ECtHR judgement finds Irish State liable for sexual abuse in Catholic Schools

expectationlost

press release [PHP]http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4649530-5631984#{"itemid":["003-4649530-5631984"]}[/PHP]

European Convention on Human Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights for the articles referenced

Structure of primary education in Ireland in the 1970s failed to
protect a schoolgirl from sexual abuse by her teacher In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of O’Keeffe v. Ireland (application no. 35810/09),
which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held:
by 11 votes to 6, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading
treatment) and of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human
Rights concerning the Irish State’s failure to protect Ms O’Keeffe from sexual abuse and her inability
to obtain recognition at national level of that failure; and
unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the European Convention as regards
the investigation into the complaints of sexual abuse at Ms O’Keeffe’s school.
The case concerned the question of the responsibility of the State for the sexual abuse of a
schoolgirl, aged nine, by a lay teacher in an Irish National School in 1973.
The Court found that it was an inherent obligation of a Government to protect children from
ill-treatment, especially in a primary education context. That obligation had not been met when the
Irish State, which had to have been aware of the sexual abuse of children by adults prior to the
1970s through, among other things, its prosecution of such crimes at a significant rate, nevertheless
continued to entrust the management of the primary education of the vast majority of young Irish
children to National Schools, without putting in place any mechanism of effective State control
against the risks of such abuse occurring. On the contrary, potential complainants had been directed
away from the State authorities and towards the managers (generally the local priest) of the
National Schools. Indeed, any system of detection and reporting of abuse which allowed over 400
incidents of abuse to occur in Ms O’Keeffe’s school for such a long time had to be considered
ineffective.

Principal facts http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4649530-5631984

Article 3 (ill-treatment)
The Court acknowledged that, when examining this case, it had to assess any State responsibility
from the point of view of facts and standards of 1973 and, notably, disregarding the awareness in
society today of the risk of sexual abuse of minors in an educational context. That awareness is the
result of recent public controversies on the subject, including in Ireland. The Court also
acknowledged that the model of primary education in Ireland, a product of its historical experience,
was unique in Europe with the State providing for education (setting the curriculum, licencing
teachers and funding schools) and the day-to-day management of primary education being provided
by National Schools.
The Court went on to recall that young children are vulnerable, and it was an inherent obligation of a
Government to protect them from ill-treatment, especially in primary education when they are
under the exclusive control of school authorities, by adopting special measures and safeguards. A
State could not absolve itself from that obligation by delegating to private bodies or individuals. Nor
could it be freed from that obligation since, as suggested by the Government, Ms O’Keeffe could
have chosen alternative schooling options such as home schooling or fee-paying schools. Primary
education was obligatory under national law and Ms O’Keeffe had no realistic and acceptable
alternative at the time other than to attend her local National School, along with the vast majority of
children of her age.
The crucial question in this case was not the responsibility of LH, of a clerical Manager or Patron, of a
parent or of any other individual for the sexual abuse to which Ms O’Keeffe was subjected in 1973.
Rather the case concerned the State’s responsibility and whether it should have been aware of a risk
of sexual abuse of minors such as the applicant in National Schools at the relevant time and whether
it had adequately protected children, through its legal system, from such ill-treatment.
On the first point, the Court found that the State had to have been aware of the level of sexual crime
against minors through its prosecution of such crimes at a significant rate prior to the 1970s. A
number of reports from the 1930s to the 1970s gave detailed statistical evidence on the prosecution
rates in Ireland for sexual offences against children. The Ryan Report of May 2009 also evidenced
complaints made to the authorities prior to and during the 1970s about the sexual abuse of children
by adults. Although that report focused on reformatory and industrial schools, complaints about
abuse in National Schools were recorded.
Despite this awareness, the Irish State continued to entrust the management of the primary
education of the vast majority of young Irish children to privately managed National Schools,
without putting in place any mechanism of effective State control.
The Government maintained that certain mechanisms of detection and reporting had been in place.
However, the Court did not consider these to be effective.
In the first place, the Government pointed to the 1965 Rules for National Schools and the 1970
Guidance Note outlining the practice to be followed for complaints against teachers. However,
neither referred to any obligation of the authorities to monitor a teacher’s treatment of children nor
provided a procedure for prompting a child or parent to complain about ill-treatment directly to a
State authority. Indeed, the Guidance Note specifically channelled complaints directly to non-State
Managers, generally the local priest as in Ms O’Keeffe’s case. Complaints had in effect been made in
1971 and 1973 about LH to the Manager of Ms O’Keeffe’s school but the Manager had not brought
those complaints to the notice of any State authority.
Secondly, the system of School Inspectors, also relied upon by the Government, did not refer to any
obligation on Inspectors to inquire into or monitor a teacher’s treatment of children, their task
principally being to supervise and report on the quality of teaching and academic performance.
While the Inspector assigned to Ms O’Keeffe’s school in Dunderrow had made six visits from 1969 to
1973, no complaint had ever been made to him about LH.
Indeed, no complaint about LH’s activities had been made to a State authority until 1995, after LH
had retired. The Court considered that any system of detection and reporting which allowed over
400 incidents of abuse by LH to occur over such a long period had to be considered to be ineffective.
Adequate action taken on the 1971 complaint could reasonably have been expected to avoid Ms
O’Keeffe being abused two years later by the same teacher in the same school.

In sum, in Ms O’Keeffe’s case, the consequences of a lack of protection from abuse had been the
failure by the non-State Manager to act on prior complaints of sexual abuse by LH, Ms O’Keeffe’s
later abuse by LH and, more broadly, the prolonged and serious sexual misconduct by LH against
numerous other students in that same National School.
Therefore, the Irish State had failed to meet its obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe from the sexual
abuse to which she had been subjected in 1973 whilst a pupil in Dunderrow National School, in
violation of Article 3.
Article 3 (investigation)
As soon as a complaint about sexual abuse by LH of a child from Dunderrow National School was
made to the police in 1995, an investigation was opened during which Ms O’Keeffe had been given
the opportunity to make a statement. The investigation resulted in LH being charged on numerous
counts concerning sexual abuse, convicted and imprisoned. Ms O’Keeffe had not taken issue with
the fact that LH was allowed to plead guilty to representative charges or with his sentence.
Therefore, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 3 as regards the investigation
into complaints of sexual abuse at Ms O’Keeffe’s school.
Article 13 (recognition at national level of the failure to protect Ms O’Keeffe from abuse) in
conjunction with Article 3
The Court considered that it had not been shown that any of the national remedies on which the
Government had relied (the State’s vicarious liability, a claim against the State in direct negligence or
a constitutional tort claim) had been effective as regards Ms O’Keeffe’s complaint about the failure
to protect her from abuse. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.
Other articles
The Court held that the complaints under Article 8, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 did not
give rise to any issues separate to those already examined.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held, by eleven votes to six, that Ireland was to pay Ms O’Keeffe 30,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 85,000 for costs and expenses.
Separate opinions
Judge Ziemele expressed a concurring opinion; Judges Zupančič, Gyulumyan, Kalaydjieva, de
Gaetano and Wojtyczek expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion; and, Judge Charleton expressed
a dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.
The judgment is available in English and French.

