School patronage

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

What we should do is listen to parents when they say "I'd like my and my child's rights to education, freedom of conscience, and religious equality to be vindicated, please." What we shouldn't do is listen them when they're saying "no, screw those people, it suits me slightly better to keep things as they are now.".

So we should listen to people when they agree with you but not when they don't? That doesn't seem very even handed. What's wrong with listening to everyone?

Hotblack Desiato

Absolam wrote: »

What's wrong with listening to everyone?

It's a false equivalence and you know it. On one side you have those who want everyone to have the same rights and choices, on the other those who want everyone to be forced to conform to their norms.

Absolam

ninja900 wrote: »

It's a false equivalence and you know it. On one side you have those who want everyone to have the same rights and choices, on the other those who want everyone to be forced to conform to their norms.

Are you saying secularists want to force those who are religious to conform to their norms by forbidding them from educating their children as they're constitutionally entitled to do? I honestly don't think most secularists feel that way, and those who do are misguided in my opinion.
Regardless, I don't think it's a false equivalence to allow everyone their say, even if you think they're wrong. That's what freedom of expression is about, right?

recedite

SpaceTime wrote: »

Also remember a very significant percentage of our legislators over the years have been teachers and many teachers are very 'institutionalised'.

If you become a primary teacher for example in Ireland the usual route is:
8 years in a religious primary school
6 years in a religious secondary school
3 years in a religious teacher training institution
Teach in a religious school.
You are promoted by towing the line, not by standing up for change, especially if that change means abolishing the agency that is effectively your employer (even if it doesn't fund your salary really at all).

Secondary teachers at least have had the experience of being in a secular university usually.

That is a sobering thought alright. We tend to assume that the people we put in charge of educating our youngest and most impressionable kids are themselves well rounded and educated people. But in fact most of them have never lived outside the box they were born into.
Never even had the experience of attending university, where they might encounter a more cosmopolitan bunch of people.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Are you saying secularists want to force those who are religious to conform to their norms by forbidding them from educating their children as they're constitutionally entitled to do? I honestly don't think most secularists feel that way, and those who do are misguided in my opinion.
Regardless, I don't think it's a false equivalence to allow everyone their say, even if you think they're wrong. That's what freedom of expression is about, right?

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it's a far cry from what is being proposed. I'll break it down to avoid misinterpretation:

• Removal of enforced education in a particular religion.
• Introduction of optional education in a particular religion.
• Separation of religion from other, non-religious subjects.
• Prevention of schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds.

I can't see how the above effects religious parents from providing their children with a religious education at the State's expense.

Right to express yourself is not the same as the right to have people listen to you.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it's a far cry from what is being proposed. I'll break it down to avoid misinterpretation:

But, Gaynorvader, allowing parents to bring up their children in whatever religious tradition they wish without state interference is the same as forcing the soi-disant majority religion from not enforcing its teaching on the children of its adherents simply because there are other children in the class of a different religion. It's discrimination against those who say they believe but don't really.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it's a far cry from what is being proposed.

I assumed you'd read the post I quoted so you'd know where I was getting it from:

ninja900 wrote: »

On one side you have those who want everyone to have the same rights and choices, on the other those who want everyone to be forced to conform to their norms.

I'll quote in bold next time to draw more attention.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'll break it down to avoid misinterpretation:

• Removal of enforced education in a particular religion.
• Introduction of optional education in a particular religion.
• Separation of religion from other, non-religious subjects.
• Prevention of schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds.

These all seem to be things that are available now to anyone prepared to make the effort, bar the last one? Which is a little tricky, since it does tread rather heavily on the right to freedom of association...

gaynorvader wrote: »

I can't see how the above effects religious parents from providing their children with a religious education at the State's expense.

Was anyone suggesting that religious parents should be allowed to provide their children with a religious education at the State's expense?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Right to express yourself is not the same as the right to have people listen to you.

Very very true.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

I assumed you'd read the post I quoted so you'd know where I was getting it from:
I'll quote in bold next time to draw more attention.

I did see it, but don't understand how you got
"secularists want to force those who are religious to conform to their norms by forbidding them from educating their children as they're constitutionally entitled to do?" from
"On one side you have those who want everyone to have the same rights and choices, on the other those who want everyone to be forced to conform to their norms." i.e. secularists don't want to force everyone to conform, but to have the option to do what they want.

Absolam wrote: »

These all seem to be things that are available now to anyone prepared to make the effort, bar the last one?

In theory, yes. In practice, no. If you don't want your child to go to a religious ethos school, you could pack your family up, quit your job and move somewhere close to one of the few such schools in the country and hope you get a place. This is an unrealistic solution though.

Absolam wrote: »

Which is a little tricky, since it does tread rather heavily on the right to freedom of association...

I don't see how it does. In fact, the current system is more likely to go against the freedom of association as it can prevent an individual from joining a group of their choosing.

Absolam wrote: »

Was anyone suggesting that religious parents should be allowed to provide their children with a religious education at the State's expense?
{...}

No, but they should, just as non-religious parents should be allowed provide their children with a non-religious education at the State's expense. Unfortunately, only the former has such an option in most cases under the current system.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

I did see it, but don't understand how you got "secularists want to force those who are religious to conform to their norms by forbidding them from educating their children as they're constitutionally entitled to do?" from "On one side you have those who want everyone to have the same rights and choices, on the other those who want everyone to be forced to conform to their norms." i.e. secularists don't want to force everyone to conform, but to have the option to do what they want.

How does having the option do do what you want fit in with

gaynorvader wrote: »

Prevention of schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds.

