minister has no role in any of this, which means that she can’t give any assurance about what the “humanist” requirement will or will oes not require. Unless the Bill is amended to specify this in more detail (or to drop the requirement) we won’t know how this will play out in practice until it plays out in practice.

expectationlost

typical a underdog lobby group finally gets some traction and pulls the ladder up behind them

recedite

My interpretation of "humanist" is of someone advocating humane behaviour towards others. Not necessarily someone who gives the human species some special and mystical transcendental significance.
For example, if you check humanist literature/websites you find they are active in promoting animal welfare and animal rights.

Now the Chartered Accountants could fairly claim to be both secular and ethical in the sense that they are open to members of any or no religions, and they do not condone dishonest accountancy practices or tax evasion.
But they would not be able to demonstrate any active humanist policies.
Atheist Ireland would I think be able to claim the third qualification, having campaigned for imprisoned persons and for fairer laws in general for society.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

My interpretation of "humanist" is of someone advocating humane behaviour towards others.

Well, no offence, but that’s not a common interpretation of “humanist”. FWIW, none of the dictionaries I look at back you up. If you want the legislation to be interpreted in line with your own understanding, at the very least you’d want a definition of “humanist”, reflecting your understanding, to be included in the legislation. Or, more simply, you might want the word “humanist” to be replaced with the word “humane”.

recedite wrote: »

For example, if you check humanist literature/websites you find they are active in promoting animal welfare and animal rights.

Yes, humanists are generally humane. But, plainly, not everyone who is humane is a humanist in the philosophical sense.

Put it this way. You’ve got the British Humane Association, and the British Humanist Association. Both decent, worthy and long-established organizations. But they have different roles and objectives, and I think would both be a bit miffed at the suggestion that, philosophically, they were basically indistinguishable.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, humanists are generally humane. But, plainly, not everyone who is humane is a humanist in the philosophical sense.

That is because most of those who are both humane and religious would claim that their humanitarian behaviour derives from a divine imperative, not from within themselves, as humans.

Lets just say we divided atheists into two sets, "humane" and "not specifically humane".
The former might contain such creatures as ethical atheists, humanists, atheists+ etc..
The latter might contain nihilists.
One set would presumably comply with the requirement to uphold "public morality" (whatever that is) the other might not. I think this is what they are trying to get at with the proposed legislation. They may be using the slightly slippery word "humanist" to label all the ethical group, rightly or wrongly.
However if AI wanted to perform marriage ceremonies, they could just choose to write the words "secular and humanist" as a descriptive term for their activities, on the application form. While they may feel that this is demeaning and unnecessary in some way, that may be a pedantic view that only draws them into fighting an unnecessary battle.

expectationlost

they think its nessecary, which is why they/he wrote this, otherwise they wouldn't have

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012121200013?opendocument#Civil%20Registration%20%28Amendment%29%20Bill%202012%20[Seanad]:%20Leave%20to%20Withdraw

Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2012 [Seanad]: Leave to Withdraw

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I move:

That, not withstanding anything in Standing Order 124, leave be granted to withdraw the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2011 [Seanad]

Question put and agreed to.

because they were busy with the social welfare bill?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That is because most of those who are both humane and religious would claim that their humanitarian behaviour derives from a divine imperative, not from within themselves, as humans.

Lets just say we divided atheists into two sets, "humane" and "not specifically humane".
The former might contain such creatures as ethical atheists, humanists, atheists+ etc..
The latter might contain nihilists.
One set would presumably comply with the requirement to uphold "public morality" (whatever that is) the other might not. I think this is what they are trying to get at with the proposed legislation. They may be using the slightly slippery word "humanist" to label all the ethical group, rightly or wrongly.
However if AI wanted to perform marriage ceremonies, they could just choose to write the words "secular and humanist" as a descriptive term for their activities, on the application form. While they may feel that this is demeaning and unnecessary in some way, that may be a pedantic view that only draws them into fighting an unnecessary battle.

