Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

Michael Nugent · 12-05-2012 01:47AM #1

On 3rd May, Atheist Ireland attended a consultation at the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Draft Irish State Report to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.

We have also made a written submission that Government Departments will consider as the State prepares its final report, and we will later make a Submission directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Ireland is due up before the UN Human Rights Committee at the end of the year and, under Article 40 of the Covenant, has undertaken to submit State Reports every few years. At the meeting later this year, the Committee will examine how Ireland has made progress in implementing the concerns of the UN in 2008.

In their Concluding Observations in 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concern about the human rights of secular parents in the Irish education system. They stated that denominational schools were private and had adopted a religious integrated curriculum which denied parents access to a secular education for their children.

They also raised the issue of the requirement of judges to take a religious oath. The human rights that the UN referred to were the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

At the consultation on the 3rd of May, Atheist Ireland raised the issues of the Irish Education system and the failure of the State to protect Covenant rights. In particular we raised the issue of recent Report from the Ombudsman for Children. We pointed out that the Ombudsman’s Report shows clearly that the regulatory framework has failed to protect the human rights of parents and children under the Covenant. We also raised the issue of Blasphemy and the requirement to take Religious oaths under the Constitution.

Here is the full written submission that we have made to the Government on the draft State report:

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

Lucy8080 · 12-05-2012 02:43AM

well, thank odin for the u.n. and atheist ireland.

as long as we are not outsourcing authority and responsibility for ourselves....who could see a problem with the above.

MrPudding · 12-05-2012 10:50AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

well, thank odin for the u.n. and atheist ireland.

as long as we are not outsourcing authority and responsibility for ourselves....who could see a problem with the above.

This has been explained to you before, and you have clearly ignored it.

Whether you like it or not, Ireland has signed a number of treaties. Those treaties require Ireland to do certain things. Ireland has not done those things, even though, by signing the treaties, they agree they would. This is simply part of the process of understanding why Ireland has not done what it agreed to do.

If you get a job somewhere and sign an employment contract which states you will act to the benefit of the company and not steal from that company are you outsourcing responsibility for your actions in respect to that company? Of course you aren't. What you are saying is that you agree to act in a certain way, if you don't the company has a right to investigate your actions and potentially take some action themselves.

This is not outsourcing responsibility, it is simply how agreements between adults and states work. You agree to do something, if you don't do it you get investigated. Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand?

MrP

a5y · 12-05-2012 02:42PM

That stupid blasphemy law.

If this draft report results in serious questions being asked about bad ideas get enshrined in law in this country then I'm all for it.

Michael Nugent · 12-05-2012 08:41PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

well, thank odin for the u.n. and atheist ireland.

as long as we are not outsourcing authority and responsibility for ourselves....who could see a problem with the above.

Lucy, we live in an interdependent world. The idea of nation-states as independent self-reliant entities is part of history.

Ireland has no more outsourced its authority and responsibility to the EU and UN, than has the Kingdom of Meath outsourced its authority and responsibility to Ireland.

The EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are part of our overall laws and treaties. They are agreed by us, not imposed on us.

Having agreed these laws and treaties, we and everyone else have to abide by them. Otherwise nobody has any authority or responsibilities.

Thankfully, the EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are better framed to protect our rights than are the domestic elements of our laws.

That is why Atheist Ireland focuses on these areas, as well as on political lobbying within Ireland, in order to protect our rights.

jank · 13-05-2012 03:33AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Lucy, we live in an interdependent world. The idea of nation-states as independent self-reliant entities is part of history.

Ireland has no more outsourced its authority and responsibility to the EU and UN, than has the Kingdom of Meath outsourced its authority and responsibility to Ireland.

The EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are part of our overall laws and treaties. They are agreed by us, not imposed on us.

Having agreed these laws and treaties, we and everyone else have to abide by them. Otherwise nobody has any authority or responsibilities.

Thankfully, the EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are better framed to protect our rights than are the domestic elements of our laws.

That is why Atheist Ireland focuses on these areas, as well as on political lobbying within Ireland, in order to protect our rights.

I am confused, what rights are these that are being suppressed?

Michael Nugent · 13-05-2012 03:36AM

jank wrote: »

I am confused, what rights are these that are being suppressed?

It depends on the issue.

In this particular case, it is the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

If you follow the link in the opening post you will get more details.

jank · 13-05-2012 03:51AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It depends on the issue.

In this particular case, it is the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

If you follow the link in the opening post you will get more details.

Are there cases where these rights are blatantly taken away?

Michael Nugent · 13-05-2012 04:02AM

jank wrote: »

Are there cases where these rights are blatantly taken away?

Yes.

If you follow the link in the opening post you will get more details.

Lucy8080 · 14-05-2012 12:26AM

mr.p.

i havent ignored a word. you may labour under that belief...but, it doesnt make it true just because you claim it so.

you also seem to be labouring under the belief that ireland is "required" by some entity to yield under said entities dicatates.

and ,again, you have placed ireland into some kind of employer/employee relationship with said entity.

is the above true?

it seems six people who thanked your post not only agree to what you have said....but also...i presume....would be happy with such an arrangement.

we did not sign up to such an arrangement....at least i hope we did not.

