Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
School patronage
Comments
-
Certainly that's what some people see as a problem; others see the problem as the inclusion of religion in the education system at all. The reverse could become true; people might see it as a problem that they couldn't send their children to schools which pro-actively preserve the ethos they want for their children, or they could have a problem with the State refusing to allow them to provide what they feel is appropriate religious and moral education in schools established by the State.
Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether. That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution as it should be. So those people can go suck on a lemon or set up their own school. I can't see too many schools being handed over by the churches to become educate together if the local people in the area overwhelmingly want the school to remain Catholic or Protestant or whatever it is. I doubt too many people would argue about that sort of situation.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 26427
[Deleted User] wrote: »Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether. That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution as it should be. So those people can go suck on a lemon or set up their own school. I can't see too many schools being handed over by the churches to become educate together if the local people in the area overwhelmingly want the school to remain Catholic or Protestant or whatever it is. I doubt too many people would argue about that sort of situation.
Yeah, I mean somethings in Ireland will never change and people that want them to change can just go off and suck lemons,
Gay people marrying? Sure our constitution says that's wrong, that won't change and a majority are against it. It'll never be made legal....
That backwards arse mindset existed only a few sort years ago, hell even 18 months ago...or even last April and may it was an argument we saw again and again. But yet we saw change when the facts were laid out.
Don't be too sure our school system won't change, already the church is admitting that using baptism certs for admissions isn't right.
You seem awful sure about something that is very far from certain,0 -
There are those who would (and do) argue that allowing non Christians into the schools where they are a minority in the area would make schools with a religious ethos more secular. My own feeling is both arguments are satisfied as long as there is no shortage of school places; currently ethos criteria only kick in when a school is oversubscribed. Increase the capacity of schools that are likely to be oversubscribed and you solve the problem of ethos discrimination. The 'problem' of State funded schools engaging in faith formation, which is in fact the issue most A&A regulars have with our education system is a somewhat thornier one I think.
That's also possibly true but also a load of bull****. You're basically saying that its harder to indoctrinate kids in false gods when they are exposed to atheists who might tell them about that the whole god thing is a load of bum fluff And the reality on the ground is that there is probably no school that would dare turn away a child that's not of the same religion when there is no competition for places. Irish schools are essentially secular already. Muslims, Atheists and Hindus send their kids to Catholic and Protestant schools all over the country and there is absolutely no problem caused by it. They are kids so they're probably less likely to be as bigoted or as pro-segregation as your good self. And going to school together they learn to accept each other, accept their differences, understand their common ground as "humans" and get on with each other and believe it or not be friends in most cases.
So when there does turn out to be competition for places in a school which is rare enough then its a load of crap to suddenly invoke bull**** laws that suddenly promote segregation and discrimination.
And while religion is fully protected by the constitution to maintain its affairs and property as it sees fit it should be noted that most of these schools are funded by public money, maintained by public money and in a lot of cases were built with public money. So a lot of the "property" or "funding" is public, not really the "property" or "funding" of a religious denomination. I'd say a lot of schools are probably only "religious denomination" in name and ethos and that's all. So parents of other religions have a very strong case to claim that a lot of these schools should be fully open to any tax payers child.
Believe it or not, Ireland is meant to be a secular country and its enshrined throughout the constitution. That means it shouldn't favour one religion over another. The fact that religious orders control 96% of the schools is due to government after government after government neglecting their responsibility to "all" the population and citizens of "all" faiths. They should never have allowed such discriminatory laws that force about 96% of the population to have to join a religion just to get a basic human right such as an education. They should have seen these problems coming a long long time ago.
And building a load of new secular schools is bull**** also. Under your proposal, they would need to ensure that every new school ever built is secular just to ensure that discriminatory laws cannot be invoked. The country doesnt have the money or resources to build hundreds of brand new secular schools just to suit you're fear of people of other faiths. And in a lot of cases it would be just pure stupid to build a new school as there might be a town with just a handful of kids of the wrong faith who can't get into a Catholic or Protestant school due to these laws being invoked.
