Section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 - School Discrimination Rant

Zamboni

I'm angry so I apologise in advance if this post isn't adequately articulated.

Does the Bill safeguard denominational education?

Yes. The existing provisions in equality legislation are provided for. Religious schools can give preference to children of a particular faith in preference to others.

Section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 remains in place, whereby a school can refuse to admit a student of another denomination provided it can prove such a refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/school-admissions-bill-battle-looms-over-rules-on-past-pupils-1.2166728

It is astonishing to think that this new bill will not address Section 7, thus allowing state funded schools continue to discriminate against children with a differing or no religious belief.
Absolutely astonishing.


Why is the Equality Authority failing to call for a test case?

The report, authored by Fergus Ryan, a lecturer in law at DIT, says: “In relation to the Catholic First policy, there is certainly at the very least a case to be answered that in its potential application to schools in receipt of state funding, the policy may be in breach of the Constitution . . . by excluding children from state-funded schools on the basis that they intend to exercise a constitutional right not to attend religious instruction therein.”

Prof John Coolahan chairman of the forum on patronage and plurism. Ireland faces renewed criticism from UN unless secular education options improve. Photograph: Gareth Chaney CollinsForum head calls on church to speed up schools handover
Minister for Education and Skills Jan O’Sullivan: “I would like to see the divestment moving much quicker. However, it is a complex process that involves the agreement of a range of stakeholders and that takes time.” Photograph: Eric Luke/The Irish Times Segregation concerns over transfer of school patronage

The report stops short, however, of recommending the authority take a test case on the issue.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/catholic-first-school-admissions-policies-may-be-illegal-1.2053401

This case could have changed things but failed to suceed.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/school-and-traveller-boy-to-pay-own-costs-after-enrolment-case-1.2145710

In short, what will it take to bring a case to the courts or get this damned Section 7 revoked?
How does one bring or fund such a case?

Why do the masses of fake catholics justify the charade and status quo with their weak willed spineless baptisms?

Why are people like Prof John Coolahan ignored?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/forum-head-calls-on-church-to-speed-up-schools-handover-1.2052481

Would anyone care to join me in kicking up a stick jan.osullivan@oireachtas.ie

[/rant]

Zamboni

And why the hell would one continue contributing taxes to a state where their children cannot access state funded schools but net recipients of the state with quasi-religious documents can?

Why is this not the bigger bloody story today instead of an argued percentage of places available for siblings? Seriously.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

Why is this not the bigger bloody story today instead of an argued percentage of places available for siblings? Seriously.

I had the same rant this morning at home listening to Newstalk.

It was the "reduced children of past pupils" that they were trying to convince us was a Big Deal in terms of admissions policies, all the while studiously ignoring the 10 ton woolly mammoth in the room.

magicbastarder

i just heard jan o'sullivan on the radio explaining the new bill is great cos all kids should have equal access to education, with no regard for sexual orientation, membership of a travelling community, or older siblings. well done.

Zamboni

15 years I've been trying to get my head around an "Equality Act" which specifically legally allows for inequality. Mind boggling.

And an Equality Authority that says "ah sure its grand".

Orion

Zamboni wrote: »

15 years I've been trying to get my head around an "Equality Act" which specifically legally allows for inequality. Mind boggling.

And an Equality Authority that says "ah sure its grand".

They don't just say that. But their hands are tied. When the Bill was sent to the President she referred it to the Supreme Court who found it constitutional. As a result no constitutional action can be taken against it again. As the EA's job is to uphold this Act and the Employment Equality Act (which has a similar clause) what action could you reasonably expect them to take?

robindch

Orion wrote: »

[...] what action could you reasonably expect them to take?

They could point out that the current situation is heavily and obviously discriminatory, but that they can do no more than point this out and request the political system to resolve the issue.

expectationlost

Orion wrote: »

They don't just say that. But their hands are tied. When the Bill was sent to the President she referred it to the Supreme Court who found it constitutional. As a result no constitutional action can be taken against it again. As the EA's job is to uphold this Act and the Employment Equality Act (which has a similar clause) what action could you reasonably expect them to take?

firstly publish their report

the Equality Authority's job is not just to an Act but to seek equality

Orion

It's to seek equality under the law. The law as it stands permits this and the Supreme Court found it constitutional. Don't get me wrong - I agree it is a disgrace. But facts are facts.

expectationlost

Orion wrote: »

It's to seek equality under the law. The law as it stands permits this and the Supreme Court found it constitutional. Don't get me wrong - I agree it is a disgrace. But facts are facts.

how would anything change? they are an independent* body , their remit is equality (and human rights ) they can do research and give advice on stuff that goes beyond our current equality acts


* but not really that independent

Orion

They can but the question was about them taking direct legal action - that's not possible. They have advised changing this law but without a legislature willing to do so it won't change.