http://play.webvideocore.net/popplayer.php?it=1n1p03ztmxno&c1=#c8c8c8&c2=#a6a6a6&is_link=0&w=720&h=405&p=0&title=CEDH_OKEEFE_DECLARATION_140128_1&skin=3&repeat=&brandNW=1&start_volume=100&bg_gradient1=#fff&bg_gradient2=#e0e0e0&fullscreen=&no_fs=0&fs_mode=2&skinAlpha=80&colorBase=#202020&colorIcon=#FFFFFF&colorHighlight=#fcad37&direct=true video of announcement

Hearing http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings&w=3581009_06032013&language=lang

Department of education response

28 January, 2014 - Press Statement from Dept of Education & Skills on ECHR Judgment in Louise O’Keeffe v. Ireland

The abuse to which Louise O’Keeffe and many others were subjected to in our recent past is a source of national shame and it has taught us lessons that we as a country must never forget.

The European Court of Human Rights delivered a Grand Chamber judgment in the case of O’Keeffe v. Ireland this morning. In its judgment the ECHR found, by a 11:6 majority decision, that there was a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant and that there has been a violation of Article 13, taken together with the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the lack of an effective remedy as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant.

The ECHR held that Ms O’Keeffe should be paid €30,000 damages and €85,000 in respect of the costs and expenses of the domestic and Convention proceedings. The ECHR held unanimously that there has been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention and that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 8 or under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, whether alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

The detailed judgment of the ECHR, which is binding on the State will now be assessed for its implications and the necessary steps to implement the decision of the ECHR will be pursued.

This case arose out of the sexual abuse of Ms O’Keeffe while attending primary school in the early 1970s. Since that time, Irish society has faced the scourge of child sexual abuse in a wide range of settings from within family homes, to residential settings and in the wider community settings, such as schools and sports clubs, as well as in specific Catholic Church contexts. This is a deeply shameful part of our recent history.

The State has put in place robust child protection measures with a central role for the recently established Child and Family Agency. Within the education sector, all schools are required to adhere to Child Protection Procedures which give direction and guidance to school authorities and school personnel in the implementation of Children First when dealing with allegations/suspicions of child abuse. All primary schools fully implement the Stay Safe programme which plays a valuable role in helping children develop the skills necessary to enable them to recognise and resist abuse and potentially abusive situations.

Note for Editors

This case arose out of the sexual abuse of Ms O’Keeffe by her school principal, Mr Leo Hickey, when attending primary school in the early 1970s. Mr Hickey was charged with 386 criminal offences of sexual abuse involving 21 former pupils. In 1998 he pleaded guilty to 21 sample charges and was sentenced to imprisonment. Ms O’Keeffe was compensated through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and brought a civil action against the perpetrator, Mr Hickey, and the Minister for Education and Skills, Ireland and the Attorney General. Mr Hickey did not defend the action and in 2006 the High Court ordered him to pay Ms O’Keeffe €305,104 in damages, of which some €30,000 has been received at a rate of €400 per month. The High Court dismissed the claim of direct negligence against the State and held that the State was not vicariously liable for the sexual assaults by Mr Hickey. The Supreme Court dismissed Ms O’Keeffe’s appeal on the vicarious liability point.

Ms O’Keeffe complained to the ECHR that the IrishState failed both to structure the primary education system so as to protect her from abuse as well as to investigate or provide an appropriate judicial response to her ill-treatment. She also claimed that she has not been able to obtain recognition of, and compensation for, the State’s failure to protect her. She relied on Article 3 (prohibition of in human and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). She further complained of violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The full judgment is available on the ECHR website.
- See more at: http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2014-Press-Releases/PR14-01-28A.html#sthash.Nu3eDPeD.dpuf

^statements from public authorities^

my opinion > the state seems to be blaming society as a whole rather then authority who actually have the power to do something about it.

even Kenny's famous apology for abuse was in that vein

Kenny declines to say if State will apologise to Louise O’Keeffe
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/kenny-declines-to-say-if-state-will-apologise-to-louise-o-keeffe-1.1671081

from ruling wrote:

...nevertheless
continued to entrust the management of the primary education of the vast majority of young Irish
children to [CATHOLIC] National Schools, without putting in place any mechanism of effective State control
against the risks of such abuse occurring.

she seems to have not won on the issue of investigation of her complaint once she told the authorites in 1995 but on the lack of active protection of her and others by the state back in the 70's

this page contains her complaints [PHP]http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-112135#{"itemid":["001-112135"]}[/PHP]

And what is your opinion?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

And what is your opinion?

He says what his opinion is:

expectationlost wrote: »

. . . my opinion > the state seems to be blaming society as a whole rather then authority who actually have the power to do something about it.

I’m not sure that this is entirely fair, though, given that the State (in the DofE press release) says this:

“In its judgment the ECHR found, by a 11:6 majority decision, that there was a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant and that there has been a violation of Article 13, taken together with the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the lack of an effective remedy as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant . . . The detailed judgment of the ECHR, which is binding on the State will now be assessed for its implications and the necessary steps to implement the decision of the ECHR will be pursued”

The Court has found that the authority with not only the power but also the responsibility to do something about this was the State itself. And the State is acknowledging that this finding has been made, is binding and must be implemented. I don’t see them attempting to disclaim responsibility.

Esel

Deleted User wrote: »

And what is your opinion?

Peregrinus wrote: »

He says what his opinion is

OP was edited after Buttonftw's post...

I am interested to see how quickly the State responds to this judgement.

However, I do not see how this subject is appropriate to this forum.

expectationlost

Esel wrote: »

OP was edited after Buttonftw's post...

I am interested to see how quickly the State responds to this judgement.

However, I do not see how this subject is appropriate to this forum.

I was getting the post together
:rolleyes:
we're going to discuss it so we might as well discuss it, its relevant to control of schools and responsibilties of the state in providing for schools which is major issue for atheists

Peregrinus

Obviously on this board the main interest is in the role and responsibility of the church in this affair.

We’re hampered here by the fact that, of all the people that Ms. O’Keefe might have sued, two people she did not sue are (a) the (clerical) manager of the school, and (b) the (episcopal) patron. She didn’t sue any churchman or church agency. Consequently the judgment won’t directly address the question of what responsiblity/liablity the church, or particular churchmen, might have for what happened to her.

