Section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 - School Discrimination Rant

oldrnwisr

Eugene Norman wrote: »

i did. It clearly says what it says. I know this forum is one of the least intellectual on boards but surely people can be expected to have a simple level of comprehension unaffected by personal ideology.

I myself would agree with secular education. This ECHR text is not that. If it were that it would say the State should be neutral in religion, and it doesn't.

Actually what Article 2 of Protocol 1 states is that where the State is involved in the provision of education then it has a responsibility to provide religious education. However, this is not what is being provided in the overwhelming majority (~92%) of Irish primary schools.

There is an important difference between religious education which conforms to parents beliefs e.g.

"Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again."

versus what is actually taught in Catholic primary schools namely:

"Jesus died on the cross and rose again".

Explaining the tenets of a religion correctly is religious education. Teaching a particular religion as if it were true is indoctrination and is specifically prohibited by Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. As was recently pointed out to Ireland by the UN a state cannot use its responsibilities under one article to abrogate its duties under another.

We have seen from previous threads on this topic that teachers in Catholic schools are expected to teach the Bible as if it were fact:

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not that bothered by integration of religion. As you've said it's done with most subjects. However, I think that integration is secondary to the real problem which is how these stories are presented to the children. I'd be interested to know how these stories (Noah etc.) are presented to the children (i.e. is it told as a nice story or as a historical fact?) and how this changes from Junior Infants to 6th class. I mean if darealtulip's experience is anything to go by then it's how the content is presented to the children that is in need of fixing first. If the stories are presented as just stories, then integration shouldn't be something to be concerned about.

The stories would be presented as fact to be honest - if you are teaching in a Catholic school you're obviously expected to keep with their ethos. For example, next week I'll be teaching St Patrick in a history lesson. Now, there's evidence for him so I don't mind that, and to be honest it's just to cover a history lesson in something and keep my college happy, but in religion lessons I would be expected to treat the Bible as fact by the school.

Furthermore, the ECHR has previously ruled against Turkey where the state allowed its compulsory religious education to contain information which conflicted with the religious beliefs of a particular group (the Alevi people). Note that it is not the provision of religious education itself or its compulsory nature which is at issue but rather the way in which it is taught. This is the problem which we have in Ireland.

Chamber judgment Mansur Yalcin and Others v. Turkey religious education in schools

Eugene Norman

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Actually what Article 2 of Protocol 1 states is that where the State is involved in the provision of education then it has a responsibility to provide religious education. However, this is not what is being provided in the overwhelming majority (~92%) of Irish primary schools.

There is an important difference between religious education which conforms to parents beliefs e.g.

"Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again."

versus what is actually taught in Catholic primary schools namely:

"Jesus died on the cross and rose again".

Explaining the tenets of a religion correctly is religious education. Teaching a particular religion as if it were true is indoctrination and is specifically prohibited by Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. As was recently pointed out to Ireland by the UN a state cannot use its responsibilities under one article to abrogate its duties under another.

We have seen from previous threads on this topic that teachers in Catholic schools are expected to teach the Bible as if it were fact:



Furthermore, the ECHR has previously ruled against Turkey where the state allowed its compulsory religious education to contain information which conflicted with the religious beliefs of a particular group (the Alevi people). Note that it is not the provision of religious education itself or its compulsory nature which is at issue but rather the way in which it is taught. This is the problem which we have in Ireland.

Chamber judgment Mansur Yalcin and Others v. Turkey religious education in schools

But that is just one ruling. In the Polish case the atheist was deemed not discriminated against because of the voluntary nature of the religious instruction which is true of Ireland. Presumably Turkey's religious instruction was compulsory and therefore there is a contravention.

btw to the guy who said I have an agenda, not really -- would prefer secular schooling, but I was answering Brian S and others who think Europe has the kind of discrimination laws on religious schooling and secularism. I agree that this doesn't necessarily mandate religious instruction, but it most certainly doesn't ban it. Not as long as it is voluntary.

In fact when the UK wrote the ECHR into their laws ( which makes it a constitutional law -- for now anyway) they changed the protocol as written into British law to make exemptions in terms of cost and to safeguard essential curriculum, presumably to stop creationism.