That sounds like removing the option to do what they want right there?

gaynorvader wrote: »

In theory, yes. In practice, no. If you don't want your child to go to a religious ethos school, you could pack your family up, quit your job and move somewhere close to one of the few such schools in the country and hope you get a place. This is an unrealistic solution though.

Or you could do what those who wanted a religious ethos in their schools did; build schools. If it wasn't unrealistic for them, why is it for anyone else?

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't see how it does. In fact, the current system is more likely to go against the freedom of association as it can prevent an individual from joining a group of their choosing.

Well, if you prevent schools from refusing admission on religious grounds, no private school could restrict its' membership on that basis, which, as a private organisation it is currently entitled do under the right of freedom of association. Whereas a State funded school currently cannot refuse admission on that basis; it can prefer students on that basis but may be overruled by the DoE and must accept the student regardless.

gaynorvader wrote: »

No, but they should, just as non-religious parents should be allowed provide their children with a non-religious education at the State's expense. Unfortunately, only the former has such an option in most cases under the current system.

Hmm, I don't know why you think that religious parents should suggest that they should be allowed to provide their children with a religious education at the State's expense, other than so that you can argue that they are suggesting it? Regardless, personally I don't think the State should get involved with religious education.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

How does having the option do do what you want fit in with That sounds like removing the option to do what they want right there?

I was talking about the parents' choice, not the special interest group's.

Absolam wrote: »

Or you could do what those who wanted a religious ethos in their schools did; build schools. If it wasn't unrealistic for them, why is it for anyone else?

Land and building costs have skyrocketed in the last 200 years for one thing. Secular parents also don't belong to an organisation with more money than most countries that's willing to fund such schools.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if you prevent schools from refusing admission on religious grounds, no private school could restrict its' membership on that basis, which, as a private organisation it is currently entitled do under the right of freedom of association. Whereas a State funded school currently cannot refuse admission on that basis; it can prefer students on that basis but may be overruled by the DoE and must accept the student regardless.

A state funded school can and does refuse admission on the basis of religion today, they do have to have another student to take their place and may be overruled by the DoE, but that is extremely rare. "Preferring" one religion over another is discrimination and more or less equivalent to refusing a place.
I would have no problem with a fully private secondary school which accepted no public funding to restrict its membership on any grounds it wanted. I don't think that they are covered under freedom of association though, the closest protections for an organisation I could find was "(the right of) the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.", unless you're claiming refusing other faiths is in the interest of students, which I'd find hard to believe, I can't see how freedom of association is applicable in this case.

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm, I don't know why you think that religious parents should suggest that they should be allowed to provide their children with a religious education at the State's expense, other than so that you can argue that they are suggesting it? Regardless, personally I don't think the State should get involved with religious education.

The state has guaranteed basic education for all of its citizens. I think religious education is an important part of that. I don't think that anyone should be forced to learn about religions against their will, so if some parents want their children to only learn about Catholicism, then that is their right.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

I was talking about the parents' choice, not the special interest group's.

So when you say " secularists don't want to force everyone to conform, but to have the option to do what they want", you mean only the people who agree with you should have the option to do what they want, everyone else will be forced to conform?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Land and building costs have skyrocketed in the last 200 years for one thing. Secular parents also don't belong to an organisation with more money than most countries that's willing to fund such schools.

So have salaries, and land and building costs weren't cheap 200 years ago either. So secular parents aren't organised, but parents back then were; they belonged to parishes, and that's where the money was raised. So the same kind of groups of people we have today; communities who want to educate their children, but those communities didn't look for someone to blame, they tackled their problem.

gaynorvader wrote: »

A state funded school can and does refuse admission on the basis of religion today, they do have to have another student to take their place and may be overruled by the DoE, but that is extremely rare. "Preferring" one religion over another is discrimination and more or less equivalent to refusing a place.

I'm not saying it isn't discriminatory, only that it ultimately does not have the power to refuse a student based on religion; the DoE can and does overrule it, regardless of how frequently it actually does.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I would have no problem with a fully private secondary school which accepted no public funding to restrict its membership on any grounds it wanted.

But you said what is being proposed is "Prevention of schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds." which would prevent a private school from doing just that.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think that they are covered under freedom of association though, the closest protections for an organisation I could find was "(the right of) the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.", unless you're claiming refusing other faiths is in the interest of students, which I'd find hard to believe, I can't see how freedom of association is applicable in this case.

The constitution guarantees the right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms, and right to form associations and unions. The corollary to freedom of association is the freedom of dissociation (shamelessly lifting from Human Rights Law 4th Edition here; which in short boils down to a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases and is not subject to discrimination law in that regard. So a school, as a private association, may choose pupils as it pleases. This is muddied, of course, when you have a private association funded by public money, like most schools.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

So when you say " secularists don't want to force everyone to conform, but to have the option to do what they want", you mean only the people who agree with you should have the option to do what they want, everyone else will be forced to conform?

No, please stop trying to twist my words in an effort to discredit my argument. "Everyone" refers to individuals, not a group, stop trying to conflate the two. Parents should have the option to do what they want, publicly funded institutions should not be free to discriminate by any means.

Absolam wrote: »

So have salaries, and land and building costs weren't cheap 200 years ago either.

There is a huge gap between the change in salaries and the change in house prices. Even just taking the last 30 years, house prices have increased roughly tenfold in the Dublin area whereas average salaries have only doubled or trebled at best.

Absolam wrote: »

So secular parents aren't organised, but parents back then were; they belonged to parishes, and that's where the money was raised. So the same kind of groups of people we have today; communities who want to educate their children, but those communities didn't look for someone to blame, they tackled their problem.