That doesn’t mean that there are no conclusions that can be drawn. What this case does show is that, in the division of responsbilities between the Minister (as employer of the teachers) and the manager (as the person running the school), neither party accepted long-term responsibility for seeing that the teacher concerned could not continue his abusing career elsewhere. When Ms O’Keeffe’s parents complained to the school manager, he - eventually - took action which resulted in the teacher leaving the school, after which Ms O’Keeffe was not further abused. But he found employment in another school, and other children were abused. The school manager - I suspect - took the view that he had discharged his responsiblity to the pupils in his school by engineering the departure of the teacher, while the Department, in effectively delegating the management of problems of this type to school managers, did not consider the longer term implications of not being made aware when issues like this arose. That left a gap in the supervision of employees which enable the teacher to find another job at a school where his history was unknown. And that points to a serious defect in the whole system of school management/patronage.

lazygal

This will affect all schools, not just those under Catholic patronage.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

This will affect all schools, not just those under Catholic patronage.

Yes. The defects in the patronage system highlighted by the facts don't depend on the fact that the particular patron was a Catholic bishop. If the patronage system delegates control from the Minister to the patron/manager, but only requires the manager to think of the interests f one school and its pupils, then you have the set-up for precisely the problem which unfolded in this case, whether the patron/manager is of any religion or of none. If you did away with patrons entirely and put in place boards of governors elected by the parents, while changing nothing else, you'd have exactly the same problem.

On the other hand, the particular problem which arose here has probably already been addressed. Nowadays, no patron or manager would fail to report to the Department, as a matter of urgency, allegations of sex abuse against a staff member, and the Department has circulars and policies in place requiring this. Plus, any other school to which a teacher applied for a job would look for vetting clearance, and allegations of this kind would come to light. To that limited extent, the change that should prevent this particular problem from recurring has already been made.

Which is not to say that there aren't other lessons that can be learned. We might reasonably ask ourselves why patrons/managers had such extraordinary latitude given them by the state, and whether that latitude might be concealing other problems and other risks that still need to be addressed. But if there are changes that still have to be made to the patronage/management model then, yes, it's likely that they are changes which will address religious and non-religious patrons and managers alike.

Cabaal

Esel wrote: »

However, I do not see how this subject is appropriate to this forum.

It is,
It links in with the catholic school sex abuse cases, also the case in question involved a priest who failed to report abuses.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

We might reasonably ask ourselves why patrons/managers had such extraordinary latitude given them by the state

Because they were men of god :rolleyes:

Sarky

It'll be very interesting to see how this will affect the state's approach to the patronage system. If the ECHR has judged that the buck stops with them and they can't fob the blame off on anyone else, there are many cans of worms just waiting to be opened on the foot of that. Ms. O'Keefe may have managed something incredibly important. Interesting times ahead for Irish education. Very interesting indeed.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can I ask why the Irish State allows teachers to be trained in an environment of attempted religious indoctrination?

Peregrinus wrote: »

We might reasonably ask ourselves why patrons/managers had such extraordinary latitude given them by the state

From a few months ago... the situation reminds me of a few lines from one of -- I think -- Aristophanes' plays:

Passing fool: Hey, you're a politician, aren't you?
Politician: Yes, I am.
Fool: What qualifications do you need get such power?
Politician: None. Though it helps if you enjoy exercising it.

token56

Something I find particularly grating about this is the fact that our own High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the claim of the states vicarious liability so readily. In particular as outlined by the European Court of Human Rights that:

The Supreme Court found that the Irish primary school system had to be understood in the specific context of early 19th Century History and that, while the State funded the system, the management role of the church was such that the State could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of the teacher in question.

Something which happened in the 1970's should be taken in the context of the early 19th Century History of the primary school system. I see the argument being made but I see it as bull**** to be honest. For this to be a ruling by the Supreme Court of this country is appalling. The State in battling this case as far as it did shows their absolute reluctance in accepting responsibility for what occurred throughout the Irish education system for a long period of time. It is noting new but it really pisses me off to be blunt about it.

Bannasidhe

token56 wrote: »

Something I find particularly grating about this is the fact that our own High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the claim of the states vicarious liability so readily. In particular as outlined by the European Court of Human Rights that:



Something which happened in the 1970's should be taken in the context of the early 19th Century History of the primary school system. I see the argument being made but I see it as bull**** to be honest. For this to be a ruling by the Supreme Court of this country is appalling. The State in battling this case as far as it did shows their absolute reluctance in accepting responsibility for what occurred throughout the Irish education system for a long period of time. It is noting new but it really pisses me off to be blunt about it.

Ah, but by placing the 'blame' at the feet of a 19th century 'context' that means its all the fault of 'The Brits' and nothing to do with 'us' guv.

Blame the previous administration is an abiding feature of the Irish political system.

swampgas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Blame the previous administration is an abiding feature of the Irish political system.

A massive reluctance to accept any responsibility for anything, or to enforce accountability on anybody, would be two other abiding features...

/mini-rant

Bannasidhe

swampgas wrote: »

A massive reluctance to accept any responsibility for anything, or to enforce accountability on anybody, would be two other abiding features...

/mini-rant

As is completely off-topic mudslinging. It can't be long before we hear the following exchange in the Dáil:

Gerry Adams : 'Good Morning'
Enda Kenny: 'Is it a good morning for the family of Jean McConville?'

Peregrinus

Sarky wrote: »

It'll be very interesting to see how this will affect the state's approach to the patronage system. If the ECHR has judged that the buck stops with them and they can't fob the blame off on anyone else, there are many cans of worms just waiting to be opened on the foot of that. Ms. O'Keefe may have managed something incredibly important. Interesting times ahead for Irish education. Very interesting indeed.

Not to downplay it's importance, but this isn't a particularly surprising judgment. The state is the employer of all teachers in national schools and, where abuse is perpetrated in a national school by a teacher against a pupil, the state as employer was always very much in the frame. The case against the state as employer is in fact much clearer than the case against the PP as manager, or against the bishop as patron, if only because there's abundant precedent about the liability of employers for the acts of their employees.

It's also worth noting that comparatively few of the clerical abuse cases (as in, abuse perpetrated by clerics) involve clerics who were teachers in national schools abusing their pupils, and the precedent established by this case doesn't relatte to abuse perpetrated by clerics, but to abuse perpetrated by state employees.

The heading to this thread makes much of the fact that the school in this case wa a Catholic school. As far as the judgment is concerned, though, that's completely irrelevant.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As is completely off-topic mudslinging.

Hard to beat -- was this Dennis Skinner? -- this Commons exchange:

Skinner: Half the right honorable members opposite are fools!
Speaker: Withdraw that remark immediately!
Skinner: Fine with me. Half the right honorable members opposite are not fools!