And you should remember that the shoe was on the other foot in Northern Ireland in the 1960's when Catholics were being discriminated against as places in social housing were assigned to Protestants first or at least could have been for very similar reasons, ie. applicants for social housing exceeded social housing so they gave preference to Protestants as they were the majority. How fair do you think that was?
And Jesus! What do you think Jesus would do if he was around today? Think he'd discriminate against people of other religions, particularly kids? Maybe the point of the story about Jesus and the Good Samaritan was kind of lost on all you Christians?
Personally as an atheist, I'd actually like to send my child to a Catholic or Protestant school even if the whole god thing is for the birds ultimately. It would do the child no harm to learn about Jesus, his life, his teachings and his philosophy. He was one Christian who had the right idea about how we should all get on with each other. My son or daughter can also make their own mind up about god. I don't really feel the need to indoctrinate them in my faith or lack there of.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether.
Yes, religious instruction should be outlawed in all schools funded via the State by taxpayers. Education should not come with a compulsory indoctrination side dish. A truly unbiased non-didactic RE syllabus is worthwhile however, but I would not trust any religious patron to deliver that impartially, for obvious reasons.That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution
It's actually not. The right to not undergo religious instruction in a school funded by the State is protected in the Constitution. However in practice that right is all but meaningless when 96% of primary schools are under religious control and are allowed discriminate in enrolment on the grounds of religion.as it should be.
Why do you say it should be? Give me one good reason why.So those people can go suck on a lemon or set up their own school.
So you actively support discrimination against atheists and minority faith members in the delivery of State services then??I can't see too many schools being handed over by the churches to become educate together if the local people in the area overwhelmingly want the school to remain Catholic or Protestant or whatever it is. I doubt too many people would argue about that sort of situation.
What they want (and it's invarably a few auld biddies who kick up a fuss about these things, not actual parents) is irrelevant, human rights are not a popularity contest. If there wasn't a single non-catholic in Ireland it would still be wrong to indoctrinate in religion in schools.Deleted User wrote: »Irish schools are essentially secular already.
Utter tosh. Embarrassingly wrong in fact.And going to school together they learn to accept each other, accept their differences, understand their common ground as "humans" and get on with each other and believe it or not be friends in most cases.
They learn that "Ireland is a catholic country" and are taught that catholicism is the one true faith, and they see that catholics are favoured by the State and as non-catholics they're second-class citizens.So when there does turn out to be competition for places in a school which is rare enough
It is NOT 'rare enough'. Again, you should be embarrassed writing such utter nonsense.* (2 paragraphs of massive self-contradictions snipped) *
And building a load of new secular schools is bull**** also.
I agree. But where does that fit in, exactly, with sucking lemons or building a new school yourself?Personally as an atheist, I'd actually like to send my child to a Catholic or Protestant school even if the whole god thing is for the birds ultimately. It would do the child no harm to learn about Jesus, his life, his teachings and his philosophy.
You mean the teachings attributed to him, that's if he existed at all...
You certainly don't need to send a child to a christian ethos school to have them learn about christianity, it's taught in every ET (along with the principles of other major faiths) and is part of the Dept Ed's new multi-faith RE syllabus they want to bring in.
Your posts are extremely confusing to read and it's now impossible to know whether you're arguing for secularism or against it tbh.Scrap the cap!
0 -
Yeah, I mean somethings in Ireland will never change and people that want them to change can just go off and suck lemons,
Gay people marrying? Sure our constitution says that's wrong, that won't change and a majority are against it. It'll never be made legal....
That backwards arse mindset existed only a few sort years ago, hell even 18 months ago...or even last April and may it was an argument we saw again and again. But yet we saw change when the facts were laid out.
Don't be too sure our school system won't change, already the church is admitting that using baptism certs for admissions isn't right.
You seem awful sure about something that is very far from certain,
I'm just saying that those that would like to destroy the church and completely remove religion from all schools will find that very hard. Religion is very well protected in the constitution as is peoples right to educate their kids about religion in school. I doubt that will change any time soon. Irish history is fairly scared by people's faith being trampled on, particularly Catholics. So they put a lot of thought into how to protect peoples religious rights when they drew up the constitution. One religion lawfully shouldnt be able to subdue other religions of minorities or atheists thanks to the constitution. Similarly, atheists and agnostics wont be able to trample on peoples right to have their kids taught about religion in schools thanks to the constitution.