The catholic church had more money than the Irish state did. Probably still does. There is no equivalent for secularists. It's not as simple as your, frankly, insulting proposition that communities just "tackled their problem". Nothing to do with organisation whatsoever.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't discriminatory, only that it ultimately does not have the power to refuse a student based on religion; the DoE can and does overrule it, regardless of how frequently it actually does.

It does have the power to refuse a student on the basis of religion. Just because it can be overruled by the DoE does not detract from that. It would be like saying the Irish courts have no power to issue a prison sentence as they can be overruled by the European courts.

Absolam wrote: »

But you said what is being proposed is "Prevention of schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds." which would prevent a private school from doing just that.

Yes, because at the moment all schools in Ireland accept public funding, which means that there are no true private ones (at least, that I know of). If you'd like I could amend the sentence to "Prevention of publicly funded schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds." to avoid future pedantry.

Absolam wrote: »

The constitution guarantees the right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms, and right to form associations and unions. The corollary to freedom of association is the freedom of dissociation (shamelessly lifting from Human Rights Law 4th Edition here; which in short boils down to a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases and is not subject to discrimination law in that regard. So a school, as a private association, may choose pupils as it pleases. This is muddied, of course, when you have a private association funded by public money, like most schools.

To quote directly from pages 52/53:

Human Rights Law 4th Edition wrote:

The courts have interpreted the guarantee as a right to form a trade union, though not necessarily to join one, and there is judicial recognition of the right of a trade union to refuse new members. A necessary corollary to the freedom of association is the freedom of dissociation, and courts have also recognised that there is freedom to abstain from membership.

I could not find where it mentioned an association's right to refuse members on any grounds. Even for trade unions, which are specifically mentioned, it calls out the right to refuse members, but does not contain the carte blanche "on whatever basis it pleases".

I do, however, agree that private associations should be allowed discriminate until the cows come home. If we end up with racist/sexist/elitist businesses it should be down to us, the people, to boycott them and not rely on some legislator to pass draconian laws at the public's expense. Once an association accepts public funding however, it is now semi-public or semi-private until it pays that money back.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

No, please stop trying to twist my words in an effort to discredit my argument. "Everyone" refers to individuals, not a group, stop trying to conflate the two. Parents should have the option to do what they want, publicly funded institutions should not be free to discriminate by any means.

Groups, I'm afraid, are composed of individuals. I'm not twisting your words at all, just pointing out that if you say "secularists don't want to force everyone to conform, but to have the option to do what they want" that everyone includes groups of individuals who disagree with you, as well as individuals who agree with you.

gaynorvader wrote: »

There is a huge gap between the change in salaries and the change in house prices. Even just taking the last 30 years, house prices have increased roughly tenfold in the Dublin area whereas average salaries have only doubled or trebled at best.

Really? I know someone who bought his house with a 30 year mortgage in 1970, and his salary increases (as a tradesman) enabled him to pay off his mortgage and buy the house next door in 1985. I'll agree prices certainly have increased; a house that would have cost someone IR₤30,000 in 1993 cost them €240,000 in 2004. But whilst they couldn't afford that house in 1993, they paid their 2004 mortgage off in 2013. I guess we can both trade stories of people who have done well or poorly on salary and property recently, and no doubt property is currently undervalued in Ireland, however, the fact is land and buildings have never been and never will be 'cheap'; it is and was a hardship to raise funds to build a school. But those who want it enough seem to have been able to manage it.

gaynorvader wrote: »

The catholic church had more money than the Irish state did. Probably still does. There is no equivalent for secularists. It's not as simple as your, frankly, insulting proposition that communities just "tackled their problem". Nothing to do with organisation whatsoever.

I don't doubt it. But how many artworks did the vatican sell off to build schools in Ireland? Honestly I'd be fascinated (and amazed) if you could produce any document that says the RCC spent any money on building schools in Ireland that wasn't raised in Ireland (or possibly amongst Irish emigrants in the US or UK). So whilst you find it insulting that some communities were better at tackling the problem, the proof it must be said is in the pudding.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It does have the power to refuse a student on the basis of religion. Just because it can be overruled by the DoE does not detract from that.

A minor quibble then; since the DoE has the final say the school may decline, but only the DoE may refuse. In fairness, it's a fairly semantic point, what's important is the school does not have the final say on the matter.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It would be like saying the Irish courts have no power to issue a prison sentence as they can be overruled by the European courts.

Not entirely true; the sentence cannot be appealed to the European Courts, only the conditions under which the sentence is served.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes, because at the moment all schools in Ireland accept public funding, which means that there are no true private ones (at least, that I know of). If you'd like I could amend the sentence to "Prevention of publicly funded schools being able to refuse admission on religious grounds." to avoid future pedantry.

Consider it a refinement of 'what is being proposed' which makes it more likely to be achievable? Although in my opinion it still attempts to infringe too greatly on the right of privately owned schools to dispose of the use of their property as they wish.

gaynorvader wrote: »

To quote directly from pages 52/53:
I could not find where it mentioned an association's right to refuse members on any grounds. Even for trade unions, which are specifically mentioned, it calls out the right to refuse members, but does not contain the carte blanche "on whatever basis it pleases".

That would be why I said it "in short boils down to a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases" rather than saying it specifically states a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Once an association accepts public funding however, it is now semi-public or semi-private until it pays that money back.

I agree, where there is a confluence of public and private there must be a compromise between the two requirements; the current situation where privately owned schools that are funded by the state may choose their own pupils but may have their choice overridden by the state is the current legal mechanism to address that compromise.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Groups, I'm afraid, are composed of individuals. I'm not twisting your words at all, just pointing out that if you say "secularists don't want to force everyone to conform, but to have the option to do what they want" that everyone includes groups of individuals who disagree with you, as well as individuals who agree with you.