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

The heading to this thread makes much of the fact that the school in this case wa a Catholic school. As far as the judgment is concerned, though, that's completely irrelevant.

Nice try.

The local priest, in his position as patron of the school, was informed of sex abuse at the school. His only action was to (eventually) move the teacher on. He did not inform either the Department of Education or the Gardai. The teacher was re-employed elsewhere (presumably they weren't informed either) and he went on to abuse there too.

Yes the State should have known and should have acted, but those who did know and didn't act must be held responsible also.

Nodin

Peregrinus wrote: »

..........

The Court has found that the authority with not only the power but also the responsibility to do something about this was the State itself. And the State is acknowledging that this finding has been made, is binding and must be implemented. I don’t see them attempting to disclaim responsibility.

....unless you remember the reason it ended up in Europe was them fighting it through every applicable court in the state. I'd say that counts as trying to "disclaim responsibility".

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Nice try.

The local priest, in his position as patron of the school, was informed of sex abuse at the school. His only action was to (eventually) move the teacher on. He did not inform either the Department of Education or the Gardai. The teacher was re-employed elsewhere (presumably they weren't informed either) and he went on to abuse there too.

Yes the State should have known and should have acted, but those who did know and didn't act must be held responsible also.

Oh, sure. I'm not suggesting that the manager doesn't bear moral and probably also legal responsibility here. O'Keeffe didn't sue him, so the court doesn't rule one way or the other on his liability, but this judgment is in no sense an "acquittal" of the manager.

My point is that the liability of the state doesn;'t depend to any extent at all on the fact that the manager was a Catholic priest, or that the school was a Catholic school. If you want to extract the salient point of this case, and articulate the precedent which this case sets that is relevant to other abuse cases, the word "Catholic" has no place. The heading of this thread is wrong. The ECHR didn't find the state "liable for sexual abuse in Catholic schools"; it found the state liable for sexual abuse in this one particular school on grounds which has nothing to do with the fact that it was a Catholic school. And, while the case does set a precedent, it's not a precedent applicable to Catholic schools; it's a precedent applicable to national schools.

Esel

Peregrinus wrote: »

...... And, while the case does set a precedent, it's not a precedent applicable to Catholic schools; it's a precedent applicable to national schools.

Or to any school (national, secondary, vocational, third level etc.) or to any institution or body the employees of which are paid directly by the state.

I am not surprised that the state (or any state) would have contested this case though. If one thinks otherwise, one is not living in the real world, imo.

I still question the appropriateness / relevance of this thread to this particular forum. Having said that, I am not a regular reader/user here, and originally came by this thread via the New Posts link.

Bannasidhe

Esel wrote: »

Or to any school (national, secondary, vocational, third level etc.) or to any institution or body the employees of which are paid directly by the state.

I am not surprised that the state (or any state) would have contested this case though. If one thinks otherwise, one is not living in the real world, imo.

I still question the appropriateness / relevance of this thread to this particular forum. Having said that, I am not a regular reader/user here, and originally came by this thread via the New Posts link.

Perhaps because 96% of our national schools are under the patronage of the RCC and Irish governments have continually abdicated any responsibility for the management of these schools preferring to pass the buck to the Patron i.e. the local RCC bishop. They have now been told they can no longer do that as they have a duty of care.

It was only a matter of time that an Irish government which has legislation on the Statute Books making school attendance compulsory and funds the vast majority of schools would be told they bear responsibility for what happens in those schools and can no longer shrug an say 'not our problem'. It means the State will now have to monitor what happens in these so-called 'private' - but State funded - schools and become a watchdog over an area the RCC was allowed complete control.

If you cannot see why atheists would be interested in this development....

Peregrinus

The thread is obviously of interest in this forum. It has implications for the patronage system for national schools which is a mechanism by which not only the Catholic church but also other churches and religious bodies are give a significant role in public education. And that's a matter of great interest to the regulars here.

(Of course, if it results in any changes to the patronage system, those changes will affect all patrons, religious and non-religious alike. But this forum will be particularly interested in how it affects religious patrons.)

Esel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you cannot see why atheists would be interested in this development....

... then what, exactly?

Should I infer what you did not actually imply? That I might be ill-informed, or ignorant, or stupid, or biased?

Fair enough, but please don't forget the agnostics who might also be interested.

I am more interested in seeing the state held accountable, where appropriate, whenever it attempts to avoid responsibility or repudiate any claim made against it. To cite one example: claims by people affected by haemophilia-infected blood transfusions.

Believe me when I say that I have no axe to grind re any religion/church, but I am totally sickened by how society in general (i.e. the people who knew what was going on), and how the state (in particular) has denied any responsibility or involvement in (and therefore has given tacit acceptance to) the many injustices that have been brought to light in recent years. Regarding the state, though, one should expect nothing more. 'Accounts' and 'accountability' are such different words when one looks at the bottom line...

I knew, you knew, we knew, they knew - for so many years. Why did we not speak out? Fear, peer pressure, whatever it was, it kept us quiet. That is all changing now, but it is changing slowly - very, very slowly. We are talking many generations here - mindsets are inherited, then questioned, then reformed (and passed on, through inheritance or influence).

So, if what is being done here in this thread is the speaking of truth to power, I say carry on.

Bannasidhe

Esel wrote: »

... then what, exactly?

Should I infer what you did not actually imply? That I might be ill-informed, or ignorant, or stupid, or biased?

Fair enough, but please don't forget the agnostics who might also be interested.

I am more interested in seeing the state held accountable, where appropriate, whenever it attempts to avoid responsibility or repudiate any claim made against it. To cite one example: claims by people affected by haemophilia-infected blood transfusions.

Believe me when I say that I have no axe to grind re any religion/church, but I am totally sickened by how society in general (i.e. the people who knew what was going on), and how the state (in particular) has denied any responsibility or involvement in (and therefore has given tacit acceptance to) the many injustices that have been brought to light in recent years. Regarding the state, though, one should expect nothing more. 'Accounts' and 'accountability' are such different words when one looks at the bottom line...

I knew, you knew, we knew, they knew - for so many years. Why did we not speak out? Fear, peer pressure, whatever it was, it kept us quiet. That is all changing now, but it is changing slowly - very, very slowly. We are talking many generations here - mindsets are inherited, then questioned, then reformed (and passed on, through inheritance or influence).

So, if what is being done here in this thread is the speaking of truth to power, I say carry on.

I implied nothing.
I answered the question you asked.

I attempted to explain - in the early hours of the morning while tired - why this thread is in this forum. Yes, I forgot to say agnostics too. My bad.

expectationlost

Esel wrote: »

... then what, exactly?