As I've previously pointed out already, I don't see that the constitution protects any religious order in preventing children of another faith attending schools under the patronage of that religion either (or at least a fair number of kids from another religious or non religious order). And I believe the law, as opposed to the constitution, needs to be changed to be better in line with the protection afforded under the constitution for kids to attend a school of their choice even if they are of the wrong religion.
And yes I believe the law will change soon. And the religious orders are shooting themselves in the foot the more they resist. As in if they pressurize the government to keep discriminatory laws then the state will probably be forced to invoke "in the common good" clauses in the constitution to have religious order schools divested under the control of the state with a more secular focus that allows kids of all religions to attend.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Yes, religious instruction should be outlawed in all schools funded via the State by taxpayers. Education should not come with a compulsory indoctrination side dish. A truly unbiased non-didactic RE syllabus is worthwhile however, but I would not trust any religious patron to deliver that impartially, for obvious reasons.
Thats why peoples right to educate their children in religion or not is protected in the constitution. There is people like you on either the ultra catholic or ultra anti-religion side who wish to push their own agenda on everyone else. That has to be protected against. There is plenty of scope in any school for people to attend religion classes or not or attend different alternatives to religion all in the same school.
I don't really have much time for this whole god rubbish but I was raised a Catholic and I can't really fault too much about what was written about Jesus (yes he might not have existed either but on the balance of probability from the few facts from history that I've read it appears he might have. The Romans were fairly clinical in their recording of history). I also accept that other people want to raise their kids as Catholics so let them at it. I don't see a need to burst their bubble and I try to see their point of view.
Most of this mess could be resolved if Irish kids were allowed into Catholic/Protestant schools from other faiths and were not forced to attend Catholic/Protestant religion classes or an alternative was offered to them in the same school. Seems simple enough to me.0 -
It says in the constitution that the primary educator of children is the family and it protects their rights strongly, as it should. It gives lesser protection to religious organisations, and nowhere does it say that religion may be used as an admission criterion. In fact it says the precise opposite, that the State may not discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion - yet the education system it funds does exactly that.
What you're advocating is segregation during the school day, marking kids out as different and marching them off elsewhere while the catholics stay in the classroom and do their flavour of the religion thing. It's exactly like the deeply flawed Community National School model.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-this-the-answer-to-the-school-patronage-debate-1.2496735
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-answer-to-school-patronage-model-1.2504241Sir, – I refer to Carl O’Brien’s article in relation to the Community National Schools, “Is this the answer to the school patronage model?” (Education, January 19th). As a parent in the process of applying for a school place for my five-year-old son, my answer to your reporter’s question is an emphatic “No”.
From the limited information available on the Community National School model, children are segregated into four groups for what is referred to as “faith nurturing”. These groups are Catholic, other Christian, Muslim and a group comprising Hindus, Buddhists and humanists.
Too many questions come to mind to include in this letter in relation to how these groups work in practice, particularly the fourth grouping.
In addition, it is important to note that not all non-religious people identify themselves as humanists.
How are children of these families facilitated? In any event, I do not want my children labelled and segregated from their classmates on religious grounds.In practice, this means separating children according to their religious background during a school day. Catholic children remain with their class teachers for religious instruction, as in Catholic schools, and “others” are removed for some alternative provision. This may or may not involve religious instruction, depending on whether or not the child in question happens to be identified as being in a “main faith group”.
No matter how carefully teachers try to manage this at local level, the model is founded on flawed principles – more focussed on the rights of religious organisations than those of individual children (or teachers). These divisive practices should not be permitted, never mind promoted, in State schools.Scrap the cap!