Groups =/= individuals. Bread =/= flour. Sweat =/= water. Just because something is composed of another thing, does not make them equivalent.

Absolam wrote: »

Really? I know someone who bought his house with a 30 year mortgage in 1970, and his salary increases (as a tradesman) enabled him to pay off his mortgage and buy the house next door in 1985. I'll agree prices certainly have increased; a house that would have cost someone IR₤30,000 in 1993 cost them €240,000 in 2004. But whilst they couldn't afford that house in 1993, they paid their 2004 mortgage off in 2013. I guess we can both trade stories of people who have done well or poorly on salary and property recently, and no doubt property is currently undervalued in Ireland, however, the fact is land and buildings have never been and never will be 'cheap'; it is and was a hardship to raise funds to build a school. But those who want it enough seem to have been able to manage it.

Had a quick look online, these were the best figures I could come up with.

avnhp = average new house price.
avindw = average industrial wage
1984 avnhp: €45,419.00 , avindw: €9,261.5 , ratio: 4.904
1985 avnhp: €46,542.00 , avindw: €10,048.1 , ratio: 4.632
1986 avnhp: €48,256.00 , avindw: €10,048.1 , ratio: 4.803 ** avindw missing, using 1985 figure
1987 avnhp: €48,151.00 , avindw: €10,048.1 , ratio: 4.792 ** avindw missing, using 1985 figure
1988 avnhp: €52,450.00 , avindw: €13,707.5 , ratio: 3.826 ** avindw missing, using average of 1985 and 1991 figures
1989 avnhp: €58,178.00 , avindw: €17,293.7 , ratio: 3.364 ** avindw missing, using 1991 figure
1990 avnhp: €65,541.00 , avindw: €17,293.7 , ratio: 3.790 ** avindw missing, using 1991 figure
1991 avnhp: €66,914.00 , avindw: €17,293.7 , ratio: 3.869
1992 avnhp: €69,264.00 , avindw: €18,183.7 , ratio: 3.809
1993 avnhp: €69,883.00 , avindw: €18,841.7 , ratio: 3.709
1994 avnhp: €72,732.00 , avindw: €19,481.6 , ratio: 3.733
1995 avnhp: €77,994.00 , avindw: €19,879.2 , ratio: 3.923
1996 avnhp: €87,202.00 , avindw: €20,692.2 , ratio: 4.214
1997 avnhp: €102,222.00 , avindw: €21,377.6 , ratio: 4.782
1998 avnhp: €125,302.00 , avindw: €22,868.6 , ratio: 5.479
1999 avnhp: €148,521.00 , avindw: €24,165.5 , ratio: 6.146
2000 avnhp: €169,191.00 , avindw: €25,786.0 , ratio: 6.561
2001 avnhp: €182,863.00 , avindw: €27,919.0 , ratio: 6.550
2002 avnhp: €198,087.00 , avindw: €29,872.1 , ratio: 6.631
2003 avnhp: €224,567.00 , avindw: €31,513.5 , ratio: 7.126
2004 avnhp: €249,191.00 , avindw: €33,338.3 , ratio: 7.475
2005 avnhp: €276,221.00 , avindw: €35,277.5 , ratio: 7.830
2006 avnhp: €305,637.00 , avindw: €37,477.1 , ratio: 8.155

I'm sure house prices have dipped drastically since 2006, but wages have dropped too. The point remains that building became much less affordable.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't doubt it. But how many artworks did the vatican sell off to build schools in Ireland? Honestly I'd be fascinated (and amazed) if you could produce any document that says the RCC spent any money on building schools in Ireland that wasn't raised in Ireland (or possibly amongst Irish emigrants in the US or UK). So whilst you find it insulting that some communities were better at tackling the problem, the proof it must be said is in the pudding.

I doubt the church built schools funded by Irish communities in the 1830s as most of Ireland was agricultural at that time and not able to afford much.

Absolam wrote: »

A minor quibble then; since the DoE has the final say the school may decline, but only the DoE may refuse. In fairness, it's a fairly semantic point, what's important is the school does not have the final say on the matter.
Not entirely true; the sentence cannot be appealed to the European Courts, only the conditions under which the sentence is served.

Fine, circuit courts versus supreme courts. Though I believe the EC can overturn sentences issued by Irish courts. The point remains, just because there is a higher authority, does not mean that the lower authority has no power, just less.

Absolam wrote: »

Consider it a refinement of 'what is being proposed' which makes it more likely to be achievable? Although in my opinion it still attempts to infringe too greatly on the right of privately owned schools to dispose of the use of their property as they wish.

How? If they wish to retain complete control, then they accept no public money. If they accept public money, they must accept the terms that come with it.

Absolam wrote: »

That would be why I said it "in short boils down to a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases" rather than saying it specifically states a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases?

It doesn't though, you literally made that up.

Absolam wrote: »

I agree, where there is a confluence of public and private there must be a compromise between the two requirements; the current situation where privately owned schools that are funded by the state may choose their own pupils but may have their choice overridden by the state is the current legal mechanism to address that compromise.

I can't find any evidence that this is the case. Can you point me to where you got this information? As far as I can tell, the only time schools have ever been forced to take students they refused was when the traveler equality act was passed and schools were not permitted to discriminate against the travelling community any more.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

Groups =/= individuals. Bread =/= flour. Sweat =/= water. Just because something is composed of another thing, does not make them equivalent.

So, once they're part of a group rather than individuals it's ok to force them to conform? No, I should think forcing a group of individuals to conform by virtue of their being members of a group rather than individuals is even worse than forcing individuals to conform. It sounds like a deliberate systemic oppression.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Had a quick look online,I'm sure house prices have dipped drastically since 2006, but wages have dropped too. The point remains that building became much less affordable.