Should I infer what you did not actually imply? That I might be ill-informed, or ignorant, or stupid, or biased?

Fair enough, but please don't forget the agnostics who might also be interested.

I am more interested in seeing the state held accountable, where appropriate, whenever it attempts to avoid responsibility or repudiate any claim made against it. To cite one example: claims by people affected by haemophilia-infected blood transfusions.

Believe me when I say that I have no axe to grind re any religion/church, but I am totally sickened by how society in general (i.e. the people who knew what was going on), and how the state (in particular) has denied any responsibility or involvement in (and therefore has given tacit acceptance to) the many injustices that have been brought to light in recent years. Regarding the state, though, one should expect nothing more. 'Accounts' and 'accountability' are such different words when one looks at the bottom line...

I knew, you knew, we knew, they knew - for so many years. Why did we not speak out? Fear, peer pressure, whatever it was, it kept us quiet. That is all changing now, but it is changing slowly - very, very slowly. We are talking many generations here - mindsets are inherited, then questioned, then reformed (and passed on, through inheritance or influence).

So, if what is being done here in this thread is the speaking of truth to power, I say carry on.

i didn't know. what was it that you knew and didn't say?

expectationlost

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0202/501762-echr-okeeffe-ruling/ O'Keeffe judgment has implications for school patronage - Gilmore

Peregrinus

It does have implications for school patronage.

However they’re not necessarily the implications that the denizens of this board would mostly look for.

Suppose the whole business of religious patronage was done away with altogether, and the role of patron and manager was replaced by a Board of Governors containing representatives of the parents, the teaching staff and possibly the local authority or VEC. Absolutely no church input whatsoever. Most of the regulars here would welcome that.

It wouldn’t, though, address the problems presented by this case. Essentially, the state’s defence here (which of course was unsuccessful) was that, although they were the employer of the abusing teacher (i.e. they paid him, and regulated his terms and conditions of employment) they didn’t manage or supervise him; they weren’t in control of what he actually did in the classroom each day, and therefore they shouldn’t be liable for failing to manage or supervise him properly. That liablity should rest with the person/body who did manage him, which was the manager/the patron.

The state’s argument failed, and if you cross out “manager/patron” and insert “board of governors” it will still fail. The state will still be the employer of the teacher, it will still not be managing or supervising him, and it will still be liable for the actions which it is not managing or supervising.

All it can do is either (a) cease to be the employer of teachers (so that managers/patrons become their employers instead) or (b) take a much more active role in the management and supervision of teaching staff.

The first option, politically, is a non-runner. The second option looks like the only one. But what this means is not so much a more secular school system but a more centralised one, with schools increasingly operating as branch offices of the Department of Education. For a variety of reasons, that might not be a good outcome. More to the point, as far as this board is concerned, is that it’s something you could do without eliminating managers/patrons.

expectationlost

the state doesn't have to remove just provide for more secular education (and be responsible when they do fund/hire if they do)

Knob Longman

ninja900 wrote: »

Nice try.

The local priest, in his position as patron of the school, was informed of sex abuse at the school. His only action was to (eventually) move the teacher on. He did not inform either the Department of Education or the Gardai. The teacher was re-employed elsewhere (presumably they weren't informed either) and he went on to abuse there too.

Yes the State should have known and should have acted, but those who did know and didn't act must be held responsible also.

Its amazing how the Gardaí got away with ignoring peoples complaints, Lots of those complainants later ended up on the wrong side of the law and were jailed but their abusers were never jailed..

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

the state doesn't have to remove just provide for more secular education . . .

I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking. There's nothing in the judgment about providing more secular eduction. And, as far as I can see, religiosity and secularity don't feature in the court's reasoning at all. Attempts to frame this as a judgment about "Catholic schools" are just not justified. It isn't a case about Catholic schools any more than it's a case about schools in county Cork, or about two-teacher schools.

expectationlost wrote: »

. . . (and be responsible when they do fund/hire if they do)

Possibly this. But whatever they do about accepting more responsiblity, and whatever change they may make to the patronage model, is going to affect religious and non-religious patrons alike.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking. There's nothing in the judgment about providing more secular eduction. And, as far as I can see, religiosity and secularity don't feature in the court's reasoning at all. Attempts to frame this as a judgment about "Catholic schools" are just not justified. It isn't a case about Catholic schools any more than it's a case about schools in county Cork, or about two-teacher schools.


Possibly this. But whatever they do about accepting more responsiblity, and whatever change they may make to the patronage model, is going to affect religious and non-religious patrons alike.

i said the government needs to take more responsibilty and that does feature in the judgement, why do you post here? to misinterpret us and make excuse for sexual abuses at catholic schools and for catholic domination of Ireland through the government abdication of responsibilty which resulted in the cases like the above

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking. There's nothing in the judgment about providing more secular eduction. And, as far as I can see, religiosity and secularity don't feature in the court's reasoning at all. Attempts to frame this as a judgment about "Catholic schools" are just not justified. It isn't a case about Catholic schools any more than it's a case about schools in county Cork, or about two-teacher schools.

The implications are much wider, though perhaps more subtle, than that.

The European Court has told the Irish State that it is responsible for protecting the human rights of children while in Irish primary schools, regardless of whether the State directly runs the schools.

There are also other ways in which the human rights of children and their parents are being breached in Irish primary schools, including discriminatory religious admission policies and the religious integrated curriculum.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has told Ireland that this system breaches the human rights of secular parents and their children, and has told Ireland to make non-denominational education widely available throughout the State.

Ireland has to date evaded doing this largely by pointing to the patronage system, and by excluding breaches of human rights by patrons of primary schools from being vindicated under the European Convention on Human Rights Act.

That exclusion is no longer tenable under this judgment, which also told Ireland that it must provide an effective remedy for people to vindicate breaches of human rights within the education system.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to downplay it's importance, but this isn't a particularly surprising judgment. The state is the employer of all teachers in national schools and, where abuse is perpetrated in a national school by a teacher against a pupil, the state as employer was always very much in the frame.

Suppose a qualified person applies for a teaching job, and the patron tells them that their "wrong" religion/lack of religion, or their unorthodox sexual orientation makes them unsuitable for the job. Is that discrimination being perpetrated by the Patron, or is it by the State?
The judgement is significant in that it cuts through some of the smokescreen that has been set up around these issues. It puts the patron in the role of a recruitment manager, a mere agent for the State. Therefore the State is perpetrating acts of discrimination against certain types of citizens.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All it can do is either (a) cease to be the employer of teachers (so that managers/patrons become their employers instead) or (b) take a much more active role in the management and supervision of teaching staff.

