• Archives

  • Categories

  • Named one of the top Atheist / Agnostic Blogs by Unreasonable Faith

  • Recent Comments

    nancyabramsblogger's avatarnancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane's avatarShane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura's avatarLaura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Locations of visitors to this page

  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

Constitution of Ireland, if Article 41.2 removed, will still show duty of parents in Articles 42 and 42A

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

The Dáil and Senate have on 23 January 2024 passed 2 Bills for 2 Referenda to make 2 changes to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland.

Voting Day for the 2 Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

Each voter will receive 2 Ballot Papers, one for each Amendment/ Referendum.

To help people to decide how they will vote, the Mid-West Humanists will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday 20 February 2024.

One Referendum, for Amendment no 40, will remove Article 41.2, if a majority of the people vote Yes. Part of this Amendment will thus remove reference to a mother’s … duties in the home.

Some voters are concerned that this duty will then be entirely absent from the Constitution.

This is probably not true: the duty exists in some other Articles of the Constitution.

To help with people’s decisions, we show here the text of Articles 42 and 42A. These will remain the same after one Referendum or both is/ are passed by the people.

We show here how Article 42 (Education) and Article 42A (Children) say that the State respects the duty of parents to provide for the education of their children (42), and respects the duty of parents, generally (42A).
We here emphasise in blue the words that show these duties.

The duty of parents in Article 42 is that they provide for the education of their children. They may do this by sending their children to a school, but the parents still do other education generally at home, that does not happen in schools.

The duty of parents in Article 42A is not specified; but in section 2 of Article 42A their failure to do that duty may involve the State supplying the place of the parents. This permits the law that a Court (a Judge) can take a child, whom the parents have so failed, away from those parents.
Thus the duty of parents in section 2 of Article 42A is to give all the care and support that is normal for parents to give. This is wider than a mother’s … duties in the home. It includes the same duty of fathers, and the duty of both parents when the child(ren) are neither at home or at school.

 

ARTICLE 42                          Education

1 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, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3        1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

 

ARTICLE 42A                       Children                (inserted by a Referendum in 2012)

1       The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws respect and vindicate those rights.

2       1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3       Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4     1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—

i      brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii      concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,

the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

We hope that people’s knowledge of these Articles will help people when deciding how to vote.

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  You can read about the Open Meeting, on Tuesday 20 February 2024, about the Amendments and the Referenda.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3.  We show the present words of Article 41, together with the words as they will be if each Amendment is passed, and if both Amendments are passed.

 

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, education, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Text of Constitution of Ireland 2024, Article 41, now and when or if amended

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

The Dáil and Senate on 23 January 2024 passed 2 Bills for 2 Referenda to make 2 changes to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland.

The day to Vote on the 2 Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

Each voter will receive 2 Ballot Papers, one for each Amendment/ Referendum.

 

To help people to decide how they will vote, the Mid-West Humanists will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday 20 February 2024.

To help with people’s decisions, we show here the text of Article 41 as it is now.

After that, we show the text of Article 41 as it will be –

if Amendment no 39 is passed by the people;
if Amendment no 40 is passed by the people;
if both Amendments nos 39 and 40 are passed by the people.

 

Article 41, as it is now

1.      1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

————————————————-

In the versions of Article 41 that are possible after being amended,

bold indicates words that will be added;
strikethrough indicates words that will be removed.
plain text indicates words that will remain the same

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment no 39 is passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

————————————————-

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment no 40 is passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

         2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As Amendment no 40 deletes all of Section 2, it reduces the number of each later section by 1

2.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

3.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Amendment no 40 inserts a new Article, with the title “Care”

ARTICLE 42B               Care

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

 

————————————————-

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment nos 39 and 40 are passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

         2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As Amendment no 40 deletes all of Section 2, it reduces the number of each later section by 1

2.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

3.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Amendment no 40 inserts a new Article, with the title “Care”

ARTICLE 42B               Care

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

 

In the versions of Article 41 that are possible after being amended as above,

bold indicates words that will be added;
strikethrough indicates words that will be removed.
plain text indicates words that will remain the same.

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  You can read about the Open Meeting, on Tuesday 20 February 2024, about the Amendments and the Referenda.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3. We show the words of Articles 42 and 42A, because they contain State support for duties of parents that will remain in the Constitution if a majority of the people vote Yes to Amendment no 40. Here are 3 reasons to read these Articles –
    1. Article 42 supports the duty of parents to provide Education to their children.
    2. Article 42A supports the duty of parents to provide all aspects of care to their children.
    3. Both Articles 42 and 42A refer to parents, that is, both mothers and fathers (non-sexist).