Not really if you consider that half of the years you've quoted consist of the largest property bubble ever seen in Ireland, and they stop just before the bubble burst....

gaynorvader wrote: »

I doubt the church built schools funded by Irish communities in the 1830s as most of Ireland was agricultural at that time and not able to afford much.

Apart from the landowners and professionals who were quite affluent of course. As I said, I'd be fascinated (and amazed) if you could produce any document that says the RCC spent any money on building schools in Ireland that wasn't raised in Ireland (or possibly amongst Irish emigrants in the US or UK).

gaynorvader wrote: »

Fine, circuit courts versus supreme courts. Though I believe the EC can overturn sentences issued by Irish courts.

My understanding is the highest court a sentence may be appealed to is the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Supreme Court if the prosecution certifies that a specific point of law of exceptional public interest arises in the case. Perhaps I'm wrong.

gaynorvader wrote: »

The point remains, just because there is a higher authority, does not mean that the lower authority has no power, just less.

Undisputed. I never said that the school has no power whatsoever, only that the final decision on refusal of a student rests with the DoE, not the school.

gaynorvader wrote: »

How? If they wish to retain complete control, then they accept no public money. If they accept public money, they must accept the terms that come with it.

Not exactly; as I said, if you mix private facilities with public funding you must have a compromise, neither can have complete control.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It doesn't though, you literally made that up.

I did. Or you could say I extrapolated from what is stated in the legislation. In fairness, the extrapolation is backed by jurisprudence:
Tierney vs Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers (1959) found that based on freedom of association a trade union was free to refuse to accept a member; their right of association conferred a right of disassociation.
Equality Authority vs Portmarnock Golf Club found a club could refuse to accept female members, and in their judgement stated "At least in the private sphere one may associate with whom one likes and need not associate with those with whom one does not wish to associate. Thus, one may have a ladies’ club, a gentlemens’ club, a gay club, a Catholic club, an Africans’ club and so on. And if one forms such a body, one may exclude from it those who do not meet the basic criterion for membership."
So as long as the club (or school) specifies a particular religion as one of their criteria, they are entitled to restrict membership on that criterion.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I can't find any evidence that this is the case. Can you point me to where you got this information? As far as I can tell, the only time schools have ever been forced to take students they refused was when the traveler equality act was passed and schools were not permitted to discriminate against the travelling community any more.

That kind of stumped me momentarily, since you yourself agreed

gaynorvader wrote: »

A state funded school can and does refuse admission on the basis of religion today, they do have to have another student to take their place and may be overruled by the DoE, but that is extremely rare.

Anyways, the current legal mechanism is the Appeals Process Under Section 29 of the Education Act Although it's interesting (and heartening) to note that the current Minister has put forward proposals which would give him more direct powers in the area of directing student intake.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

So, once they're part of a group rather than individuals it's ok to force them to conform? No, I should think forcing a group of individuals to conform by virtue of their being members of a group rather than individuals is even worse than forcing individuals to conform. It sounds like a deliberate systemic oppression.

Not really if you consider that half of the years you've quoted consist of the largest property bubble ever seen in Ireland, and they stop just before the bubble burst....
Apart from the landowners and professionals who were quite affluent of course. As I said, I'd be fascinated (and amazed) if you could produce any document that says the RCC spent any money on building schools in Ireland that wasn't raised in Ireland (or possibly amongst Irish emigrants in the US or UK).

My understanding is the highest court a sentence may be appealed to is the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Supreme Court if the prosecution certifies that a specific point of law of exceptional public interest arises in the case. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Undisputed. I never said that the school has no power whatsoever, only that the final decision on refusal of a student rests with the DoE, not the school.
Not exactly; as I said, if you mix private facilities with public funding you must have a compromise, neither can have complete control.
I did. Or you could say I extrapolated from what is stated in the legislation. In fairness, the extrapolation is backed by jurisprudence:
Tierney vs Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers (1959) found that based on freedom of association a trade union was free to refuse to accept a member; their right of association conferred a right of disassociation.
Equality Authority vs Portmarnock Golf Club found a club could refuse to accept female members, and in their judgement stated "At least in the private sphere one may associate with whom one likes and need not associate with those with whom one does not wish to associate. Thus, one may have a ladies’ club, a gentlemens’ club, a gay club, a Catholic club, an Africans’ club and so on. And if one forms such a body, one may exclude from it those who do not meet the basic criterion for membership."
So as long as the club (or school) specifies a particular religion as one of their criteria, they are entitled to restrict membership on that criterion.

That kind of stumped me momentarily, since you yourself agreed
Anyways, the current legal mechanism is the Appeals Process Under Section 29 of the Education Act Although it's interesting (and heartening) to note that the current Minister has put forward proposals which would give him more direct powers in the area of directing student intake.

Just as a courtesy I want to tell you I won't be continuing with this discussion, it's becoming too much of a time sink. Thanks for engaging.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

In theory, yes. In practice, no. If you don't want your child to go to a religious ethos school, you could pack your family up, quit your job and move somewhere close to one of the few such schools in the country and hope you get a place. This is an unrealistic solution though.

Actually, no. Under departmental rules every school has to have some sort of religious "ethos", whether mono-denominational or multi-denominational. So to have your children going to a non-religious school, you'd either have to set up a private non-religious school (dear, very very dear) or emigrate to a country with a sensible approach to religion.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually, no. Under departmental rules every school has to have some sort of religious "ethos", whether mono-denominational or multi-denominational.

