Equal Status Acts and religious believes

Del2005

From doing a search of this site it doesn't appear that Ireland has a definition for what a religion is. If that's the case how can the equal status act prohibit discrimination based on religious believes if there's no religion?

If someone was to take a case based on their religious believes which are completely unique to that person and not based on any of the main religions how could they prove that they had this believe and how "religious" it is? How is a belief, which for the vast majority of people is inherited from their parents, more real than a believe someone has come to of their own free will?

234

It's actually a very interesting question that hasn't been addressed yet, even if case law (as far as I'm aware).

Basically there are two approaches.

First, you determine whether something is a religion based on the sincerity and nature of the belief of the person in question; a kind of subjective approach. The problem with this is that it would give equal weight to crackpot religions (eg Jedi) as more established religions.

Secondly, you have a more objective approach. This looks at established religions as a benchmark and compares the newly asserted religion to them. If many of the constituent elements are the same then it would qualify. This does not mean that that they have to be the same on doctrinal issues but rather than they affect the life of a believer in a similar way eg a code of ethics, belief in a higher power, certain rites, etc. The problem with this approach is that it stifles the recognition that doesn't conform to the ideas of religion that we are familiar with and can lead to a kind of cultural imperialism where it's our way or the highway.

There is a very interesting paper in Doyle & Carolan eds., The Irish Constitution: Governance and Values which deals with exactly this issue. The courts are naturally wary of defining religion and I would image that they would probably prefer to leave it to the legislature as with all major social issues that are not really dealt with in the constitution.

johnnyskeleton

Del2005 wrote: »

From doing a search of this site it doesn't appear that Ireland has a definition for what a religion is. If that's the case how can the equal status act prohibit discrimination based on religious believes if there's no religion?

If someone was to take a case based on their religious believes which are completely unique to that person and not based on any of the main religions how could they prove that they had this believe and how "religious" it is? How is a belief, which for the vast majority of people is inherited from their parents, more real than a believe someone has come to of their own free will?

It's not a case of "I didn't get what I want" + "I am of a minority religion" = discrimination.

It's only discrimination if "I didn't get what I want because of my minority religion". If no one else knows about your religion, including the person who allegedly discriminates against you, how could they possibly be discriminating against you on that basis?

Victor

Del2005 wrote: »

From doing a search of this site it doesn't appear that Ireland has a definition for what a religion is. If that's the case how can the equal status act prohibit discrimination based on religious believes if there's no religion?

Where a word in an act isn't defined, then the normal definition of that word is used.

We can normally recognise a religion or a religion-related matter for what it is.

Not that there are certain exemptions under the Equal Status Act relating to religion (and other categories).

Del2005

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not a case of "I didn't get what I want" + "I am of a minority religion" = discrimination.

It's only discrimination if "I didn't get what I want because of my minority religion". If no one else knows about your religion, including the person who allegedly discriminates against you, how could they possibly be discriminating against you on that basis?

If you tell them you are doing something as it's part of your religious belief. The easiest example would be requiring motorcyclists to remove helmets before entering a shop yet allowing someone dressed in a Burqa in. They just assume the person in the Burqa is wearing it for religious believes, even thought they could be being forced to wear it, yet assume the motorcyclist has no religious believe in Motorbikes, as it's not an established religion yet. So if the biker says after being requested to remove their lid that they can't for religious reasons can they take an equal status case if they are refused service?

This is pushing it to the extreme but why does religious protection only protect the "popular" religions and not personal believes which don't confirm to the normal, yet they are more relevant to something you inherited from your parents?

Del2005

Victor wrote: »

We can normally recognise a religion or a religion-related matter for what it is.

But how can you? By looking at books written years after the event took place and selectively edited over countless generations then saying that a person is religious because they read the book.

Religious believes don't have to conform to the normal religious traditions, but they are protected by the equal states act!, so how can you say it's easy to recognize religion v's non religion issue when they haven't even defined what a religion is?

belcampprisoner

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/15/landmark-judgment-cross-religious-freedom

smcgiff

234 wrote: »

The problem with this is that it would give equal weight to crackpot religions (eg Jedi) as more established religions.

Indeed, you'll have to be more specific on a legal forum. To some of us all religions are crackpot. We just cannot openly discriminate on the basis of religion.

johnnyskeleton

Del2005 wrote: »

If you tell them you are doing something as it's part of your religious belief. The easiest example would be requiring motorcyclists to remove helmets before entering a shop yet allowing someone dressed in a Burqa in. They just assume the person in the Burqa is wearing it for religious believes, even thought they could be being forced to wear it, yet assume the motorcyclist has no religious believe in Motorbikes, as it's not an established religion yet. So if the biker says after being requested to remove their lid that they can't for religious reasons can they take an equal status case if they are refused service?

This is pushing it to the extreme but why does religious protection only protect the "popular" religions and not personal believes which don't confirm to the normal, yet they are more relevant to something you inherited from your parents?