Lucy8080 · 14-05-2012 12:36AM

michael,

you're royal meath analogy just does not hold water. i cant ever see meath being threatened by the other 25 counties with expulsion from the national currencency . To name but one difference bEtween ireland and meath and ireland and the e.u.

there is no such thing as a "national minority".

not under our laws. regardless of colour ,class or creed.

but , if folks want to take on that false belief....it makes sense to me that they will need a saviour....and also a church to represent the saving entity.

religion comes in many forms.

Morag · 14-05-2012 12:58AM

It is no different then the other cases which were taken in the eu courts to force irish governments to stop faffing around and to make the changes needed. With out the EU to scapegoat we would not have the equal pay act and homosexuality would still be illegal.

Lucy8080 · 14-05-2012 02:06AM

sharrow,

if you are a national, it matters not wether you are gay or straight.

the only matter is that you are not hindered because of it.

have we the right to make sure you are not hindered?

we have....we always had it.

we still have it.

those that wrote our constitution and laws were not prophets or nostradamus ....but they had the wisdom to leave us space to redress whatever they overlooked ....

if we ignore that space...lets blame ourselves...not europe ...or catholicism...or athiest ireland...or britain...or whoever..

but lets never cede that space.

Morag · 14-05-2012 02:08AM

I really wish that was the case but it hasn't been.

MrPudding · 14-05-2012 08:18AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p.

i havent ignored a word. you may labour under that belief...but, it doesnt make it true just because you claim it so.

I'm sorry Lucy, but I am going where the evidence points... In this round of posts for example, I specifically said ireland has signed up to certain treaties, yet in this very post I am quoting you state that we did not sign up to such an arrangement. What am I to think other than you are ignoring what people post?

Lucy8080 wrote: »

you also seem to be labouring under the belief that ireland is "required" by some entity to yield under said entities dicatates.

I labour under no such belief. I do, however, believe that Ireland that Ireland, quite rightly, should act in the manner it agreed to when it signed certain treaties and agreements.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

and ,again, you have placed ireland into some kind of employer/employee relationship with said entity.

No I have not. That was an analogy to show that when you agree to something, to behave in a certain way, it is right and proper for the entity you made the agreement with to ensure you are complying. I used the employee / employer example simply as I thought it was easy to understand.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

is the above true?

Not really. In a sense it is, which is why I used the analogy. So I would say it is true only in the sense that there is an agreement between two parties that they will behave in a certain way. If a party acts outside of the agreed way then there may be consequences.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

it seems six people who thanked your post not only agree to what you have said....but also...i presume....would be happy with such an arrangement.

You will have to ask them.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

we did not sign up to such an arrangement....at least i hope we did not.

Yes we did. That is the point. Ireland signed up to a number of treaties and agreed to do a number of things. Ireland has, effectively, not kept its side of the bargain and this is the consequence.

As Sharrow rightly points out, we have a number of rights which it is highly likely we would not have were it not for the fact we are part of the EU. We would probably still have a death penalty were it not for our involvement with the EU.

MrP

Brown Bomber · 23-05-2012 11:46PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

On 3rd May, Atheist Ireland attended a consultation at the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Draft Irish State Report to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.

We have also made a written submission that Government Departments will consider as the State prepares its final report, and we will later make a Submission directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Ireland is due up before the UN Human Rights Committee at the end of the year and, under Article 40 of the Covenant, has undertaken to submit State Reports every few years. At the meeting later this year, the Committee will examine how Ireland has made progress in implementing the concerns of the UN in 2008.

In their Concluding Observations in 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concern about the human rights of secular parents in the Irish education system. They stated that denominational schools were private and had adopted a religious integrated curriculum which denied parents access to a secular education for their children.

They also raised the issue of the requirement of judges to take a religious oath. The human rights that the UN referred to were the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

At the consultation on the 3rd of May, Atheist Ireland raised the issues of the Irish Education system and the failure of the State to protect Covenant rights. In particular we raised the issue of recent Report from the Ombudsman for Children. We pointed out that the Ombudsman’s Report shows clearly that the regulatory framework has failed to protect the human rights of parents and children under the Covenant. We also raised the issue of Blasphemy and the requirement to take Religious oaths under the Constitution.

Here is the full written submission that we have made to the Government on the draft State report:

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

So by a natural extension of this Atheist Ireland is also against in the strongest possible terms any future moves by the state to ban the Burqa and/or the Hijab.

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

And I've bolded point 4 above for a reason. Does that then again as a natural extension of your position mean that Atheist Ireland fully respects the rights of parents to categorise their childrens religous beliefs in the census?