Eugene Norman

Zamboni wrote: »

15 years I've been trying to get my head around an "Equality Act" which specifically legally allows for inequality. Mind boggling.

And an Equality Authority that says "ah sure its grand".

The equality agency is subject to law. They lost a case recently.

I personally think that equality agencies existing in capitalist societies is a bit of a joke. Private schools still exist do they not? Why is that not the big issue.

Can't get too excited about religious denominated schools along with secular and other schools.

Zamboni

Orion wrote: »

They can but the question was about them taking direct legal action - that's not possible. They have advised changing this law but without a legislature willing to do so it won't change.

Then I would plead with all A&Aers to remember and hassle all doorstepping politicians over the next year to scrap this.
Constant nagging in growing numbers is the political way.
If "secularist" LABOUR won't implement this then FG and FF certainly won't touch it unless there is a clear populist demand for it.

Please, please everyone - including those without children - to make it evident to any and all politicians that there is a demand for the removal of this exemption.
Please plead with "fake" catholics that we all know to stop doing baptisms purely for schools access.

Please encourage genuine Catholics (as some already do) to appreciate the discrimination is not warranted in a publicly funded school system.

expectationlost

Zamboni wrote: »

Then I would plead with all A&Aers to remember and hassle all doorstepping politicians over the next year to scrap this.
Constant nagging in growing numbers is the political way.
If "secularist" LABOUR won't implement this then FG and FF certainly won't touch it unless there is a clear populist demand for it.

Please, please everyone - including those without children - to make it evident to any and all politicians that there is a demand for the removal of this exemption.
Please plead with "fake" catholics that we all know to stop doing baptisms purely for schools access.

Please encourage genuine Catholics (as some already do) to appreciate the discrimination is not warranted in a publicly funded school system.

if you think this an equality issue, then is it a more votes one way or the other issue?

for me I would have to tell im going to not vote for you anyway, so you won't lose my vote on this issue, because you havn't got it anyway.

ScumLord

Zamboni wrote: »

In short, what will it take to bring a case to the courts or get this damned Section 7 revoked?

You'll need to wait for all the lapse Catholics in this country to literally forget what religion they are. It's probably not that far off. I think allowing the construction of more Mosques and alternative Christian churches like Protestant churches should speed up the process. At the moment it's too easy for lapse Catholics to know what religion they are because there's usually only one religious building in the town. Add in some options and they'll become so confused they won't know where to go.

I think the best thing to do is to continue saying your catholic for all the benefits and send your children into school armed with logic and reason. It's not like the school will be able to convince the modern child that they should believe in a god over the guys that made their playstation.

Hotblack Desiato

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the best thing to do is to continue saying your catholic for all the benefits and send your children into school armed with logic and reason.

That's the worst thing to do as it perpetuates the unjust status quo, reduces the demand for change, and makes life more difficult for those who actually have principles and aren't willing to shrug their shoulders and say 'shure it'll do'.

But so typically Irish.

Brian Shanahan

Orion wrote: »

It's to seek equality under the law. The law as it stands permits this and the Supreme Court found it constitutional. Don't get me wrong - I agree it is a disgrace. But facts are facts.

They could take it to Europe, religious discrimination, as practised here in Ireland, breaks all sorts of EU rules, which under Irish constitutional law supercedes the constitution.

Eugene Norman

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They could take it to Europe, religious discrimination, as practised here in Ireland, breaks all sorts of EU rules, which under Irish constitutional law supercedes the constitution.

Many EU countries have some kind of religious schools, and I'd bet the EU wouldn't act so swiftly.

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] EU rules, which under Irish constitutional law supercedes the constitution.

Nope, the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities law for Irish institutions and Irish citizens in Ireland.

That's why there's a referendum every time that any substantial changes made to the EU founding treaties - simply to assert compliance with the Irish Constitution. Although without testing it, imho, a rather stupid thing to do as it could encode a contradiction, but nobody's ever paid a blind bit of notice to me on the topic before and I can't see why they'd change now.

Eugene Norman

robindch wrote: »

Nope, the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities law for Irish institutions and Irish citizens in Ireland.