That's interesting. Which rules exactly?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

The constitution guarantees the right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms, and right to form associations and unions. The corollary to freedom of association is the freedom of dissociation (shamelessly lifting from Human Rights Law 4th Edition here; which in short boils down to a private association is entitled to choose it's members on whatever basis it pleases and is not subject to discrimination law in that regard. So a school, as a private association, may choose pupils as it pleases.

The freedom of association is a positive right. It refers to the freedom individuals have to join an organisation, such as a trade union, without interference from the State.

It does not imply that an association can lawfully exclude an individual from joining it, on random bigoted or racist grounds. That would be a negative right if it existed, and it would always be subservient to the right of the individual not to be discriminated against.

Absolam wrote: »

A minor quibble then; since the DoE has the final say the school may decline, but only the DoE may refuse. In fairness, it's a fairly semantic point, what's important is the school does not have the final say on the matter.

Not a minor quibble, because the DoE cannot overrule a school decision where that decision is based on an exemption clause written into our equality legislation.
So what's important is that the school does have the final say on the matter. As long as they specifically give "the protection of religious ethos" as a reason for refusing a pupil, the DoE will not argue with them.

Aside from that, it may well happen some day that somebody will succeed in taking a constitutional case, or a ECHR case against a discriminatory admission policy. In which case the legislation itself will be overruled and amended, similar to what happened to the outdated abortion legislation we had up until recently.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

That's interesting. Which rules exactly?

Non-denominational schools are not allowed, only multi-denominational ones.
A school could not be specifically atheist.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The freedom of association is positive right. It refers to the freedom individuals have to join an organisation, such as a trade union, without interference from the State. It does not imply that an association can lawfully exclude an individual from joining it, on random bigoted or racist grounds. That would be a negative right if it existed, and it would always be subservient to the right of the individual not to be discriminated against.

I'm not sure about positive and negative rights; I'm more certain that freedom of association is an expressed right, and freedom of disassociation is a corollary of the expressed right. As to an implication of a subservient right I wouldn't care to comment; I've never heard of subservient rights. However, the right of disassociation is certainly conferred without reservation per the jurisprudence I previously noted:
Tierney vs Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers found that based on freedom of association a trade union was free to refuse to accept a member; their right of association conferred a right of disassociation.
Equality Authority vs Portmarnock Golf Club found a club could refuse to accept female members, and in their judgement stated "At least in the private sphere one may associate with whom one likes and need not associate with those with whom one does not wish to associate. Thus, one may have a ladies’ club, a gentlemens’ club, a gay club, a Catholic club, an Africans’ club and so on. And if one forms such a body, one may exclude from it those who do not meet the basic criterion for membership."
So as long as the club (or school) specifies a particular religion (or race, or gender) as one of their criteria, they are entitled to restrict membership on that criterion, despite that criterion being a specified discriminatory ground (as in gender, in that specific case).

recedite wrote: »

Not a minor quibble, because the DoE cannot overrule a school decision where that decision is based on an exemption clause written into our equality legislation.
So what's important is that the school does have the final say on the matter. As long as they specifically give "the protection of religious ethos" as a reason for refusing a pupil, the DoE will not argue with them.

I think you probably just skipped my last post. As I said, the schools decision can be appealed to the DoE under the Appeals Process Under Section 29 of the Education Act (the Irish Human Rights Commission also point this out in their paper Religion & Education A Human Rights Perspective in case you think it's just my opinion).

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Non-denominational schools are not allowed, only multi-denominational ones. A school could not be specifically atheist.

Actually, I asked under what departmental rules does every school have to have some sort of religious "ethos", whether mono-denominational or multi-denominational?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

As I said, the schools decision can be appealed to the DoE under the Appeals Process Under Section 29 of the Education Act (the Irish Human Rights Commission also point this out in their paper Religion & Education A Human Rights Perspective in case you think it's just my opinion).

You are referring to this, I presume;

9.As outlined in the Discussion Paper,section 19 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 provides that the Board of Management shall not refuse to admit a student, except where such refusal is in accordance with the admission policy of the school concerned.
10.The Discussion Paper further states that section 26 (1) of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 provides the National Educational Welfare Board (“NEWB”) with the right to appeal a decision of a Board of Management pursuant to section 29 of the Education Act.

I regard that as a piece of bureaucratic and legislative bull$hit. What would be the point of appealing a BOM decision to exclude a pupil, when the BOM was blatantly and openly discriminatory in its policy? All they have to do is say "Yes we are bigots, and our policies are bigoted, we are proud of that fact. As bigots we can claim the exemption in the Equal Status Act".

Absolam wrote: »

Equality Authority vs Portmarnock Golf Club found a club could refuse to accept female members, and in their judgement stated "At least in the private sphere one may associate with whom one likes and need not associate with those with whom one does not wish to associate. Thus, one may have a ladies’ club, a gentlemens’ club, a gay club, a Catholic club, an Africans’ club and so on.

The first thing to notice about this decision is that it refers to a "private club" so it has no application to schools which are funded by the State.

The second thing is that the Equal Status Act allows exemptions to private clubs catering for the specific "needs" of particular groups, which wording is inherently flawed because of its vagueness. For example a golf club catering for disabled people might have spent money on special wheelchair ramps etc, and might not want to be flooded with able bodied members, which would displace the intended membership.

