Executive Summary
This submission addresses the right to freedom of conscience, religion, and belief in the Irish education system. It highlights how current practices fail to respect and protect the philosophical convictions of nonreligious parents, children, and teachers. We ask the Committee to support statutory guidelines that would ensure respect for all belief systems in publicly funded schools, in line with constitutional and international human rights obligations.
1. Purpose of this Submission
2. Constitutional Rights
3. International Human Rights Obligations
4. Gaps in Domestic Law and Practice
5. Equality Law and Definitions of Belief
6. Our Recommendations
1. Purpose of this Submission
We are asking the Committee to examine how the education system reflects the right to respect all parents’ convictions, as guaranteed by the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and EU Directive 2000/78/EC which prohibits discrimination on the basis of either religion or belief.
In principle, the state recognises that it has a duty under the Constitution to respect all parents’ convictions when providing education. Section 15-2(e) of the Education Act 1998 obliges Boards of Management to respect the beliefs of all parents in a democratic society.
However, in practice, there is no definition of the word ‘beliefs’ in the Education Act 1998, nor are there any statutory guidelines on what respecting parents’ beliefs means on the ground in schools or how a school gives practical application to this right.
The Supreme Court has already found that children will be influenced ‘to some degree’ by the ethos of schools outside of the religious instruction class if their parents ‘choose’ to send them to that school (although it did not define ‘to some degree’ or what constitutes real choice of school they can send their child to).
The ethos of schools in the general atmosphere is not something passive. It is integrated into the curriculum, it is reflected in symbols and religious festivals and practice, on school uniforms and the daily life of the school. There are no statutory guidelines of what ‘influence to some degree’ means on the ground in state aided schools.
Nobody is claiming that a school ethos does not influence all children. What we are told is that this is essential to uphold the right to freedom of religion of some parents. It seems that the rest of us are expected to accept the indoctrination of our children as they exercise their constitutional right to education.
Our key recommendation is the introduction of statutory guidelines to give practical effect to this Constitutional and human right to respect for all parents’ beliefs in the education system be they religious or philosophical.
2. Constitutional Rights
Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution guarantees:
“Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.”
The 1995 Constitutional Review Group stated that this right probably also extends to includes nonreligious philosophical beliefs, such as humanism and veganism, and they recommended no change in this Article.
They stated that:
“In ordinary speech, freedom of conscience is not synonymous with freedom of religion. Because the drafters of the Constitution must be presumed to have intended that every word and phrase should carry a specific and separate meaning, ‘freedom of conscience’ must be taken to import something additional to the guarantee of free practice and profession of religion.
The Review Group considers that the guarantee probably also extends to philosophical beliefs such as humanism and may possibly also extend to other moral and ethical belief systems (for example vegetarianism). Article 44.2.1° broadly corresponds to the guarantees contained in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Review Group considers that the extent of the present guarantee is satisfactory and that no change is required.”
This interpretation is reinforced by Article 42.1 of the Constitution:
“The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide… for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.”
Despite these guarantees, state aided schools frequently fail to ‘respect’ the convictions of families with philosophical beliefs.
Under the European Convention failure to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions is viewed as indoctrination. In Ireland indoctrination is viewed as using ‘force’, in other words forcing a child to recite prayers or go to mass. That is not the definition under the European Convention, indoctrination means not respecting parents‘ convictions, the term ‘respect’ is viewed as a verb and is not something passive.
This is directly relevant to Article 42.1 of the Constitution which obliges the state to respect the inalienable right of all parents in relation to the education of their children. Justice O’Donnell in the recent Supreme Court case in relation to covid and the leaving certificate stated that:
“It is, in any event, part of the right and duty of parents to provide (and therefore the right of their children to receive) education under Article 42.1, which right the State has guaranteed to respect.
The Irish text of Article 42.1 provides an important flavour in this regard: “… ráthaÃonn [An Stát] gan cur isteach ar cheart doshannta ná ar dhualgas doshannta tuistà chun oideachas … a chur ar fáil dá gclainn” which conveys the sense that the State cannot interfere with (cur isteach ar) the right of parents subject to the Constitution to provide education under Article 42.1, a right which Article 42.2 contemplates may take place at home”.
Under Article 42.2 that education may also take place in private schools or schools recognised or established by the state. There are no schools in Ireland that have a secular ethos (see Forum on Patronage and Pluralism report).
We are left with no choice but to send our children to the schools that are provided by the state for the education of our children (Article 42.4). These schools are registered with the Department of Education as denominational, interdenominational or multi-denominational. There are no non-denominational schools in Ireland at primary or second level with a secular ethos.
In the O’Keeffe v Ireland case at the European Court, the court stated that:
“151. Finally, the Government appeared to suggest that the State was released from its Convention obligations since the applicant chose to go to Dunderrow National School.