Um. I still think you’re treating “humanist” and “humane” as meaning the same thing, when they don’t.

And I think you’re making the further error of treating “humanist” and “ethical” as meaning the same thing which, again, they don’t. The Bill clearly doesn’t use the word “humanist” to label all the ethical groups; it explicitly uses the word “ethical” for that purpose.

Humanism is a distinctive philosophical stance which has ethical implications. It can be bracketed along with a host of other philosophical stances which have ethical implications - egoism, feminism, stoicism, secularism, liberalism, utilitarianism, objectivism; the list is lengthy, and of course it also includes religious/theistic philosophical stances which have ethical implications. And, of course, a person or a group can be drawn to or influenced by more than one of these philosophies at the same time. But its untrue, and arguably disrespectful of humanists, to say that, basically, anyone who’s a nice guy is a humanist. He may not be.

So why does the legislation specify “humanist” as a characteristic that a marriage-celebrant-nominating secular body must have? I suspect there’s two reasons. First, the primary driver of the legislation is the desire to accommodate the Humanist Association of Ireland, who have lobbied for this legislation, and who have demonstrated a demand for the marriage-celebrating service that they provide. Secondly, internationally, it pretty much is only humanist organizations who are committed to and involved in this particular work (apart from religious bodies, natch). It’s not clear that there’s any demonstrated need to legislation for non-humanist marriage-celebrating secular bodies, when there is no evidence either that there are any such bodies seeking to be licensed, or any couples seeking to be married by such bodies.

You could reasonably ask why there need to be nominating bodies for civil celebrants at all. Other countries have civil celebration arrangements in which individuals apply to be licensed as civil celebrants by the state authorities. They don’t need any connection with any voluntary or community body; they just need to satisfy whatever indivdual tests of character, competence and training the state requires for licensing. I don’t know whether that route has been considered in Ireland.

expectationlost

5A(1) For the purposes of this Part, a body shall… be a secular body if it is an organized group of people and
(a) has not fewer than 50 members;
(b) its principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist;
(c) members of the body meet in relation to their beliefs and in furtherance of the objects referred to in Section (b);
(d)-(h)

its principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist;

why does humanist need to be there? if secular is there already? isn't humanist a subset of secularist?

to me thats specifiying humanist.

the secular body is supposed to be ethical and philosophical is that not enough?

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

its principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist;
why does humanist need to be there? if secular is there already?

The accountants could describe their principal object (accountancy) as both secular and ethical. Who wants to be married by an accountant?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I still think you’re treating “humanist” and “humane” as meaning the same thing, when they don’t.
And I think you’re making the further error of treating “humanist” and “ethical” as meaning the same thing which, again, they don’t.

IMO a humanist is, in theory, ethical but not a theist. In practice, they seem to enjoy some of the trappings of religion, more so than a bog standard atheist anyway.
What do you think humanist means? ("A distinctive philosophical stance which has ethical implications" is a bit vague)

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could reasonably ask why there need to be nominating bodies for civil celebrants at all. Other countries have civil celebration arrangements in which individuals apply to be licensed as civil celebrants by the state authorities.

That seems a very sensible idea. I suspect the State found it easier to just delegate the job to religious personnel in the distant past, who then passed on the details to the civil registry. And then in more recent times, civil servants started perfoming the ceremonies directly, in the registry offices.

If they licensed individuals, those people might fall foul of this regulation;

55.—(1) An tArd-Chláraitheoir may cancel the registration of a person on the ground that— (c) the person— (ii) for the purpose of profit or gain has carried on a business of solemnising marriages,

Which is itself a sanctimonious nonsense, because if you stopped the civil servant's salary, or the clergyman's stipend, they would most likely cease performing the marriage ceremonies fairly quickly.

The humanists are already performing marriage ceremonies in Ireland; its just that these weddings have no legal standing. Anyone know how much they charge currently, or is it a brown envelope job? Presumably the price will go up with full legal recognition.
I have no objection to people being paid adequately for their time and efforts BTW