0 -
There are the international agreements relating to human rights etc that Ireland Inc. has signed up to. And also there is the domestic constitutional requirement to cherish all the children of the nation equally.Your point seems to be that the state can avoid these responsibilities by inserting an extra (and arguably unnecessary) layer of management between itself and the schools, thereby isolating itself from any discrimination.However, despite choosing to fund these schools via managers or "patrons" instead of by direct management, the buck still stops at the state. This was proved in the Louise O Keefe case last year when the state denied any responsibility, but the ruling was that "an inherent obligation of a government to protect children from ill-treatment, especially in a primary education context".So we can assume the same principal applies to religious discrimination as for any other forms of ill treatment or abuse.Similarly if a private company was being paid to manage a public swimming pool by a county council, it would be incumbent on the county council to ensure that no discrimination was occurring in the pool's admission policy. They could not simply say "its out of our hands" while continuing to fund the swimming pool with public money.0
-
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It says in the constitution that the primary educator of children is the family and it protects their rights strongly, as it should. It gives lesser protection to religious organisations, and nowhere does it say that religion may be used as an admission criterion. In fact it says the precise opposite, that the State may not discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion - yet the education system it funds does exactly that.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »What you're advocating is segregation during the school day, marking kids out as different and marching them off elsewhere while the catholics stay in the classroom and do their flavour of the religion thing. It's exactly like the deeply flawed Community National School model.
Forcing religion out of schools completely will never work and it wouldnt be fair. Kids would be up in arms around the country because they'd be out of pocket regards communion money for a start!0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
Why do you say it should be? Give me one good reason why.
Thomas Cromwell for one anyway.
The Penal Laws in Ireland from 1607 to 1920 secondly.
And I'll be generous, the USSR Anti Religion campaign 1928 to 1941. That's three!
Ah sher to hell with it, here is a third. Islamic State in modern day Middle East trying to destroy all other religions that arent extreme Islam.
Laws promoting one religion over another or discriminating against any religion or similarly regards atheism should all be wiped out world wide. Everyone has the right to believe what they want or not believe and practice it as they wish as long as they don't negatively affect others neglecting the effects on moany aul goats that get offended at the sight or sound of someone practicing a belief other than their own. Simple I think anyway.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »That's also possibly true but also a load of bull****. You're basically saying that its harder to indoctrinate kids in false gods when they are exposed to atheists who might tell them about that the whole god thing is a load of bum fluffDeleted User wrote: »And the reality on the ground is that there is probably no school that would dare turn away a child that's not of the same religion when there is no competition for places.Deleted User wrote: »Irish schools are essentially secular already. Muslims, Atheists and Hindus send their kids to Catholic and Protestant schools all over the country and there is absolutely no problem caused by it. They are kids so they're probably less likely to be as bigoted or as pro-segregation as your good self. And going to school together they learn to accept each other, accept their differences, understand their common ground as "humans" and get on with each other and believe it or not be friends in most cases.Deleted User wrote: »So when there does turn out to be competition for places in a school which is rare enough then its a load of crap to suddenly invoke bull**** laws that suddenly promote segregation and discrimination.Deleted User wrote: »And while religion is fully protected by the constitution to maintain its affairs and property as it sees fit it should be noted that most of these schools are funded by public money, maintained by public money and in a lot of cases were built with public money. So a lot of the "property" or "funding" is public, not really the "property" or "funding" of a religious denomination. I'd say a lot of schools are probably only "religious denomination" in name and ethos and that's all. So parents of other religions have a very strong case to claim that a lot of these schools should be fully open to any tax payers child.Deleted User wrote: »Believe it or not, Ireland is meant to be a secular country and its enshrined throughout the constitution. That means it shouldn't favour one religion over another. The fact that religious orders control 96% of the schools is due to government after government after government neglecting their responsibility to "all" the population and citizens of "all" faiths. They should never have allowed such discriminatory laws that force about 96% of the population to have to join a religion just to get a basic human right such as an education. They should have seen these problems coming a long long time ago.Deleted User wrote: »And building a load of new secular schools is bull**** also. Under your proposal, they would need to ensure that every new school ever built is secular just to ensure that discriminatory laws cannot be invoked. The country doesnt have the money or resources to build hundreds of brand new secular schools just to suit you're fear of people of other faiths. And in a lot of cases it would be just pure stupid to build a new school as there might be a town with just a handful of kids of the wrong faith who can't get into a Catholic or Protestant school due to these laws being invoked.Deleted User wrote: »And you should remember that the shoe was on the other foot in Northern Ireland in the 1960's when Catholics were being discriminated against as places in social housing were assigned to Protestants first or at least could have been for very similar reasons, ie. applicants for social housing exceeded social housing so they gave preference to Protestants as they were the majority. How fair do you think that was?Deleted User wrote: »And Jesus! What do you think Jesus would do if he was around today? Think he'd discriminate against people of other religions, particularly kids? Maybe the point of the story about Jesus and the Good Samaritan was kind of lost on all you Christians?0
-
Not at all; I haven't ventured any opinion on how hard it is or isn't to indoctrinate anyone in any circumstances. Only that diluting the population of a school with a particular ethos with students who specifically oppose that ethos is likely to dilute that ethos as well. If parents want their children to absorb that ethos in their education, it's reasonable for them to object to it being taken away.