 

 

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists to hold Open Meeting on the Referenda on Article 41

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

 

The Voting Day for the Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

The Mid-West Humanists will hold a meeting, about the 2 Referenda about Article 41 of the Constitution.

Any person can attend. A person can speak their views, hear others’ views, and discuss this matter.

We hope that by the end of the meeting people will know better how they will vote.

The meeting will be –

Date                      :             Tuesday 20 February 2024

Time                     :             20:00

Venue                   :             Strand Hotel, Ennis Road, Limerick 

The meeting is in a room on the 6th floor. There is a lift from Reception; there is a lift from the car park to Reception.

The meeting is open, and all people are welcome.

Make sure that you are registered to vote in the Referenda which will be on Friday 08 March 2024.

Purpose of the Meeting

This meeting is an opportunity for all persons interested in the Constitution of Ireland, and in improving or modernising the Constitution – an opportunity to consider carefully which way to vote in the coming 2 Referenda about Article 41.

We can only vote Yes or No to what the Dáil and Senate send to us. It looks likely that many of the people who want to change Article 41 want to change it more extensively or profoundly than that.
The meeting is to help you decide whether to vote Yes or No when the proposals are not how you would write them.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended in 2021 that the Constitution –

  1. continue to recognise the Family, and protect private and family life, including forms of family life beyond the Family based on marriage; and that
  2. the text of Article 41.2 (woman, mothers’ duty, in the home) be replaced by language that is not gender specific and recognises the principle of valuing and sharing care and commits the State to ensuring that its policies reflect this principle.

In January 2024 the Dáil and Senate passed 2 Bills to amend Article 41 of the Constitution. The Oireachtas (Dáil and Senate) now send them to the people in 2 Referenda, for the people’s vote, Yes or No.
Amendment no 39 is about the Family – item 1 by the Citizens’ Assembly

Amendment no 40 is about woman in the home – item 2 by the Citizens’ Assembly

The Bills propose changes that are less than what the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended. We the people cannot enlarge the changes to what the Citizens’ Assembly sought; we can only vote Yes or No to what the Dáil and Senate send to us.

Conduct of the Meeting

This meeting will try to allow every person, who so desires, to give their opinion. While one person is giving their view, we ask all others to listen, and not to talk.

Any person can have a view on what another person has said. We want to hear these opinions also – if you have such a view, please wait until the other person has finished speaking and until the chairperson has indicated that it is your turn to speak.

We hope that both speaking your own opinion out loud and hearing other opinions will make things clearer in your mind as to the best way for you to vote.

You may also ask questions of any person and of us who are running the meeting. Please answer as best you can if someone asks a question of you – though you are not obliged to answer.

At the end of the meeting, the good result will be that as many people as possible will know how they will vote, for their own reasons.

 

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  We show the present words of Article 41, together with the words as they will be if each Amendment is passed, and if both Amendments are passed.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3. We show the words of Articles 42 and 42A, because they contain State support for duties of parents that will remain in the Constitution if a majority of the people vote Yes to Amendment no 40. Here are 3 reasons to read these Articles –
    1. Article 42 supports the duty of parents to provide Education to their children.
    2. Article 42A supports the duty of parents to provide all aspects of care to their children.
    3. Both Articles 42 and 42A refer to parents, that is, both mothers and fathers (non-sexist).

Filed under: constitution, cultural issues, Dáil Éireann, humanism, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Referendum 24 May 2019: remove 4 years apart limit for Divorce from Article 41 of the Constitution

Posted on May 12th, 2019 by peterohara

Vote YES so you don’t have to live 4 of the last 5 years apart to qualify for a divorce
– and to let the Dáil and Senate legislate on foreign divorces

The Mid-West Humanists have favoured a Secular society and laws that uphold Human Rights from soon after we first met in 2008.

We have campaigned, and attended the Constitutional Convention in 2013, on other parts of the Constitution that have explicit biases towards religion and biases against people with no religion and people whose religions have fewer adherents. We and other non-religious organisations have secured the 2018 referendum to remove Blasphemy as an offence from Article 40 of Ireland’s constitution. We were the only set of people campaigning in public in the Mid-West region for people to vote Yes in October 2018.

The Mid-West Humanists now draw people’s attention to removing the minimum time apart to qualify for a divorce and to removing the restriction on the Oireachtas’ choice in recognising foreign divorces.

 

The Referendum is on Friday 24 May 2019!