That's why there's a referendum every time that any substantial changes made to the EU founding treaties - simply to assert compliance with the Irish Constitution. Although without testing it, imho, a rather stupid thing to do as it could encode a contradiction, but nobody's ever paid a blind bit of notice to me on the topic before and I can't see why they'd change now.

Are you sure that the new additions don't override the old?

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Nope, the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities law for Irish institutions and Irish citizens in Ireland.

I refer you to Article 29.4

6° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by—

i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or institutions thereof,

ii the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or institutions thereof, or

iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section,

from having the force of law in the State.

That's why there's a referendum every time that any substantial changes made to the EU founding treaties - simply to assert compliance with the Irish Constitution. Although without testing it, imho, a rather stupid thing to do as it could encode a contradiction, but nobody's ever paid a blind bit of notice to me on the topic before and I can't see why they'd change now.

Not quite. The justification used for referendums is that the constitution defers to EU law where it is necessitated by the obligations of membership i.e. following on from existing treaty obligations, and the opinion which prevails (although differing opinions exist, see next para) is that a change to an EU treaty is not an obligation of membership and therefore requires approval by the electorate to have legal force in Ireland.

Although Article 29.5 permits the State to enter into an 'international agreement' provided it is laid before the Dail. Whether this would be sufficient to cover an EU treaty change has never been put to the test afaik.

Eugene Norman

In any case the ECHR seems to mandate religious schooling.

“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.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/II/chapter/2

Hotblack Desiato

:rolleyes: Read it again.

Eugene Norman

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

:rolleyes: Read it again.

i did. It clearly says what it says. I know this forum is one of the least intellectual on boards but surely people can be expected to have a simple level of comprehension unaffected by personal ideology.

I myself would agree with secular education. This ECHR text is not that. If it were that it would say the State should be neutral in religion, and it doesn't.

Hotblack Desiato

I have a religion according to the census. It is 'no religion'.

I have a philosophy, it is secularism (with a bit of nihilism thrown in for the crack)

Now, aren't my beliefs at least as evidenced as any other? Why would my children be forced to accept beliefs in school which I reject?

Eugene Norman

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I have a religion according to the census. It is 'no religion'.

I have a philosophy, it is secularism (with a bit of nihilism thrown in for the crack)

Now, aren't my beliefs at least as evidenced as any other? Why would my children be forced to accept beliefs in school which I reject?

Yes that would be one reading of it - I would have thought. It looks like that protocol should force some secular schools, many more than now. However...

I was looking at this case.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"dmdocnumber":["670116"],"itemid":["001-5956"]}

Where a polish atheist student was not deemed discriminated against when he was not marked in final reports for the voluntary religion/ethics class that he skipped. He argued this would reveal his atheism to future employers, and that would reveal his religion violating section 9 ( freedom of religion ) and also violate the protocol above. The court disagreed because of the voluntary nature of the class.

Which doesn't bode well for irish secularism as religion is not an exam subject.

Before I started googling this I knew the laws had to be a compromise, there being so many different forms of education in Europe. The court seems toothless anyways.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They could take it to Europe, religious discrimination, as practised here in Ireland, breaks all sorts of EU rules, which under Irish constitutional law supercedes the constitution.

Well, in fact, as Hotblack Desiato points out, only EU laws (and measures) which are required to be adopted by virtue of EU membership cannot (in principle) be invalidated by any provision of the Constitution.
The functional iteration of this is that only European Regulations (as distinct from Directives, Recommendations, and Resolutions) are directly enforceable as law. My understanding is all European discrimination legislation is derived from Directives, though as always I'm open to correction
A member State is entitled to decide for itself how it goes about implementing a Directive, as long as it achieves the objective of the Directive, which leaves quite a lot of scope for argument. The first one being whether or not permitting schools to prefer students on the basis of religion contravenes the Irish States implementation of the Directives, and then whether that implementation fails to achieve the objectives of the Directives.

Pherekydes

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I know this forum is one of the least intellectual on boards but surely people can be expected to have a simple level of comprehension unaffected by personal ideology.

Hehe. Good one. That post really marks you out as being unaffected by personal ideology.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Nope, the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities law for Irish institutions and Irish citizens in Ireland.

I refer you to Article 29.4 [...]

And in return, and with becoming decorum, I refer you to the same article whose very existence implies that the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities of Irish citizens and organizations with respect to EU institutions rather than the other way around.