This word ethos needs to be banned. I don't know what it means really or if it has any reality in Irish schools. My only memory from going to ultra catholic schools while growing up was a load of baptized catholics throwing papers at each other, kicking the **** out of each other and generally getting up to any form of mischief that they could conceive during every religion class while the religion teacher was down the staff room drinking tea or generally missing. Generally missing because they were probably secretly atheist or agnostic or didnt care for religion or ethos or realized that the kids in the school as well as the parents didnt really care for religion much either.
I'd love to know how seriously religion is actually taken in schools around the country in reality? I'd say sweat damn all even where the parents are ultra religious.
And if the kids and parents and teachers dont give a **** for ethos really then whats the point in the principal invoking some old law when the number of applicants exceeds the number of places.
Also this A&A forum has an A&A ethos, should we start banning you from commenting here or reading the posts because we feel you're ruining our cherished A&A ethos? Rubbish! Same for ethos in schools.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Yes, religious instruction should be outlawed in all schools funded via the State by taxpayers. Education should not come with a compulsory indoctrination side dish. A truly unbiased non-didactic RE syllabus is worthwhile however, but I would not trust any religious patron to deliver that impartially, for obvious reasons.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It's actually not. The right to not undergo religious instruction in a school funded by the State is protected in the Constitution. However in practice that right is all but meaningless when 96% of primary schools are under religious control and are allowed discriminate in enrolment on the grounds of religion.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Why do you say it should be? Give me one good reason why.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »So you actively support discrimination against atheists and minority faith members in the delivery of State services then??Hotblack Desiato wrote: »What they want (and it's invarably a few auld biddies who kick up a fuss about these things, not actual parents) is irrelevant, human rights are not a popularity contest. If there wasn't a single non-catholic in Ireland it would still be wrong to indoctrinate in religion in schools.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Utter tosh. Embarrassingly wrong in fact.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »They learn that "Ireland is a catholic country" and are taught that catholicism is the one true faith, and they see that catholics are favoured by the State and as non-catholics they're second-class citizens.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »I'm not advocating segregation during the school day.
That's exactly what you are doing.I'm advocating the possibility of segregating during religion class time if they want to.
Because the alternative is religious indoctrination and parents have a constitutional right to opt out. Religious indoctrination during the state funded school day is the problem here not the parents.There will be some atheist or Muslim parents kids who attend the religion class because the parents don't really care. There will be some thick moany parents who don't want their kids attending religion class in a catholic school.
I don't want my kids attending religion class in a catholic school, all the secondaries here are RC. What do you suggest I do to avoid becoming a target for your derision and abuse?Scrap the cap!
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Thomas Cromwell for one anyway.
Oliver Cromwell I presume. Not seeing the relevance. There wasn't much in the way of education policy in those days anyway.The Penal Laws in Ireland from 1607 to 1920 secondly.
What 'penal laws' remained in effect in the 20th century? Be specific please.And I'll be generous, the USSR Anti Religion campaign 1928 to 1941. That's three!
