The launch of Education Equality December 12th 2015

Our official launch will feature the following programme:
11:00 – 11:05 Rónán Ó Dálaigh – Welcome & Introductions
11:05 – 11:20 April Duff – Launch of Education Equality
11:20 – 11:30 Nikki Murphy – a Parent’s Story
11:30 – 11:45 Ivana Bacik
11:45 – 12:00 Eoin Daly
12:00 – 12:30 Open Forum
12:30 Final Comments & Close

RainyDay wrote: »

What promises are you referring to?

People of non-faith or minority religious backgrounds and publically identified LGBT people should not be deterred from training or taking up employment as teachers in the State.

expectationlost wrote: »

i asked them why they invited Bacik, they deleted my post. **** em

There is nothing at all wrong with civil society organisations’ receiving funding from foreign sources to carry out their work to promote and defend human rights. It is actually a human right protected under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights to both of which Ireland is a party.

Many NGOs doing important work on human rights and social justice in Ireland rely on funding from sources based outside Ireland. If it were not for external funders, many NGOs in Ireland and across the world would not be able to carry out their key work and campaign for human rights.

In fact, the Irish government itself, through Irish Aid’s ‘Civil Society Fund’, provides important funds for civil society organisations in other countries campaigning on many issues, including human rights and social justice. Also, Ireland has benefited hugely from the funding provided to its third level education institutions, the state’s Child and Family Agency, Tusla, as well as to local and community groups, national charities and NGOs, by international foundations such as the Atlantic Philanthropies.

It is rather the blanket ban on foreign funding under the Electoral Act that is wrong.

International human rights law is clear that there should be no distinction between the sources of funding or resources – whether domestic, foreign or international – as civil society organisations’ ability to access resources from all of these sources is equally protected. States are entitled to regulate or put limits on civil society groups’ funding – foreign or domestic – but only where this is necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim. A blanket ban on foreign funding and a blanket cap on domestic funding run contrary to human rights norms.

smacl wrote: »

At face value that seems like a fair point, but if we seek to exclude foreign influence from interfering in domestic human rights affairs it begs the question whether it is reasonable for us in turn to become involved in human rights issues abroad? I'm not sure where the borders and reasonable limitations are here or how we justify them.

Celtic League
Roster 2010

Ds - The Irish Association of Non-Governmental Development Organisations
Special 2015

Family and Life
Special 2013

Front Line, The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Special 2004

International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE)
Special 2007

International Catholic Committee of Nurses & Medico-Social Workers
Roster DPI

Kanchi Limited
Special 2014

Pro-Life Campaign
Special 2011

Rehab Group
Special 1996

The Mary Robinson Foundation
Special 2017

Women in Media and Entertainment
Special 2000

Speech delivered by Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence during Private Members’ Business on the Charities (Amendment) Bill 2014 (Second Stage) on the 21 January 2014

I would like now to refer to Section 2 of the proposed Bill. The Government does not support the amendment to include the advancement of human rights in the list of purposes that are of benefit to the community. This is not due to any lack of recognition of the vital role of human rights organisations in our communities both here and worldwide. Rather it is in light of the importance of ensuring that the new systems of regulation of charities is appropriately aligned with the system of charitable tax exemption that has long been operated by the Revenue Commissioners. Under this system, the Revenue Commissioners recognise the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose only in the case of a human rights charity that has consultative status with the United Nations.

recedite wrote: »

If the foreign money was coming from Russia, people would be a bit more concerned. I don't have a problem with foreign money, so long as it is subject to the same restrictions as an Irish corporate donation; €200 per year unless the donor is a fully registered donor.

O'Gorman is being a bit disingenuous here by presenting it as a ban on foreign money being used for human rights work in Ireland. Both the €137k he received from Soros and the €10K Equality Ireland received from the humanists were well over the limit, even if the Soros donation had not been foreign.

If wealthy people are going to try to use their money to influence public policy in this country (regardless of whether they are locals or foreign) then IMO an annual cap is entirely appropriate and it should be declared to SIPO.
Amnesty International and Equality Ireland failed on both counts.

O'Gorman goes on to say he registered Amnesty with SIPO on a temporary basis during the Same Sex Marriage referendum campaign and he "would" register again during the Repeal the 8th campaign.
I'm not buying that argument. Its like Fine Gael only wanting to register in the weeks just before an election, while keeping all the donations received outside that time period a secret.
Amnesty was originally founded to protect political prisoners, so it was always overtly political. Even if their work in Ireland is less about prisoners, it is still directed at public policy and therefore has a political purpose. More so than Atheist Ireland, which did register with SIPO.

Equality Ireland seem to be in an awkward position now. If they register with SIPO, it will complicate their main source of funding; the Humanist Association (well, limit it to €200 without further questions anyway). If the Humanist association takes up the EI cause directly, it will cut them off from their main source of funding; the wedding solemnisation business. Because taking up a cause makes them political, as opposed to spiritual.

What a tangled mess!
Ah well, at least we can say openness and transparency wins
Atheist Ireland has played the long game here, choosing to be upfront all along, and so it is unaffected by all this.

As for George Soros, he can now donate the €137K to helping the homeless in Ireland, or some apolitical charitable purpose.

There is nothing at all wrong with civil society organisations’ receiving funding from foreign sources to carry out their work to promote and defend human rights. It is actually a human right protected under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights to both of which Ireland is a party.

In addition to the practical human-aid consequences of restrictions on foreign funding of civil society, many of these restrictions violate the legal obligations of the countries that enact them, including obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR prohibits limiting the freedom of association, except when the limitations are prescribed by law and “are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”13 Laws restricting or eliminating foreign funding of NGOs rarely if ever are able to withstand the demands of the ICCPR: the interests the Covenant identifies are not threatened by legitimate foreign funding of NGOs.

The sphere in which NGOs operate is protected by international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.125 When countries enter into such instruments and agree to their terms, they do so willingly as an exercise of their sovereignty. As a result, signatories cannot claim that allowing organizations to exercise their right to free association by obtaining funding from abroad violates their sovereignty

recedite wrote: »

All of the quotes above above play into the Amnesty narrative that they are not a political organisation and merely uphold basic human rights.

I don't accept that they are completely apolitical.

Also, many of the organisations on the opposite side of the Repeal the 8th debate also claim to be there to uphold human rights. You even gave a link a few posts back showing that they were recognised as such by the UN.

If opposite sides both claim to be there to uphold human rights, then you know you are into the political domain.

recedite wrote: »

I'm guessing they have looked into making the Humanist Association their registered corporate donor.


But sadly for EE, the limit even then is fixed at €2500
So they would be left €7,500 short of their original budget plan.

On the one hand, I do have sympathy for them, as it is a really good cause.
On the other hand, they set the whole thing up in a cute hoor sort of way, and now they have got their comeuppance. They wanted to tap into the wedding business as apolitical secular philosophers, but then tried to create this degree of separation so that they could also campaign in the political arena.

There is a simple* enough answer to all this; change the law to allow licenced secular groups (not just religions and spiritualists) to conduct and solemnise marriage ceremonies while also being involved in a political campaign.
If witches can do it, why can't atheists?

*Simple, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it

Orion wrote: »

Now that's just funny. They are acting like bullies pure and simple. They represent nobody but Nugent who sends his disciples to crush any opposing views - and even organisations that share his views but he sees as competition.