#checkmate

kylith

Eugene Norman wrote: »

i did. It clearly says what it says. I know this forum is one of the least intellectual on boards but surely people can be expected to have a simple level of comprehension unaffected by personal ideology.

I myself would agree with secular education. This ECHR text is not that. If it were that it would say the State should be neutral in religion, and it doesn't.

the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and
teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.”

My reading of the above would be that parents are entitled to have their children receive religious education, not that it is mandated.

magicbastarder

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I personally think that equality agencies existing in capitalist societies is a bit of a joke. Private schools still exist do they not? Why is that not the big issue.

because the existence of private schools has little bearing on access to public schools.

oldrnwisr

Eugene Norman wrote: »

i did. It clearly says what it says. I know this forum is one of the least intellectual on boards but surely people can be expected to have a simple level of comprehension unaffected by personal ideology.

I myself would agree with secular education. This ECHR text is not that. If it were that it would say the State should be neutral in religion, and it doesn't.

Actually what Article 2 of Protocol 1 states is that where the State is involved in the provision of education then it has a responsibility to provide religious education. However, this is not what is being provided in the overwhelming majority (~92%) of Irish primary schools.

There is an important difference between religious education which conforms to parents beliefs e.g.

"Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again."

versus what is actually taught in Catholic primary schools namely:

"Jesus died on the cross and rose again".

Explaining the tenets of a religion correctly is religious education. Teaching a particular religion as if it were true is indoctrination and is specifically prohibited by Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. As was recently pointed out to Ireland by the UN a state cannot use its responsibilities under one article to abrogate its duties under another.

We have seen from previous threads on this topic that teachers in Catholic schools are expected to teach the Bible as if it were fact:

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not that bothered by integration of religion. As you've said it's done with most subjects. However, I think that integration is secondary to the real problem which is how these stories are presented to the children. I'd be interested to know how these stories (Noah etc.) are presented to the children (i.e. is it told as a nice story or as a historical fact?) and how this changes from Junior Infants to 6th class. I mean if darealtulip's experience is anything to go by then it's how the content is presented to the children that is in need of fixing first. If the stories are presented as just stories, then integration shouldn't be something to be concerned about.

The stories would be presented as fact to be honest - if you are teaching in a Catholic school you're obviously expected to keep with their ethos. For example, next week I'll be teaching St Patrick in a history lesson. Now, there's evidence for him so I don't mind that, and to be honest it's just to cover a history lesson in something and keep my college happy, but in religion lessons I would be expected to treat the Bible as fact by the school.

Furthermore, the ECHR has previously ruled against Turkey where the state allowed its compulsory religious education to contain information which conflicted with the religious beliefs of a particular group (the Alevi people). Note that it is not the provision of religious education itself or its compulsory nature which is at issue but rather the way in which it is taught. This is the problem which we have in Ireland.

Chamber judgment Mansur Yalcin and Others v. Turkey religious education in schools

Eugene Norman

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Actually what Article 2 of Protocol 1 states is that where the State is involved in the provision of education then it has a responsibility to provide religious education. However, this is not what is being provided in the overwhelming majority (~92%) of Irish primary schools.

There is an important difference between religious education which conforms to parents beliefs e.g.

"Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again."

versus what is actually taught in Catholic primary schools namely:

"Jesus died on the cross and rose again".

Explaining the tenets of a religion correctly is religious education. Teaching a particular religion as if it were true is indoctrination and is specifically prohibited by Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. As was recently pointed out to Ireland by the UN a state cannot use its responsibilities under one article to abrogate its duties under another.

We have seen from previous threads on this topic that teachers in Catholic schools are expected to teach the Bible as if it were fact:



Furthermore, the ECHR has previously ruled against Turkey where the state allowed its compulsory religious education to contain information which conflicted with the religious beliefs of a particular group (the Alevi people). Note that it is not the provision of religious education itself or its compulsory nature which is at issue but rather the way in which it is taught. This is the problem which we have in Ireland.

Chamber judgment Mansur Yalcin and Others v. Turkey religious education in schools

But that is just one ruling. In the Polish case the atheist was deemed not discriminated against because of the voluntary nature of the religious instruction which is true of Ireland. Presumably Turkey's religious instruction was compulsory and therefore there is a contravention.

btw to the guy who said I have an agenda, not really -- would prefer secular schooling, but I was answering Brian S and others who think Europe has the kind of discrimination laws on religious schooling and secularism. I agree that this doesn't necessarily mandate religious instruction, but it most certainly doesn't ban it. Not as long as it is voluntary.