However, the Court considers that the applicant had no “realistic and acceptable alternative” other than attendance, along with the vast majority of children of primary-school-going age, at her local national school (see Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 8, Series A no. 48).
Primary education was obligatory (sections 4 and 17 of the School Attendance Act 1926) and few parents had the resources to use the two other schooling options (home schooling or travelling to attend the rare fee-paying primary schools), whereas national schools were free and the national-school network was extensive”.
Parents with philosophical beliefs are left with a choice between denominational, interdenominational or multi-denominational education on a take it or leave it basis. If the state ‘provides for’ the education of our children in these schools, they are obliged to respect our philosophical beliefs by ensuring that the curriculum is objective, critical and pluralistic. The state can’t absolve itself of that responsibility.
The High Court in the Campaign to Separate Church and State case in 1996 recognised that the Irish Constitution has developed the significance of parental rights and has imposed obligations on the State in relation to them. They didn’t say that this was confined to religious parents. The court said:
“The parties to the First Protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of human rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed that States when assuming functions in relation to education “shall respect the rights of parents to ensure such education and teaching in accordance with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (Article 2).
The Irish Constitution has developed the significance of these parental rights and in addition has imposed obligations on the State in relation to them. It declares (in sub paragraph 2 of this Article) that parents are to be free to provide for the education of their children in their homes, or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State, that the State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience to send their children to schools established or designated by the Stare, and that the State shall require (in view of actual conditions) that children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social…”
Similarly, in AB v. Children’s Hospital Temple Street (2011), Justice Hogan affirmed:
“35. There is thus no doubt at all but that parents have the constitutional right to raise their children by reference to their own religious and philosophical views.”
“27. Along with the guarantee of free speech in Article 40.6.i, Article 44.2.1 guarantees freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion. Taken together, these constitutional provisions ensure that, subject to limited exceptions, all citizens have complete freedom of philosophical and religious thought, along with the freedom to speak their mind and to say what they please in all such matters….”(AB v Children’s Hospital Temple Street & CD & EF –January 2011)
As mentioned above, the state recognises that it has a duty under the Constitution to respect all parents’ convictions when providing education. Section 15-2(e) of the Education Act 1998 obliges Boards of Management to respect the beliefs of all parents in a democratic society.
However, there is no definition of the word ‘beliefs’ in the Education Act 1998, nor are there any statutory guidelines on what respecting parents’ beliefs means on the ground in schools or how a school gives practical application to this right.
Justice Barrington in the Campaign case at the Supreme Court in 1998 said that children will be influenced ‘to some degree’ by the ethos of schools outside the religious instruction class, because their parents have chosen that school for them.
There is not a patron body that says that they support or even recognise secularism as a belief, worthy of respect in a democratic society. Children from families with philosophical beliefs do not have access to an education that is objective, critical and pluralistic.
An example of this is SPHE at primary and second level. These courses have recently been updated and were meant to be objective and suitable for all students.
However, the Catholic Church has developed resources to compliment SPHE at primary and second level. Schools can integrate these resources into the State curriculum on SPHE and not inform parents that this is happening. It seems that many children are back where they started, a choice between Catholic sex education or no sex education at all.
Here are the links to those resources.
Flourish at primary level
Living Love, which was developed in harmony with the NCCA’s draft SPHE (incorporating RSE) junior-cycle short-course curriculum specification.
Another example of the disrespect the state has for the beliefs of non-religious families is Section 62-7(n) of the Education Admission to Schools Act 2018. The purpose of this section of the Act was to oblige schools to put in their Admission Policies details of the arrangements for not attending religious instruction.
Schools just ignored this section of the Act. We examined 100 Admission Policies and sent a report on them to the then Minister, Norma Foley and also sent that Report to the previous Oireachtas Education Committee. Nothing happened and schools just continued to ignore this section of the Act.
We updated the Report and sent that to the Minister. There was still no change. Schools continue to refuse to comply with this section of the Act. There are no consequences for ignoring legislation when it involves any respect for the rights of families with philosophical beliefs.
Here is a link to our Report of 100 schools that fail to put in their Admission policies details of the arrangements for not attending religious instruction. Here is the updated report.
3. International Human Rights Obligations
In the O’Keeffe v Ireland judgement at the European court the court found that Ireland could not avoid its Convention protective obligations by delegating them to private bodies.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Oireachtas has done in relation to parents’ right to respect for their philosophical beliefs.
The European Court in the O’Keeffe case stated:
“124. Education was a national obligation (McEneaney and Crowley, cited above), as it was in any advanced democracy. Article 42 of the Constitution was permissive so that the State could and should have chosen to provide education itself. Even if the State outsourced that obligation to non-State entities, the national-school model could and should have accommodated greater child-protection regulations.
One way or the other, a State could not avoid its Convention protective obligations by delegating primary education to a private entity (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom[, 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C]). Finally, the State could not absolve itself by saying that the applicant had had other educational options which, in any event, she had not.”