Section 9 of the Equal Status Act provides, in relevant part:
1) For the purposes of section 8, a club shall not be considered to be a
discriminating club by reason only that—
(a) if its principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of—
(i) persons of a particular gender, marital status, family status, sexual
orientation, religious belief, age, disability, nationality or ethnic or
national origin,
(ii) persons who are members of the Traveller community, or
(iii) persons who have no religious belief,

The third thing to notice is that when the Equality Commission originally took the golf club to court, in the District Court, it happened to be heard by a female judge. The golf club lost its case. Then they appealed to the High Court, where a male judge overturned the ruling. Then it went to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges (male) upheld that the golf club was "not a discriminatory club", but the dissenting opinion came from a female judge on the panel, who disagreed.
One wonders whether some of these "elderly white male" judges are themselves members of the club, or are just simply out of touch with reality. By interpreting this "need" of male golfers to be free of female company, they also leave the way open for a "white men only" golf club, or a "no jews" golf club, which would satisfy the "needs" of those particular bigots.
The mistake that these judges made was in not recognising that the golf club membership was in reality "open to the public, or to certain sections of the public". So it is different to the freedom of association you might have in your own private house, where you are not obliged to allow entry to say, any black jewish lesbian women, who demand access to your private party.

Basically, our equality legislation is flawed due to its many exemptions, its vagueness, and its loopholes. However other kinds of laws have precedence over our national legislation, such as the Constitution, and the right to equality, and rights established by the ECHR.
Getting back to school patronage, I would not expect to see any politician or political party make any useful contribution.
Change will happen slowly as people vote with their feet, gradually moving away from schools that are run as recruitment vehicles for religious cults.

Rapid change could also come suddenly and unexpectly as a "Black Swan Event". Somewhere, maybe not even in Ireland, somebody could take their local school all the way to the European Court, and put an abrupt end to all publicly funded discriminating and/or indoctrinating education, throughout Europe. The Folgero case brought before ECHR by Norwegian parents is a good start;

(h) The second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 implies on the other hand that the State, in fulfilling the functions assumed by it in regard to education and teaching, must take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that must not be exceeded

A few more judgements along these lines would be welcome.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You are referring to this, I presume;
9.As outlined in the Discussion Paper,section 19 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 provides that the Board of Management shall not refuse to admit a student, except where such refusal is in accordance with the admission policy of the school concerned.
10.The Discussion Paper further states that section 26 (1) of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 provides the National Educational Welfare Board (“NEWB”) with the right to appeal a decision of a Board of Management pursuant to section 29 of the Education Act.

I'm not, I'm referring to this:
Page 5.
In addition it may be noted that in relation to a refusal of enrolment there may be two possible remedies open to a parent: an appeal under section 29 and/or a complaint under the Equal Status Acts.

recedite wrote: »

I regard that as a piece of bureaucratic and legislative bull$hit. What would be the point of appealing a BOM decision to exclude a pupil, when the BOM was blatantly and openly discriminatory in its policy? All they have to do is say "Yes we are bigots, and our policies are bigoted, we are proud of that fact. As bigots we can claim the exemption in the Equal Status Act".

How you regard it isn't terribly relevant, only that, as I said, the schools decision can be appealed to the DoE, so contrary to what you said, the school does not have the final say on the matter.

recedite wrote: »

The first thing to notice about this decision is that it refers to a "private club" so it has no application to schools which are funded by the State.

No the first thing to note is your assertion

recedite wrote: »

It does not imply that an association can lawfully exclude an individual from joining it, on random bigoted or racist grounds. That would be a negative right if it existed, and it would always be subservient to the right of the individual not to be discriminated against.

is demonstrably incorrect; the right is assuredly conferred. I also quite specifically noted I was talking about private schools and that state funded schools were different.

recedite wrote: »

The second thing is that the Equal Status Act allows exemptions to private clubs catering for the specific "needs" of particular groups, which wording is inherently flawed because of its vagueness.

Your opinion on the flaws in the legislation is probably a little less significant than how the Supreme Court in fact enforces the legislation?

recedite wrote: »

The third thing to notice is that when the Equality Commission originally took the golf club to court, in the District Court, it happened to be heard by a female judge. The golf club lost its case. Then they appealed to the High Court, where a male judge overturned the ruling. Then it went to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges (male) upheld that the golf club was "not a discriminatory club", but the dissenting opinion came from a female judge on the panel, who disagreed.

So in short, the highest court in the land has ruled on it.

recedite wrote: »

One wonders whether some of these "elderly white male" judges are themselves members of the club, or are just simply out of touch with reality. By interpreting this "need" of male golfers to be free of female company, they also leave the way open for a "white men only" golf club, or a "no jews" golf club, which would satisfy the "needs" of those particular bigots.

One may wonder a great deal of things, but one may be certain that the right of disassociation does exist, and is not 'subservient' to the right to equality.

recedite wrote: »

The mistake that these judges made was in not recognising that the golf club membership was in reality "open to the public, or to certain sections of the public". So it is different to the freedom of association you might have in your own private house, where you are not obliged to allow entry to say, any black jewish lesbian women, who demand access to your private party.

If you were familiar with the process of joining the (private) Portmarnock Golf Club you might not be so sure it is in reality "open to the public, or to certain sections of the public". Regardless, taking their combined legal knowledge and history, I suspect it outweighs your own, so on balance of probability any mistake in law is more likely to be yours that theirs?

recedite wrote: »

Basically, our equality legislation is flawed due to its many exemptions, its vagueness, and its loopholes. However other kinds of laws have precedence over our national legislation, such as the Constitution, and the right to equality, and rights established by the ECHR.

I suspect you will consider it flawed until it is changed to agree with what you would like it to be? In any case, it ought to be pointed out that our equality legislation is based almost entirely on the Constitution and EU directives.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not, I'm referring to this:
Page 5.
In addition it may be noted that in relation to a refusal of enrolment there may be two possible remedies open to a parent: an appeal under section 29 and/or a complaint under the Equal Status Acts.
How you regard it isn't terribly relevant, only that, as I said, the schools decision can be appealed to the DoE, so contrary to what you said, the school does not have the final say on the matter.