The first option may be possible.
The State could gift a huge lump sum to certain churches, and let them employ the teachers directly using that money. But this would fall foul of the constitutional ban on the "endowment" of religion, which the existing system seems designed to circumvent.
That would leave the schools having to exist as private fee paying entities. Parishioners could pay a "church tax" to help keep them going. Very few would survive, of course.

The second option need not involve all the upheaval and centralisation that you suggest.
Different patronages could still exist, but the State would have to increase "oversight" over them. Not such a bad thing, really.
IMO potentially the most significant ramification of all this is for the exemption granted to faith schools from certain aspects of Irish equality legislation. Can the "legalised" discrimination be maintained on the statute books when it is most likely illegal under EU law, as well as our own Constitution?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

IMO potentially the most significant ramification of all this is for the exemption granted to faith schools from certain aspects of Irish equality legislation. Can the "legalised" discrimination be maintained on the statute books when it is most likely illegal under EU law, as well as our own Constitution?

It can, and will be, for as long as they can possibly get away with it.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

i said the government needs to take more responsibilty and that does feature in the judgement, why do you post here?

I posted here because you also said that the state has to provide for more secular education, and that doesn't feature in the judgment.

No offence, but if you don't want people to discuss the judgment, why did you open a thread on a discussion board about it?

expectationlost wrote: »

to misinterpret us and make excuse for sexual abuses at catholic schools and for catholic domination of Ireland through the government abdication of responsibilty which resulted in the cases like the above

I'm not going to respond to this, beyond saying that anyone reading the thread can see that I have not said anything remotely like this.

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The implications are much wider, though perhaps more subtle, than that.

The European Court has told the Irish State that it is responsible for protecting the human rights of children while in Irish primary schools, regardless of whether the State directly runs the schools.

Yes, that’s right. This has implications even for wholly private, unfunded schools where the state does not employ the teachers. My point is that, whatever implications is has in this regard, it has for religious and non-religious schools alike.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There are also other ways in which the human rights of children and their parents are being breached in Irish primary schools, including discriminatory religious admission policies and the religious integrated curriculum.

Um. But of course this judgment is no help at all in arguing that admission policies, curriculum issues, etc in Irish schools are in breach of the ECHR (in the way that being sexually abused clearly is). There are other ECHR cases which are more relevant to those issues; I don’t see - at first glance - that this case help to make a stronger case that there are ECHR breaches happening in Ireland in this regard.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has told Ireland that this system breaches the human rights of secular parents and their children, and has told Ireland to make non-denominational education widely available throughout the State.

Different issue, though. The problem here is not that the particular religiously-driven practices that go on in Irish schools are inherently in breach of UDHR; it’s that there’s no option. Religious schools in Ireland could be even more religious than they already are, and from the UN point of view that would be fine so long as other educational options were available.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Ireland has to date evaded doing this largely by pointing to the patronage system, and by excluding breaches of human rights by patrons of primary schools from being vindicated under the European Convention on Human Rights Act.

That exclusion is no longer tenable under this judgment, which also told Ireland that it must provide an effective remedy for people to vindicate breaches of human rights within the education system.

OK, I see where you’re going with this and, yes, there may be mileage in it.

The missing chain in the argument, though, is any finding from the European Court of Human Rights that the religious practices that go on in Irish schools, or the practical monopoly of schools employing such practices in the Irish system, amounts to a breach of the European Convention. The findings of a UN committee considering a different treaty that the latter is problematic offers some ground for hope, but I wouldn’t go further than that. The European Charter creates a fair amount of space for exercise of religion in the public square, and a fair amount of latitude to states about how this plays out in practice, and ECHR cases about, e.g., the place of Catholicism in the Italian public educational system don’t give huge grounds for confidence that they will find the role of the Catholic church in the Irish system to be an abuse of human rights from which, following O’Keeffe, the state must protect children.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Suppose a qualified person applies for a teaching job, and the patron tells them that their "wrong" religion/lack of religion, or their unorthodox sexual orientation makes them unsuitable for the job. Is that discrimination being perpetrated by the Patron, or is it by the State?
The judgement is significant in that it cuts through some of the smokescreen that has been set up around these issues. It puts the patron in the role of a recruitment manager, a mere agent for the State. Therefore the State is perpetrating acts of discrimination against certain types of citizens.

I see your point. But you’ve got two - no, three - problems.

The first is that you need to establish that rejecting a candidate on the grounds of religion or, ahem, lifestyle (which seems to come within an exception in Ireland’s equality legislation) is nevertheless a breach of ECHR. Nobody has taken this case yet. You might like to be a breach, but looking at past judgments on the exercise of religion in the public square, it isn’t a slam-dunk.

The second is that O’Keeffe lays great stress on the fact that the complainant was (when abused) a child, and the duty of the state to protect children, and the fact that the state requires children to participate in primary education, all factors which help to create the state’s duty towards those children. Obviously the situation of an adult looking for a job is somewhat different.

And the third is that the judgment, in the end, didn’t make anything of the fact that the patron could be seen as agent of the state in supervising the teacher. The state had a positive obligation to protect the children, not a consequential obligation arising out of the fact that it employed the teacher. (Which is why I say, in my post to Michael, that this case has implications even for private primary schools, outside the national school system, where the state is not the employer of teachers.)

recedite wrote: »

The first option [the state ceasing tom employ teachers] may be possible.

The State could gift a huge lump sum to certain churches, and let them employ the teachers directly using that money. But this would fall foul of the constitutional ban on the "endowment" of religion, which the existing system seems designed to circumvent.

It’s legally possible, and it doesn’t have the constitutional problems that you point to. The state can (and already does) fund schools and doing so does not fall foul of the constitutional ban on the endowment of religion, even if the schools have a religious character. Therefore, it can fund schools to a level which will allow them to employ and pay teachers.

But in my view it’s politically and practically unthinkable, in Ireland in 2014, to suggest that the government would for an instant contemplate increasing the role of the religious patrons and reducing the role of the state. Or, if they did, to imagine that the public would wear it. This ain’t gonna happen.

recedite wrote: »

The second option need not involve all the upheaval and centralisation that you suggest.

Different patronages could still exist, but the State would have to increase "oversight" over them. Not such a bad thing, really.

I suspect it would be a mixed good and bad thing. More centralised management and control of what goes on in classrooms almost certainly means more concentration on measurable metrics, more form-filling, more teaching by the rule book and less scope - there’s already little enough - for creativity and innovation in teaching, less attention paid to not-easily-quantifiable but nevertheless important educational outcomes, etc. If that’s what’s necessary to protect children from abuse then that’s what’s necessary, but I think we could pay quite a price, and I’d prefer to see a bit of lateral thinking to see if this particular circle can be squared.

recedite wrote: »

IMO potentially the most significant ramification of all this is for the exemption granted to faith schools from certain aspects of Irish equality legislation. Can the "legalised" discrimination be maintained on the statute books when it is most likely illegal under EU law, as well as our own Constitution?