In fact when the UK wrote the ECHR into their laws ( which makes it a constitutional law -- for now anyway) they changed the protocol as written into British law to make exemptions in terms of cost and to safeguard essential curriculum, presumably to stop creationism.

In Lautsi v Italy the court ruled that Italian school crucifixes didn't violate the protocol.
So I doubt if Europe is going to help with secularisation of Irish schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

oldrnwisr

Eugene Norman wrote: »

But that is just one ruling. In the Polish case the atheist was deemed not discriminated against because of the voluntary nature of the religious instruction which is true of Ireland. Presumably Turkey's religious instruction was compulsory and therefore there is a contravention.

btw to the guy who said I have an agenda, not really -- would prefer secular schooling, but I was answering Brian S and others who think Europe has the kind of discrimination laws on religious schooling and secularism. I agree that this doesn't necessarily mandate religious instruction, but it most certainly doesn't ban it. Not as long as it is voluntary.

In fact when the UK wrote the ECHR into their laws ( which makes it a constitutional law -- for now anyway) they changed the protocol as written into British law to make exemptions in terms of cost and to safeguard essential curriculum, presumably to stop creationism.

In Lautsi v Italy the court ruled that Italian school crucifixes didn't violate the protocol.
So I doubt if Europe is going to help with secularisation of Irish schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

The Polish case, as you pointed out about the Turkish one, is just one ruling. How you determine its of more relevance to the Irish situation than the Turkish one is confusing. After all, as I pointed out in my last post, it was determined in the Turkish case that it was not whether the classes were compulsory or voluntary that was at issue but rather the content of the classes and how this content violated article 9.

Since you mention the Polish case, it isn't relevant to the Irish situation. The Polish case argued that by not getting a mark for this voluntary course that the student's rights would be violated by revealing his lack of beliefs, thus violating Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9. However, the Court found that since both the religion and ethics classes were optional that students could choose to opt out for any reason. Therefore, the lack of a mark on school reports constituted neutral information with regard to religion.

The Irish context is different for a number of reasons.

Firstly, since the Irish religious education classes require an opt-out by non-religious parents, this requires parents to make a declaration about their religious beliefs in contravention of Article 14 & 9 above.

Secondly, since this information can also be used under Irish law to refuse the child a place in school under Section 7 of the Equal Status Act, this also constitutes a violation of Article 14.

Thirdly, in some cases, the opt-out nature of the classes has caused parents in some schools to have to make alternative arrangements for their children. This constitutes an abrogation of the State's duty under Article 2 (The extent to which this occurs though is unknown).

Finally, the Court has in other cases (e.g. }"]Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark 1976) stated that where religious education is provided that it should not violate the prohibition on indoctrination. Given that the religious classes in Irish primary schools present Christianity and more specifically Roman Catholicism as true, this violates article 9 of the Convention.

The state could solve a lot of problems by designing a curriculum for state-funded schools which teaches children about religion without telling them that a particular one is true.

Hotblack Desiato

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Where a polish atheist student was not deemed discriminated against when he was not marked in final reports for the voluntary religion/ethics class that he skipped. He argued this would reveal his atheism to future employers, and that would reveal his religion violating section 9 ( freedom of religion ) and also violate the protocol above. The court disagreed because of the voluntary nature of the class.

Irrelevant as oldrnwisr pointed out, he could have chosen to skip this optional class for any reason not just atheism (JWs usually seek to have their children excluded from RC/CoI religious instruction, I understand, and that's not due to a lack of belief on their part!)
and how anyone could expect to be given a grade for an exam and class they didn't attend beats me.

Which doesn't bode well for irish secularism as religion is not an exam subject.

Non-sequitur, especially as it is an exam subject in Ireland!

robindch wrote: »

And in return, and with becoming decorum, I refer you to the same article whose very existence implies that the Irish Constitution defines the primary rights and responsibilities of Irish citizens and organizations with respect to EU institutions rather than the other way around.

#checkmate

Hmm so because the constitution is the supreme arbiter, it can say that any part of it can be overriden by another document, and that's only possible because the constitution is the supreme arbiter in the first place
*strokes chin* Jesuit-educated, by any chance?

I'm reminded of 'I am NOT the messiah!' 'Only the true messiah would deny his divinity!' 'What?? All right then, I am the messiah!' 'HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!'