In Lautsi v Italy the court ruled that Italian school crucifixes didn't violate the protocol.
So I doubt if Europe is going to help with secularisation of Irish schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

oldrnwisr

Eugene Norman wrote: »

But that is just one ruling. In the Polish case the atheist was deemed not discriminated against because of the voluntary nature of the religious instruction which is true of Ireland. Presumably Turkey's religious instruction was compulsory and therefore there is a contravention.

btw to the guy who said I have an agenda, not really -- would prefer secular schooling, but I was answering Brian S and others who think Europe has the kind of discrimination laws on religious schooling and secularism. I agree that this doesn't necessarily mandate religious instruction, but it most certainly doesn't ban it. Not as long as it is voluntary.

In fact when the UK wrote the ECHR into their laws ( which makes it a constitutional law -- for now anyway) they changed the protocol as written into British law to make exemptions in terms of cost and to safeguard essential curriculum, presumably to stop creationism.

In Lautsi v Italy the court ruled that Italian school crucifixes didn't violate the protocol.
So I doubt if Europe is going to help with secularisation of Irish schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

The Polish case, as you pointed out about the Turkish one, is just one ruling. How you determine its of more relevance to the Irish situation than the Turkish one is confusing. After all, as I pointed out in my last post, it was determined in the Turkish case that it was not whether the classes were compulsory or voluntary that was at issue but rather the content of the classes and how this content violated article 9.

Since you mention the Polish case, it isn't relevant to the Irish situation. The Polish case argued that by not getting a mark for this voluntary course that the student's rights would be violated by revealing his lack of beliefs, thus violating Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9. However, the Court found that since both the religion and ethics classes were optional that students could choose to opt out for any reason. Therefore, the lack of a mark on school reports constituted neutral information with regard to religion.

The Irish context is different for a number of reasons.

Firstly, since the Irish religious education classes require an opt-out by non-religious parents, this requires parents to make a declaration about their religious beliefs in contravention of Article 14 & 9 above.

Secondly, since this information can also be used under Irish law to refuse the child a place in school under Section 7 of the Equal Status Act, this also constitutes a violation of Article 14.

Thirdly, in some cases, the opt-out nature of the classes has caused parents in some schools to have to make alternative arrangements for their children. This constitutes an abrogation of the State's duty under Article 2 (The extent to which this occurs though is unknown).

Finally, the Court has in other cases (e.g. }"]Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark 1976) stated that where religious education is provided that it should not violate the prohibition on indoctrination. Given that the religious classes in Irish primary schools present Christianity and more specifically Roman Catholicism as true, this violates article 9 of the Convention.

The state could solve a lot of problems by designing a curriculum for state-funded schools which teaches children about religion without telling them that a particular one is true.

Hotblack Desiato

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Where a polish atheist student was not deemed discriminated against when he was not marked in final reports for the voluntary religion/ethics class that he skipped. He argued this would reveal his atheism to future employers, and that would reveal his religion violating section 9 ( freedom of religion ) and also violate the protocol above. The court disagreed because of the voluntary nature of the class.

Irrelevant as oldrnwisr pointed out, he could have chosen to skip this optional class for any reason not just atheism (JWs usually seek to have their children excluded from RC/CoI religious instruction, I understand, and that's not due to a lack of belief on their part!)
and how anyone could expect to be given a grade for an exam and class they didn't attend beats me.

Which doesn't bode well for irish secularism as religion is not an exam subject.

Non-sequitur, especially as it is an exam subject in Ireland!

robindch wrote: »

And in return, and with becoming decorum, I refer you to the same article whose very existence implies that the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities of Irish citizens and organizations with respect to EU institutions rather than the other way around.

#checkmate

Hmm so because the constitution is the supreme arbiter, it can say that any part of it can be overriden by another document, and that's only possible because the constitution is the supreme arbiter in the first place
*strokes chin* Jesuit-educated, by any chance?

I'm reminded of 'I am NOT the messiah!' 'Only the true messiah would deny his divinity!' 'What?? All right then, I am the messiah!' 'HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!'