Lucy8080 · 11-06-2012 12:28AM

mr.p,

sorry for the delay. ive been living it up...

you have put up a big defence for michael and atheist ireland. fair play .

can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

endacl · 11-06-2012 04:18AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p,

sorry for the delay. ive been living it up...

you have put up a big defence for michael and atheist ireland. fair play .

can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

A question for Michael, surely...?

MrPudding · 11-06-2012 08:31AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

How would I know?

MrP

Nervous Wreck · 11-06-2012 12:57PM

I don't post in here much but even I'm getting sick of the trolls around this forum...

endacl · 11-06-2012 03:21PM

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I don't post in here much but even I'm getting sick of the trolls around this forum...

Like midges, they're relatively easy to swat away. But they keep coming back, and you'd rather not have to...

Michael Nugent · 14-06-2012 08:07PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p, can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

I'm afraid my thanking record is somewhat erratic.

I've now thanked Mr P for correcting Lucy, and thanked Lucy for reminding me to do so.

Michael Nugent · 14-06-2012 08:22PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So by a natural extension of this Atheist Ireland is also against in the strongest possible terms any future moves by the state to ban the Burqa and/or the Hijab.

Although, as it happens, I think such a ban is a crude mechanism for addressing the problem of women being forced to wear such garments, and I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions, it is not a natural extension of what you have quoted that we should oppose such a ban, either at all or in the strongest possible terms.

If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And I've bolded point 4 above for a reason. Does that then again as a natural extension of your position mean that Atheist Ireland fully respects the rights of parents to categorise their childrens religous beliefs in the census?

You're again creating 'natural extensions' where they don't exist. There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.

endacl · 14-06-2012 09:41PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm afraid my thanking record is somewhat erratic.

I've now thanked Mr P for correcting Lucy, and thanked Lucy for reminding me to do so.

Thanked. Just in case anybody brings it up, like...

Lucy8080 · 15-06-2012 01:17AM

"the law should protect people not ideas".

michael nugent.

i agree.

i include "atheist" as one of those ideas we try to protect.

Lucy8080 · 15-06-2012 02:11AM

the other thing was...im surprised you thanked mr.p for correcting me!

i dont think he did. im quite happy for my post and mr.p,s correction to stand side by side.

quite an incorrect correction, in my view...

MrPudding · 15-06-2012 07:07AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

"the law should protect people not ideas".

michael nugent.

i agree.

i include "atheist" as one of those ideas we try to protect.

Are you saying atheists aren't people?

Lucy8080 wrote: »

the other thing was...im surprised you thanked mr.p for correcting me!

i dont think he did. im quite happy for my post and mr.p,s correction to stand side by side.

quite an incorrect correction, in my view...

Please point out the parts of my post that are, relative to yours, incorrect.
I understand that you may not agree with some of what I said, but that does not make it incorrect.

MrP

Ellis Dee · 15-06-2012 10:12AM

I've just read the submission, Michael, and want to say "thank you" to yourself and Atheist Ireland. It is a good and reasonable document, and the only thing that is disgraceful is that there is still a need to write something like it in this day and age.:)

Even today, when I look around me and see how difficult it is for secular parents to bring their children up right in Ireland, I thank my "lucky stars" (figuratively speaking, of course) that I was able to bring up my children in Finland, where the educational system is very good and the church has no involvement at all (and, to its credit, doesn't even try to stick its nose in).

It's high time our State made it possible for every child to have a good education and for religious indoctrination to be kept out of schools.

Atheist%2BMotivational%2BPoster%2BChristian%2BEducation.jpg

Brown Bomber · 16-06-2012 04:37PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Although, as it happens, I think such a ban is a crude mechanism for addressing the problem of women being forced to wear such garments, and I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions, it is not a natural extension of what you have quoted that we should oppose such a ban, either at all or in the strongest possible terms. .

Michael, make your mind up. Either you are for protecting the "Covenant rights" you speak of (below) for all or you are not.

At the consultation on the 3rd of May, Atheist Ireland raised the issues of the Irish Education system and the failure of the State to protect Covenant rights.

Here again is the relevant section in relation to any possible moves by the stae to ban the Burkha:
Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.

Strawman.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You're again creating 'natural extensions' where they don't exist. There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.

So you do respect the rights of religious parents to raise their children religious as a "covenant right"?

MrPudding · 16-06-2012 04:49PM

Unless I am mistaken, we should be looking at the European Convention on Human Rights. I would guess that this is where the particular rights in question flow from.

Freedom of religion is covered by Article 9. Article 9, like several of the other rights, it is a qualified right.

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Section 2 is the interesting part and clearly allows for restrictions in this area.

MrP

Brown Bomber · 16-06-2012 11:01PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Unless I am mistaken, we should be looking at the European Convention on Human Rights. I would guess that this is where the particular rights in question flow from.

Freedom of religion is covered by Article 9. Article 9, like several of the other rights, it is a qualified right.

[/LIST]Section 2 is the interesting part and clearly allows for restrictions in this area.
MrP

It does but obviously wearing an burkha or any other item of clothing does not fall under

"are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

Comments