What the hell has that got to do with education in Ireland?
People have the right to believe what they want, that doesn't give them the right to hijack the education system for religious ends though.Ah sher to hell with it, here is a third. Islamic State in modern day Middle East trying to destroy all other religions that arent extreme Islam.
Just like conservative catholics who will tolerate no religion except theirs.Laws promoting one religion over another or discriminating against any religion or similarly regards atheism should all be wiped out world wide. Everyone has the right to believe what they want or not believe and practice it as they wish as long as they don't negatively affect others neglecting the effects on moany aul goats that get offended at the sight or sound of someone practicing a belief other than their own. Simple I think anyway.
Contradicting yourself entirely again, within the space of one paragraph this time.Scrap the cap!
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »This word ethos needs to be banned. I don't know what it means really or if it has any reality in Irish schools.Deleted User wrote: »My only memory from going to ultra catholic schools while growing up was a load of baptized catholics throwing papers at each other, kicking the **** out of each other and generally getting up to any form of mischief that they could conceive during every religion class while the religion teacher was down the staff room drinking tea or generally missing. Generally missing because they were probably secretly atheist or agnostic or didnt care for religion or ethos or realized that the kids in the school as well as the parents didnt really care for religion much either.Deleted User wrote: »I'd love to know how seriously religion is actually taken in schools around the country in reality? I'd say sweat damn all even where the parents are ultra religious.Deleted User wrote: »And if the kids and parents and teachers dont give a **** for ethos really then whats the point in the principal invoking some old law when the number of applicants exceeds the number of places.Deleted User wrote: »Also this A&A forum has an A&A ethos, should we start banning you from commenting here or reading the posts because we feel you're ruining our cherished A&A ethos? Rubbish! Same for ethos in schools.
Though I suppose, at the end of the day, it's worth pointing out there's no legal basis for protecting the ethos of A&A by refusing individuals admission, whereas there is one for protecting the ethos of schools. So perhaps it's your comparison that's rubbish?0 -
People often get confused about what constitutes an ethos.
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether. That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution as it should be.
Too right and with an ever growing population of pagans and particularly wiccans in the country, I look forward to the first state funded Witch School. Along with the usual 3Rs, pupils will spend the time their peers spend learning about Jesus resurrecting himself, practicing spells, making potions and beginning their personal books of shadows. All on the state euro because what's good for one religion must surely be good for all the others.:cool:
Or of course we could just have state schools that teach factual and artistic subjects and leave the spiritual education of children as the responsibility of their parents/guardians.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anyone want to make an application as pastafarians for the patronage of a school? The criteria are available and it's easy enough to tick the boxes. We'd have to meet regularly for a year or so (weekly pasta eating sessions) to establish our bona fides.0
-
..the Louise O' Keeffe case is a good example of the fact that whilst the State was responsible (specifically vicariously liable) for what happened in the school, neither the High Court, nor the Supreme Court, or the European Court of Human Rights found that the private entities assume the States Convention protective obligations by being delegated a function; the ECtHR found that the State could not avoid its Convention protective obligations by delegating education to a private entity.The States Convention protective obligations don't actually extend to providing (or even providing for) exclusively secular education though, do they? Nor did the ECtHR find that religious education was ill-treatment that a government is inherently obliged to protect children from.The Convention certainly doesn't include discrimination as a form of ill-treatment or abuse. Discrimination has it's own Article (14), which prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention and legal rights provided for in national law. So long as no person is denied the right to education due to their religion the State is compliant...And we have not yet seen a single example of a child not being able to attend school (as distinct from a particular school) because of their religion.
Your argument that "so long as a child is offered a place in a school no discrimination occurs" was concocted many years ago in an unholy alliance between the Dept. of Education and the bishops. While its important that people understand this argument, they should not accept it as a truth.
Some day it will be challenged in a court, either in this country or in Strasbourg at the ECtHR, and IMO it will be found wanting.