[place 'that's the joke' picture here]

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmm so because the constitution is the supreme arbiter, it can say that any part of it can be overriden by another document, and that's only possible because the constitution is the supreme arbiter in the first place

Close, but no cigar. The article you quoted asserts (blandly, and badly as far as I'm concerned), that law, properly-enacted law in the EU and other institutions, will have the "force of law" within the state - effectively equating EU law with Irish law. However, law is subservient to the Constitution, so the Constitution remains the ultimate arbiter of the rights and responsibilities of Irish citizens. But it doesn't define law, but just the framework within which law can be enacted.

The distinction might sound jesuitical, but that's the way it works - the Constitution is short, relatively simple and defines rights, roles and responsibilities and is hard to change. The law is long and complex and enacts and encodes the concrete implementation of rights, roles and responsibilities, but it's relatively easy to change.

Going back to the original post:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] EU rules, which under Irish constitutional law supercedes the constitution.

EU "rules" (by which Brian probably means "laws") are equivalent to laws enacted in Ireland, but they do not "supercede the constitution", but rather permitted by it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

*strokes chin* Jesuit-educated, by any chance?

Benedictine as it happens, but I take the point

SpaceTime

As per usual, it'll only change when at some stage in the future we face an excruciatingly embarrassing court case in the ECHR or something similar.

In the meantime there are bishops rings to be kissed!

Zamboni

Regardless of your views of HAI, I would kindly request that you share this poster on your social media pages.
http://humanism.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HAI-Baptism-Campaign_Poster_SocialMedia.jpg

Also, ET criticise the bill here.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/draft-admissions-bill

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/school-admissions-bill-does-nothing-to-offer-alternatives-to-church-schools-670939.html

silverharp

Zamboni wrote: »

Regardless of your views of HAI, I would kindly request that you share this poster on your social media pages.
http://humanism.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HAI-Baptism-Campaign_Poster_SocialMedia.jpg

Also, ET criticise the bill here.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/draft-admissions-bill

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/school-admissions-bill-does-nothing-to-offer-alternatives-to-church-schools-670939.html

The article describes the ET schools as non denominational but the ET website says multi denominational, are the terms interchangeable?

kylith

silverharp wrote: »

The article describes the ET schools as non denominational but the ET website says multi denominational, are the terms interchangeable?

Technically, no, but they are used as such. Generally people use non-denominational to mean 'no particular denomination'.

Zamboni

silverharp wrote: »

The article describes the ET schools as non denominational but the ET website says multi denominational, are the terms interchangeable?

You could email the journalist.

lazygal

There are no non denominational state funded schools in Ireland. While I was and am in favour of some aspects of the educate together model I also feel by including faith based celebration in its curriculum it skirts a fine line between indoctrination and education on the learn together programme. It also is assumed that everyone who doesn't baptise their.children want an educate together school place which simply it not the case. I prefer aspects of our local Catholic school.

ScumLord

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's the worst thing to do as it perpetuates the unjust status quo, reduces the demand for change, and makes life more difficult for those who actually have principles and aren't willing to shrug their shoulders and say 'shure it'll do'.

But so typically Irish.

The fact is this isn't going to change anytime soon, the only reason we're progressing now is because the religious fundamentalists that are unable to change or question their religion are dying out. I think we have to go through another generation before we can expect any real change, our politicians won't upset religious voters so there won't be any change until people stop saying their Catholics.


So in the mean time take advantage of the religious nature of the system. A parents only duty is to their child's upbringing, if you have to lie to get the services you need, then lie. I wouldn't hold up my childs education for my own principles. It's not like the religion will stick.

expectationlost

Draft Admissions Bill Highlights the Need for National Network of Educate Together Schools http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/draft-admissions-bill

no it highlights need to for state non denominational schools.

expectationlost

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The equality agency is subject to law. They lost a case recently.

I personally think that equality agencies existing in capitalist societies is a bit of a joke. Private schools still exist do they not? Why is that not the big issue.

Can't get too excited about religious denominated schools along with secular and other schools.

most of our schools are private

expectationlost

Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015 http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28712&&CatID=59

Bill entitled an Act to make provision, in the interests of the common good, that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds, and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may issue a direction to a board of management in relation to the admission of students to a school and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may appoint an independent person to comply with such direction, and to provide that in certain circumstances the National Council for Special Education or the Child and Family Agency may designate a school or centre for education which a child is to attend, and for those and other purposes to amend the Education Act 1998 , the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, and to provide for related matters