The European Court in the Folgero v Norway case in 2007 stated the following; this is now a General Principle of the European Court:
“(a) The two sentences of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 must be interpreted not only in the light of each other but also, in particular, of Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, § 52).
(b) It is on to the fundamental right to education that is grafted the right of parents to respect for their religious and philosophical convictions, and the first sentence does not distinguish, any more than the second, between State and private teaching”.
The European Convention on Human Rights and the ICCPR both require that education must be delivered in a manner that respects parents’ convictions. They have defined what respect means on the ground in schools. The Education Act 1998 does not reflect this and there are no statutory guidelines in place.
We are left in a position that we must accept one or other of the ideological positions of Patron bodies in order for our children to exercise their right to education. Our children are indoctrinated into a religious view of the world, they leave their Constitutional and human rights at the schools gate because of the failure of the state to take sufficient care that any education and teaching must be objective, critical and pluralistic.
There is no distinction between religious instruction and other subjects under the European Convention.
The European Court has stated:
“(c) Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 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 (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, § 51). That duty is broad in its extent as it applies not only to the content of education and the manner of its provision but also to the performance of all the “functions” assumed by the State.
The verb “respect” 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. The term “conviction”, taken on its own, is not synonymous with the words “opinions” and “ideas”. It denotes views that attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance (see Valsamis, cited above, §§ 25 and 27, and Campbell and Cosans, cited above, §§ 36-37)
h) The second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 implies on the other hand that the State, in fulfilling the functions assumed by it in regard to education and teaching, must take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that must not be exceeded.”
In Burke v. Minister for Education (2023), Justice Whelan of the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Education Act 1998 must be interpreted compatibly with Convention obligations. Justice Whelan stated that:
“2.(1) In interpreting and applying any statutory provision or rule of law, a court shall, in so far as possible, subject to the rules of law relating to such interpretation and application, do so in a manner compatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention provisions. Thus in interpreting the obligations of the Board pursuant to the Education Act 1998 (as amended) regard must be had to the terms of the Convention.”
Respect is a verb under the European Convention, not a noun. The word ‘respect’ just sits in Section 15–2 (e) of the Education Act 1998 because the state has no statutory guidelines in place that define the word in order to give it practical application on the ground.
Schools decide for themselves what respecting all parents’ convictions means on the ground in schools.
4. Gaps in Domestic Law and Practice
Section 15(2)(e) of the Education Act 1998 requires school boards to:
“Have regard to the principles and requirements of a democratic society and have respect and promote respect for the diversity of values, beliefs, traditions, languages and ways of life in society.”
However, the Act does not define “beliefs,” and there are no statutory guidelines on how to uphold this obligation. In practice, Boards of Management prioritise the ethos of the Patron, even when it conflicts with constitutional and international human rights standards. The principles and requirements of a democratic society seem to mean whatever a particular patron body claim they mean.
Currently, the only detailed guidelines in place are those issued by the Catholic Church. These assert that atheism and humanism are not “beliefs,” directly contradicting EU and international law. We do not see how that could be regarded as respecting parents’ convictions.
5. Equality Law and Definitions of Belief
Ireland’s Equal Status Act and Employment Equality Act define discrimination on the “religion ground” narrowly. They do not refer explicitly to “beliefs” as protected grounds. By contrast, EU Directive 2000/78/EC prohibits discrimination on the basis of both “religion or belief.”
The European Court of Human Rights recognises the following as protected beliefs:
- Pacifism (Arrowsmith v. the United Kingdom, Commission report of 12 October 1978, § 69; Kanatli v. Türkiye, 2024, § 45);
- Principled opposition to military service (Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], 2011)
- Veganism and opposition to the manipulation of products of animal origin or tested on animals (W. v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 10 February 1993)
- Opposition to abortion (Knudsen v. Norway, Commission decision of 8 March 1985; Van Schijndel and Others v. the Netherlands, Commission decision of 10 September 1997)
- A doctor’s opinions on alternative medicine, constituting a form of manifestation of medical philosophy (Nyyssönen v. Finland, Commission decision of 15 January 1998)
- The conviction that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman and rejection of homosexual unions (Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2013)
- Attachment to secularism (Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], 2011, § 58; Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2017, § 35).
6. Our Recommendations
We urge the Committee to:
1. Recognise that nonreligious philosophical beliefs are protected under the Constitution and international law.
2. Recommend the introduction of statutory guidelines to ensure that publicly funded schools respect the beliefs of all families and in accordance with our international obligations.
3. Ensure that these guidelines:
Define “beliefs” to include atheist, secular, humanist, and other nonreligious worldviews;
Legally require schools to provide objective, critical, and pluralistic education and teaching.
These changes would support a more inclusive and rights-respecting education system and guarantee that all parents’ religious and philosophical beliefs are respected.
No comments