Its the same argument that was used in Alabama in the 1950's to discriminate against black kids wanting to attend white schools. The state provided black schools, ****tty ones, but still...The private company could however quite reasonably (and legally) say they are not responsible for fulfilling the States obligations regarding discrimination under a European Convention. Despite being funded by the State, they are only responsible for fulfilling their own obligations under Irish legislation regarding discrimination in the pool's admission policy.
If a public swimming pool discriminated against swimmers on the basis of religion, they would quite rightly be pilloried. The management would be forced to retract the policy and apologise, or they would be fired. The public body funding the pool (eg county council) would be obliged to do this, even if there was no specific relevant equality legislation relating to swimming pools.0 -
EQUATE lobbying return https://www.lobbying.ie/return/3475/equate Labour lobbying Labour on Education0
-
On the subject of the O'Keeffe ruling, the latest news indicates the state recognises the decision of European Court of Human Rights, but intends to force individuals to spend years going through individual legal challenges anyway, if they want to obtain justice, rather than the govt. changing domestic law.The State has asked the High Court to strike out a decision permitting it to be sued, along with the Christian Brothers,
We have already seen the guy who controls the former Christian Brothers schools property being appointed as president of the High Court.
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining that "surprise" appointment?
All this indicates an unwillingness on the part of the state to face up to the responsibilities which it now admits to having. A very hypocritical position.
Hopefully, in a few years time, all this nonsense will just be a bad memory, and people will wonder how it could ever have happened, in a republic, that state officers could waste public money fighting a losing battle against the public and the ECtHR.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »EQUATE lobbying return https://www.lobbying.ie/return/3475/equate Labour lobbying Labour on Education
Well, this makes them far less shady than the Legatus Lackeys. :pac:0 -
I'm just back from a meeting about a new school opening and I found myself sitting quite near some local parents who are adamant they don't want an ET school because they want their children to go to school locally and they know that the odds of them getting places diminish significantly if their local school is the only multi-dom in the city/county/surrounding counties. I've never understood before why so many parents don't want ET schools when they clearly don't care about religious education. But it makes so much sense now. They don't want a Catholic school, they don't really care about that aspect at all. All they want is for their kids to have short commutes to school, which is so completely understandable. I don't want my son to be stuck commuting either, just not quite as much as I don't want him to have to deal with religious indoctrination. But I can see why people who just don't really care about the religious side of schooling are more bothered by the idea of having to bus their kids into other communities because they can't get into school locally.0
-
I'm just back from a meeting about a new school opening and I found myself sitting quite near some local parents who are adamant they don't want an ET school because they want their children to go to school locally and they know that the odds of them getting places diminish significantly if their local school is the only multi-dom in the city/county/surrounding counties. I've never understood before why so many parents don't want ET schools when they clearly don't care about religious education. But it makes so much sense now. They don't want a Catholic school, they don't really care about that aspect at all. All they want is for their kids to have short commutes to school, which is so completely understandable. I don't want my son to be stuck commuting either, just not quite as much as I don't want him to have to deal with religious indoctrination. But I can see why people who just don't really care about the religious side of schooling are more bothered by the idea of having to bus their kids into other communities because they can't get into school locally.
Could no-one explain to them that what they really wanted then was a non-denominational school that gives priority to local kids?0 -
Could no-one explain to them that what they really wanted then was a non-denominational school that gives priority to local kids?
That is not likely to happen though. The feeder area comprises of the whole city and suburbs and an ET secondary is likely to give priority to children from the two ET primaries. The local parents want either the school to be big enough to take in all the local kids plus the kids from everywhere else who want to go to an ET school. And as that isn't going to happen, they would prefer their local school to not attract kids from other areas.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The Board of Education. In December all 6th class pupils in the area have to fill in the standard application listing their choices for secondary school in order of preference. This then goes out to the schools and the pupils are chosen based on each school's admissions criteria. Students are informed of which school they got into in January.
Interestingly, Minister for Education - Jan O'Sullivan, only learned of the specifics of this tonight at the meeting she was leading in order to inform people about the process. So now the process may have to be changed as the dates she was laying out to choose a patron don't work with the secondary application process.0
Advertisement