Again, I think the key issue here is establishing that it is a breach of the European Convention - in the Court’s view, not just in yours or mine. As I said above, looking at the cases I don’t think this is a slam-dunk.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK, I see where you’re going with this and, yes, there may be mileage in it.

The missing chain in the argument, though, is any finding from the European Court of Human Rights that the religious practices that go on in Irish schools, or the practical monopoly of schools employing such practices in the Irish system, amounts to a breach of the European Convention.

You have to read several judgments in conjunction with each other. Some of the key extracts that have implications for this (obviously with many caveats) are:

Folgero v Norway 29th June 2007

“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.”

Lautsi v Italy (App No. 30814/06) 2011

“The Court emphasises that the supporters of secularism are able to lay claim to views attaining the “level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” required for them to be considered “convictions” within the meaning of Articles 9 of the Convention and 2 of Protocol No. 1 (see Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 36, Series A no. 48). More precisely, their views must be regarded as “philosophical convictions”, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, given that they are worthy of “respect ‘in a democratic society’”, are not incompatible with human dignity and do not conflict with the fundamental right of the child to education.”

"The word “respect” in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 means more than “acknowledge” or “take into account”; in addition to a primarily negative undertaking, it implies some positive obligation on the part of the State (see Campbell and Cosans, cited above, § 37)."

Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark 1976

“The Government pleaded in the alternative that the second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2), assuming that it governed even the State schools where attendance is not obligatory, implies solely the right for parents to have their children exempted from classes offering “religious instruction of a denominational character”. The Court does not share this view. Article 2 (P1-2), which applies to each of the State’s functions in relation to education and to teaching, does not permit a distinction to be drawn between religious instruction and other subjects. It enjoins the State to respect parents’ convictions, be they religious or philosophical, throughout the entire State education programme.”

Campbell and Cosans v. The UK 1982

“The duty to respect parental convictions in this sphere cannot be overridden by the alleged necessity of striking a balance between the conflicting views involved, nor is the Government’s policy (to move gradually towards the abolition of corporal punishment in itself) sufficient to comply with this duty.”

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

The European Charter creates a fair amount of space for exercise of religion in the public square, and a fair amount of latitude to states about how this plays out in practice, and ECHR cases about, e.g., the place of Catholicism in the Italian public educational system don’t give huge grounds for confidence that they will find the role of the Catholic church in the Irish system to be an abuse of human rights from which, following O’Keeffe, the state must protect children.

(Again with many caveats) If you are referring to the Lautsi case, the Appeal Court found that the presence of a crucifix on the classroom wall was permissible, but the context was that the crucifix was in an otherwise secular classroom environment and was therefore not accompanied by religious faith formation of the type that is carried out in Irish schools.

The judgment made this distinction:

"Furthermore, a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and this point is of importance in the Court's view, particularly having regard to the principle of neutrality (see paragraph 60 above). It cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities (see on these points Folgerø and Zengin, cited above, § 94 and § 64 respectively)."

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem here is not that the particular religiously-driven practices that go on in Irish schools are inherently in breach of UDHR; it’s that there’s no option. Religious schools in Ireland could be even more religious than they already are, and from the UN point of view that would be fine so long as other educational options were available.

So long as other educational options are not just available, but widely available throughout the State.

In practical terms, that means that the basic education system must be capable of respecting everybody's religious or nonreligious philosophical convictions.

When that is in place, then you can add any other options alongside that system, but not instead of it.

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

So long as other educational options are not just available, but widely available throughout the State.

In practical terms, that means that the basic education system must be capable of respecting everybody's religious or nonreligious philosophical convictions.

When that is in place, then you can add any other options alongside that system, but not instead of it.

The highlighted bit this is the nub of the thing.

In Lautsi, Lautsi argued that the only way the state could be respectful of different religious viewpoints was to adopt a secular stance in its schools.

She was opposed not only by Italy, but by a number of other Convention states which intervened in the proceedings to make this point.

In the event, the court didn’t accept Lautsi’s position. The Convention requires, as you point out, respect for both religious and nonreligious philosophical positions. Secularism is one such position, and the court accepted that it was a position worthy of respect in democratic society. But all that does it to put it on a par with the variety of other religious and nonreligious philosophical positions that different citizens hold. And that‘s not a good position from which to have to argue that the state itself must be secular, or must establish secularity in its schools, or must secure a privileged position for secularity in the school system. Secularism is not neutrality between competing philosophical positions; it is itself a philosophical position in competition with others.

This is what leaped to my mind when I read the OP’s suggestion that O’Keeffe requires governments to secularise schools. Not only does O’Keeffe not say anything of the kind, but it would be surprising if any future ECHR judgment did, given the position the ECHR has already taken on secularism in Lautsi.

Of course, this gives us a problem. As you point out, respect for diverse philosophical positions requires that the educational system should be capable of respecting and accommodating the variety of (sometimes inconsistent) positions which different citizens hold. At the same time, it’s clear from Lautsi that this doesn’t mean that schools have to be secular. The state’s obligation to respect and accommodate diverse philosophical positions prevents it from prioritising secularity.

And also at the same time, it’s plainly impossible to supply every parent with a selection of school options reflecting a wide variety of philosophical convictions and positions. That would require a vast oversupply of school places; it ain’t gonna happen.

So what’s a state to do? I predict that the ECHR (if asked) will duck this issue; they will say that this falls within the “margin of appreciation” of each state. It’s up to each state to deal with the situation it faces, the variety of philosophical positions manifested in its society, the requirements of the convention for equal respect, the practical possibilities, and then work out how best to realise the convention principles in practice. A state might decide that the best way to do this is to establish secular schools, at least in places (like thinly-populated districts) where school choice is not feasible, but the court won’t in general compel states to decide that this is the way to go. And I don’t see anything in O’Keeffe which might change this. Yes, O’Keeffe clearly articulates the state’s obligation to protect the convention rights of children in schools (all schools, not just government schools). But there’s really no basis for saying that the Convention affords an absolute right to a secular education. On the basis of Lautsi the right to a secular education (for those who want it) is as strong, and as weak, as the right to a Catholic education, or a Jewish education, or a Stoical education, for those who want them.

My feeling, FWIW, is that all this provides a strong basis for saying that there is a requirement for much greater diversity within the Irish system. But it doesn’t provide much basis for saying that state schools should be secularised.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secularism is not neutrality between competing philosophical positions; it is itself a philosophical position in competition with others.

This is complete nonsense. Secularism has no view on the existence of a god, for instance. Members of any religion or none can be secularists.

The last thing this forum needs is yet another theist poster making up their own definitions of words to suit themselves.