Well yes. In that example, if the person can demonstrate that it is an actual religious belief eg he has a church of motorbike helmet wearing or has written several books on the issue, then I don't see why he can't make the claim. If the company do operate a pro burkha anti helmet policy and they can't justify this on an objective basis then such a claim might even succeed.

On the other hand, a person claiming that their religion requires then to wear a helmet at all times without anything to back it up will face a difficult time showings discrimination. Plus, if a bank manager came in and said that it was genuinely nothig against that persons religion but they were told by a security consultant that burkhas don't pose a security risk but helmets do, then even if it is a genuine belief it is still not discrimination. They could also be excused for never having been informed of this persons particular customs. If they offer to permit the person to wear the helmet after they have been notified then that also cures any allegation of discrimination.

Manach

To some of us some groups by not having a religion are akin to blood-soak bolsevicks. Then again, the up to recent Faith background of Western European of two millenium fairly standard orthodox belief system was an good indicator of religious belief, with the wearing of a Cross as per the recent ECHR also a bit of a hint
Between that and other cases supporting Freedom of expression for religiously held view (offhand Smith v Housing Authority) means that this will be more a prevalent issue in the future

Del2005

belcampprisoner wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/15/landmark-judgment-cross-religious-freedom

This is the point I'm trying to get at. These people are going to court for their religious believes. But what if you don't believe in the main religions yet have a religious believe? How can you get equal status for your believe if the excepted way of believing religiously doesn't match yours

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well yes. In that example, if the person can demonstrate that it is an actual religious belief eg he has a church of motorbike helmet wearing or has written several books on the issue, then I don't see why he can't make the claim. If the company do operate a pro burkha anti helmet policy and they can't justify this on an objective basis then such a claim might even succeed.

What if the religion is based purely on faith? Why should a person have to write a book to prove their belief? How many Catholics could prove their religious belief if that's the case?

If the law is that you can't be discriminated on religious believes then if someone is willing to swear an oath that they believe in something it has to be accepted as their religious believe, just because it's unconventional doesn't make it any more or less relevant.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On the other hand, a person claiming that their religion requires then to wear a helmet at all times without anything to back it up will face a difficult time showings discrimination. Plus, if a bank manager came in and said that it was genuinely nothig against that persons religion but they were told by a security consultant that burkhas don't pose a security risk but helmets do, then even if it is a genuine belief it is still not discrimination. They could also be excused for never having been informed of this persons particular customs. If they offer to permit the person to wear the helmet after they have been notified then that also cures any allegation of discrimination.

AFAIK there's nothing written in the Quran that says women have to be covered. So their religious tradition holds more sway than someone who actually believes that wearing a helmet when using their bike is their religion.

Do you think any company would get away with banning Burqa's even if they where constantly being robbed by people wearing Burqa's?

Del2005

234 wrote: »

It's actually a very interesting question that hasn't been addressed yet, even if case law (as far as I'm aware).

Basically there are two approaches.

First, you determine whether something is a religion based on the sincerity and nature of the belief of the person in question; a kind of subjective approach. The problem with this is that it would give equal weight to crackpot religions (eg Jedi) as more established religions.

Secondly, you have a more objective approach. This looks at established religions as a benchmark and compares the newly asserted religion to them. If many of the constituent elements are the same then it would qualify. This does not mean that that they have to be the same on doctrinal issues but rather than they affect the life of a believer in a similar way eg a code of ethics, belief in a higher power, certain rites, etc. The problem with this approach is that it stifles the recognition that doesn't conform to the ideas of religion that we are familiar with and can lead to a kind of cultural imperialism where it's our way or the highway.

There is a very interesting paper in Doyle & Carolan eds., The Irish Constitution: Governance and Values which deals with exactly this issue. The courts are naturally wary of defining religion and I would image that they would probably prefer to leave it to the legislature as with all major social issues that are not really dealt with in the constitution.

Why should Jedi be considered a crackpot religion? It's based on a fictional book but there are other religions based on books that can't be proven to be real.

Just because a religion has been going for thousands of years doesn't make a religious believe someone just arrived at any less valid, it says so in law, getting your non conventional belief excepted is the problem. Who says that your religion is only valid if you require people to go to a building one day a week and eat their God, or pray 5 times a day and then fast during daylight hours for a month?

Religious believes shouldn't have to be the same as everyone else's to be valid and by making it a requirement it is against the aim of the equal status act, is it not?

234

The danger is that people would start inventions religions to get what they want without sincerity of belief. Jedi was just the first thing that popped into my mind.

I'm not saying that established religions are any more valid than non-established; just that it's easier to see if somebody is taking the piss when they purport to hold a well-known belief.

SB2013

Religious freedom is not absolute though. It is subject to restrictions. in my opinion, banning entry to anyone with a covered face would likely be ok. Banning some and not others would not without a good reason.