[place 'that's the joke' picture here]

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmm so because the constitution is the supreme arbiter, it can say that any part of it can be overriden by another document, and that's only possible because the constitution is the supreme arbiter in the first place

Close, but no cigar. The article you quoted asserts (blandly, and badly as far as I'm concerned), that law, properly-enacted law in the EU and other institutions, will have the "force of law" within the state - effectively equating EU law with Irish law. However, law is subservient to the Constitution, so the Constitution remains the ultimate arbiter of the rights and responsibilities of Irish citizens. But it doesn't define law, but just the framework within which law can be enacted.

The distinction might sound jesuitical, but that's the way it works - the Constitution is short, relatively simple and defines rights, roles and responsibilities and is hard to change. The law is long and complex and enacts and encodes the concrete implementation of rights, roles and responsibilities, but it's relatively easy to change.

Going back to the original post:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] EU rules, which under Irish constitutional law supercedes the constitution.

EU "rules" (by which Brian probably means "laws") are equivalent to laws enacted in Ireland, but they do not "supercede the constitution", but rather permitted by it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

*strokes chin* Jesuit-educated, by any chance?

Benedictine as it happens, but I take the point

SpaceTime

As per usual, it'll only change when at some stage in the future we face an excruciatingly embarrassing court case in the ECHR or something similar.

In the meantime there are bishops rings to be kissed!

Zamboni

Regardless of your views of HAI, I would kindly request that you share this poster on your social media pages.
http://humanism.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HAI-Baptism-Campaign_Poster_SocialMedia.jpg

Also, ET criticise the bill here.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/draft-admissions-bill

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/school-admissions-bill-does-nothing-to-offer-alternatives-to-church-schools-670939.html

silverharp

Zamboni wrote: »

Regardless of your views of HAI, I would kindly request that you share this poster on your social media pages.
http://humanism.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HAI-Baptism-Campaign_Poster_SocialMedia.jpg

Also, ET criticise the bill here.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/draft-admissions-bill

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/school-admissions-bill-does-nothing-to-offer-alternatives-to-church-schools-670939.html

The article describes the ET schools as non denominational but the ET website says multi denominational, are the terms interchangeable?

kylith

silverharp wrote: »

The article describes the ET schools as non denominational but the ET website says multi denominational, are the terms interchangeable?

Technically, no, but they are used as such. Generally people use non-denominational to mean 'no particular denomination'.

Zamboni

silverharp wrote: »

The article describes the ET schools as non denominational but the ET website says multi denominational, are the terms interchangeable?

You could email the journalist.

lazygal

There are no non denominational state funded schools in Ireland. While I was and am in favour of some aspects of the educate together model I also feel by including faith based celebration in its curriculum it skirts a fine line between indoctrination and education on the learn together programme. It also is assumed that everyone who doesn't baptise their.children want an educate together school place which simply it not the case. I prefer aspects of our local Catholic school.

ScumLord

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's the worst thing to do as it perpetuates the unjust status quo, reduces the demand for change, and makes life more difficult for those who actually have principles and aren't willing to shrug their shoulders and say 'shure it'll do'.

But so typically Irish.

The fact is this isn't going to change anytime soon, the only reason we're progressing now is because the religious fundamentalists that are unable to change or question their religion are dying out. I think we have to go through another generation before we can expect any real change, our politicians won't upset religious voters so there won't be any change until people stop saying their Catholics.


So in the mean time take advantage of the religious nature of the system. A parents only duty is to their child's upbringing, if you have to lie to get the services you need, then lie. I wouldn't hold up my childs education for my own principles. It's not like the religion will stick.

expectationlost

Draft Admissions Bill Highlights the Need for National Network of Educate Together Schools http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/draft-admissions-bill

no it highlights need to for state non denominational schools.

expectationlost

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The equality agency is subject to law. They lost a case recently.

I personally think that equality agencies existing in capitalist societies is a bit of a joke. Private schools still exist do they not? Why is that not the big issue.

Can't get too excited about religious denominated schools along with secular and other schools.

most of our schools are private

expectationlost

Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015 http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28712&&CatID=59

Bill entitled an Act to make provision, in the interests of the common good, that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds, and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may issue a direction to a board of management in relation to the admission of students to a school and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may appoint an independent person to comply with such direction, and to provide that in certain circumstances the National Council for Special Education or the Child and Family Agency may designate a school or centre for education which a child is to attend, and for those and other purposes to amend the Education Act 1998 , the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, and to provide for related matters