The state’s obligation to respect and accommodate diverse philosophical positions prevents it from prioritising secularity.

Secularity is the state respecting and accommodating diverse philosophical positions on an equal basis.

And also at the same time, it’s plainly impossible to supply every parent with a selection of school options reflecting a wide variety of philosophical convictions and positions. That would require a vast oversupply of school places; it ain’t gonna happen.

Indeed.
It's clear there's only one way in which the rights of everyone can be protected and that is to remove religious indoctrination from the state-funded school day entirely.
It can be accommodated after hours (like ET) or in the parish or community for those who desire it.

A state might decide that the best way to do this is to establish secular schools, at least in places (like thinly-populated districts) where school choice is not feasible, but the court won’t in general compel states to decide that this is the way to go.

It's not just thinly populated districts that have no real choice. And a school 2 miles away in Dublin in the wrong direction for commuting might as well be 20 miles away. If it's an ET it'll be oversubscribed anyway.

And I don’t see anything in O’Keeffe which might change this.

I don't either - but it does highlight the duplicity of the Department of Education for many years. They can no longer wash their hands of what happens in the schools they fund.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

This is complete nonsense. Secularism has no view on the existence of a god, for instance. Members of any religion or none can be secularists.

The last thing this forum needs is yet another theist poster making up their own definitions of words to suit themselves.

Secularity is the state respecting and accommodating diverse philosophical positions on an equal basis.

In the first place, this is not me “making up my own definitions”; what I’m setting out are the views of the European Court of Human Rights, as expressed in the Lautsi judgment. They are also the views of the European national governments which intervened in the case on this issue. You may not like those views, but you have to concede that they’re obviously relevant to the issue of whether the ECHR will force the Irish state to secularise its schools. Dismissing unwelcome realities as “made up” is not likely to be a successful strategy in bringing about change here.

In the second place, the ECHR and the various European governments are not making things up either. The OED defines “secularism” thus:

” The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state. [The name of a definitely professed system of belief, promulgated by G. J. Holyoake (1817–1906)].”

That, to me, looks a lot like a clear philosophical position, to be ranked along with other religious and non-religious philosophical positions. Specifically, it’s an ethical position; a view about how humans ought to behave, or make choices about between different possible behaviours. I don’t think the ECHR is going out on a semantic limb, here.

(Where, as a matter of interest, did you get your own definition? Did you by any chance make it up to suit yourself?)

ninja900 wrote: »

It's clear there's only one way in which the rights of everyone can be protected and that is to remove religious indoctrination from the state-funded school day entirely.

OK. If you hope to make any progress here, the first thing you’re going to have to do is to stop using pejorative words like “indoctrination”, or else use them consistently for both religious and non-religious philosophies.

The whole thrust of the ECHR jurisprudence is that religious and non-religious philosophies are equally entitled to respect and protection under the Convention. An approach to education in which inculcation of religious positions is categorised as “indoctrination” but inculcation of non-religious positions is not is going to go down with the ECHR like a rat sandwich without any mustard.

And the suggestion that religious indoctrination (or religious anything) has to be removed from “the state-funded school day” misses completely the point in O’Keeffe; the state’s duty to protect and safeguard the convention rights of schoolchildren is in no way tied to, or limited by, state-funding. As it happens, O’Keeffe was in a national school, but that circumstance wasn’t determinative of the state’s duty towards her. The state has exactly the same duty to protect the rights of children in wholly private, wholly unfunded schools.

So if “religious indoctrination” really is a breach of the child’s rights under the convention, then it must be removed from all schools, not just state schools. And think about this; no European country has ordered the closure of Jewish schools since Germany in 1934. Do you imagine for a minute that the ECHR will order them all to do so now? Because that would seem to be the implication of the argument that religious indoctrination in schools is a human rights abuse forbidden by the Convention, wouldn’t it?

Hotblack Desiato

So secularism isn't secularism, and we can't call indoctrination indoctrination.

There is no basis for a constructive discussion.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The OED defines “secularism” thus:

”The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state. [The name of a definitely professed system of belief, promulgated by G. J. Holyoake (1817–1906)].”

That, as you well know, is an antiquated dictionary definition, only one of many, and not the modern meaning of the word as used in this forum and indeed at the ECHR.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if “religious indoctrination” really is a breach of the child’s rights under the convention, then it must be removed from all schools, not just state schools. And think about this; no European country has ordered the closure of Jewish schools since Germany in 1934. Do you imagine for a minute that the ECHR will order them all to do so now? Because that would seem to be the implication of the argument that religious indoctrination in schools is a human rights abuse forbidden by the Convention, wouldn’t it?

No because the Lautsi judgement stated that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities"
In other words, the mere presence of a crucifix on a wall was not proved to constitute "religious indoctrination". ECHR does however fully support the idea that a State school should not impose religious indoctrination, ie it should be secular. This is what the original ECHR judgement was saying, that the right of the child to be free from religious indoctrination, as a “negative right” deserved special protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and dissenters were placed in a situation from which they could not extract themselves if not by making disproportionate efforts and sacrifices".
The appeal (with the backing of several EU accession States anxious to re assert their pre-soviet era non-communist nationalist heritage; Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia) did not undermine this assertion, it sidestepped it by saying the crucifix was only there as an ornament.

recedite

Here is the actual text of "Article 2 of Protocol No. 1" which ECHR was trying to enforce in the Lautsi case, and others;

ARTICLE 2 No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.

The "philosophical convictions" as mentioned here does not refer to the 19th Century doctrine of a certain C.J. Holyjoke, it refers to the current right of an EU citizen to be free from any state-sponsored religious indoctrination which might conflict with their personal philosophical convictions.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

So secularism isn't secularism, and we can't call indoctrination indoctrination.

There is no basis for a constructive discussion.

You mean you can only have a constructive discussion with people who are committed to accepting your definitions of words, fregardless of what definitions you offer, and even before you offer any?

I suppose that's one way of never having to deal with your ideas exposed to critical examination!

Hotblack Desiato

I've wasted far too much time lately reading J C's pointless, circular arguments about the redefinition of words to suit him.

I'm not going to do that again.

You know well that there are accepted defintions of those words. You know well what we mean when we use them.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

You know well that there are accepted defintions of those words. You know well what we mean when we use them.

No, I don't. In fact I'm not even sure that you do. You seem extraordinarly reluctant to say.

I have offered you an "accepted definition" of the word from a leading dictionary - a definition on the basis of which the views of the ECHR make perfect sense. If you think it actually means something else, and the ECHR would decide differently based on some other concept of secularism you need to say what that is, and flannelling around about the impossibility of constructive discussion and the pointless circularity of arguments you disagree with is a pretty poor fig-leaf.