You keep going back to this circular argument. Its just semantics. When the school has already been given the option to "opt out" from the relevant aspects of equality legislation, then any appeal on those grounds would be spurious. DoE does not have the power to overturn a "discriminatory" decision made by a school or BOM under these circumstances.

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect you will consider it flawed until it is changed to agree with what you would like it to be? In any case, it ought to be pointed out that our equality legislation is based almost entirely on the Constitution and EU directives.

Yes, and I am entitled to hold that opinion. In the 19th century abolitionists argued that slavery in the US violated the constitution, and it was noticeable that whenever these cases went to their federal Supreme Courts, the judges from the southern slave states invariably upheld the status quo, allowing slavery to be an option, while those from northern states dissented.
But time marches on, and things change.

Going back to the concept of conflicting rights, the right to free speech and free association will always compete to a certain extent against the right of other people to be free from discrimination and incitement to hatred. So I differentiate between a couple of loose categories, for which different standards (should) apply.

Cat 1. A private gathering, whose purpose is to further its own particular aims.
So if I want to hold a meeting of a neo-nazi group in my house, we can discuss the pernicious influence of jews on society, and any other matters of interest to us, in private. It is reasonable for this club not to allow jews or blacks any access or membership, as that would interfere with the core business of the club, as openly stated in its articles of association. On the other hand, the vast bulk of society has no wish to join the club, and can carry on living without being inconvenienced.

Cat 2. A privately owned facility, which offers a service of interest to the general public, but the owners try to restrict access to only a certain section of the general public, by operating a discriminatory policy. Examples might be a hotel or guest house that refuses to admit a gay couple, a swimming pool that refuses to let in fat or ugly people, a pub that refuses to serve "the travelling community" or a golf club that refuses membership to women, or blacks, or jews.
This kind of discrimination should not be allowed, and in most civilised jurisdictions, it is not.
We all know that many golf clubs admit new members only after they are proposed and seconded by an existing member. Which policy may well be only a technicality if they are short of members, or it may be rigorously enforced if the club is oversubscribed and exclusive. But this is really just an attempt to to allow a club in category 2 to avail of the extra leeway allowed to those in cat.1
That's why I am saying those (male) judges were wrong to make the decision they made.

Cat 3.
A facility or service that is owned by the State or funded with public money.
A school (including so-called private schools which receive capitation grants from the state) a museum, or a public park etc.
No discrimination should be allowed.
That's why I'm saying the current "Equality" legislation is flawed, because of all the exemptions. The worst exemption of all is the one that allows a school which is owned by the State, and entirely funded with public money, to be managed by a religious body as its "patron" and to be operated with an openly discriminatory admissions policy.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You keep going back to this circular argument. Its just semantics.

I can't tell why you think the argument is circular? You said the school has the final decision on the matter, I pointed out where their decision can be appealed to the DoE. It seems a straightforward one thing following another to me. Nor can I see why you think it's a semantic argument, since we're not debating the meaning of what is said? There's no word play here; one thing follows another, simple.

recedite wrote: »

When the school has already been given the option to "opt out" from the relevant aspects of equality legislation, then any appeal on those grounds would be spurious.

Don't you think that sentence should include 'in my opinion'?

recedite wrote: »

DoE does not have the power to overturn a "discriminatory" decision made by a school or BOM under these circumstances.

Again, your opinion. Contrary to the opinion of the IHRC. In fact, your opinion on how rights legislation works has been contrary to the facts resulting from jurisprudence and supreme court opinion so far, so I probably wouldn't put a great deal of stock in your opinion on this one?

recedite wrote: »

Yes, and I am entitled to hold that opinion. In the 19th century abolitionists argued that slavery in the US violated the constitution, and it was noticeable that whenever these cases went to their federal Supreme Courts, the judges from the southern slave states invariably upheld the status quo, allowing slavery to be an option, while those from northern states dissented. But time marches on, and things change.

Absolutely, no doubt at all. But until times change, your opinion will be contrary to the law.

recedite wrote: »

Going back to the concept of conflicting rights, the right to free speech and free association will always compete to a certain extent against the right of other people to be free from discrimination and incitement to hatred. So I differentiate between a couple of loose categories, for which different standards (should) apply.<.....>policy.

Maybe, but we're not really discussing how the world would work if you had your way; there's not much point to it. We're discussing how it does work, most specifically in the instance of school patronage.

recedite

Some of us can imagine better ways of doing things, so we do not confine ourselves to merely lamenting the current state of play.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Some of us can imagine better ways of doing things, so we do not confine ourselves to merely lamenting the current state of play.

Which is indeed laudable, but it's as well to keep a firm distinction between fact and fiction when discussing a topic that is more practical than theoretical.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/quinn-advises-teachers-to-study-re-to-boost-their-job-prospects-1.1840363

Teachers seeking to maximise their job prospects would be advised to study religious education, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn has said at the announcement of a major reform in teacher training.

It's hardly optional if over 90% of schools won't employ you without it, is it?

recedite

Quinn is "a bit of an ass". Its interesting to see the prods and the catholics finally joining forces in bid to see off their real threat, which is the people's growing apathy to religion in general, and their reluctance to have it interfering in so many aspects of civil life.

As well as overcoming traditional divisions in teacher-training, he said the institute would provide an “atmosphere of excellence”.
A key element of the plan is greater focus on third-level research as this was identified as a weakness in existing training colleges.

Looking forward to results from this.
I, for one, believe that there haven't been enough expeditions to Mount Arafat in search of Noah's ark.