The 38th Amendment to the Constitution (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill 2019 proposes to remove Article 41.3.2.i.
This subordinate clause of 34 words sets a minimum of 4 years living apart (in the last 5 years) before you can be divorced.
If a majority vote YES, the Constitution will no longer set a minimum time. The Minister for Justice has said he will set a minimum of 2 years apart in a new Bill in the Dáil and Senate.

Although you may think the 2 years apart is still an unreasonable requirement, it will only be in legislation. A vote in the Dáil and Senate could reduce or abolish it at any future time. But it will not need a referendum.

The 38th Amendment to the Constitution (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill 2019 also proposes to replace Article 41.3.3.
This sentence of 65 words sets a high bar to the recognition of a foreign divorce here in Ireland – perhaps its precise limitation is not clear.
If a majority vote YES, the Constitution will no longer set any rules on recognition. Such recognition would be by a Bill in the Dáil and Senate.

The Mid-West Humanists support every person who favours a secular society and state, and who favours freedom of association (to be able to more easily end your tie to a person to whom you have been married), to vote YES in the Referendum on Friday 24 May 2019.
It is on the same day as the election for City and County Councils and for the European Parliament.

We ask any person who thinks it almost sure to receive a majority YES to make sure that you yourself vote. If a large number who favour removing the 4 years that you must be apart do not cast their vote, the majority could be a NO. Please go to the polling station on 24 May 2019 and vote YES.

If you want the referendum to pass, it needs your vote as well as all the other YES votes.

 

Go to vote on Friday 24 May and vote YES!

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, humanism, law, morality, Seanad Éireann, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid West Humanists’ Submission to Minister for Education and Skills on admission rules to National Schools

Posted on March 11th, 2017 by peterohara

On 16 January 2017 the Department of Education sought submissions from interested persons and groups on the role of denominational religion in the school admissions process and possible approaches for making changes.

The Mid-West Humanists today 11 March 2017 have sent the following submission to the Department.

———————————————————————————————————————

Mid West Humanists                                                           March 2017

 

To Richard Bruton TD, Minister for Education and Skills

Contents

  1. The Mid-West Humanists make this submission
  2. Who the Mid-West Humanists are
  3. Mid-West Humanists’ reasons to meet includes the problems with education for those with no religion
  4. The plan we submit will benefit also people in religions with less numerous adherents, and will make governing the State and keeping peace easier
  5. Subjects that the Consultation Paper and the Minister mention, which this Submission uses
    5.1. Lower admission priority and the pressure to baptise are not fair to families and parents
    5.2. Ethos is a part of Approach 4(2) – so this Submission addresses ethos
    5.3. Understanding the different religions in the community and including all children with respect
    5.4. The Constitution of Ireland, parts relevant to education and State schools
  6. Principles of the Mid-West Humanists on which their view how to run National Schools is built
    6.1. A society fair to all people, and no rights for institutions
    6.2. Children’s rights,
    1) to develop intellectually, that adults and the State not blur their differentiation of ideas based on evidence and reason from ideas that people believe without evidence
    2) to know all the variety of people among whom they live/ will live, to feel at home in society
  7. The Mid-West Humanists’ view on the Paper’s 4 or 6 suggested approaches to admissions to schools
    7.1. General – all 4 or 6 approaches are unreasonable
    7.2. Approaches 1, 2, 3, 4(3)
    7.3. Approach 4(2) – pressure to agree to ethos is the same as pressure to baptise, unfair
    7.4. Approach 4(1) – children’s rights will be infringed after admission unless ethos is secular
  8. The Mid-West Humanists’ own view on the best admission rules, and the correct ethos
    8.1. Repeal the Equal Status Act 2000 Section 7.3(c) entirely
    8.2. Teachers must teach all the religions together to all children together, fairly and neutrally
    8.3. To not blur distinctions of basing on evidence, teachers not to state religious ideas as true
    8.4. The Constitution gives the teaching of religious doctrines to parents and not to the State
    8.5. The State makes children attend school, so it must be fair and make schools secular
  9. Replies to the 4 questions that the Consultation Paper asks about all approaches
    9.1. It is unfair that any religious group have State-funded schools
    9.2. The Constitution mandates the State removing religious influence in schools which it funds
    9.3. The legal support for National Schools and the Minister’s power to change how they run
    9.4. Unintended impacts of our approach are not a problem
  10. Additional ideas
    10.1. The value to society of all schools being secular, with no discrimination on admission
    10.2. Constitution and international conventions support secular ethos and no discrimination
    10.3. Misconceptions about National Schools’ legal status, and the real status
  11. Conclusion
    11.1. Changes needed and the power to make changes: the changes are constitutional
    11.2. Reasons for changes: children’s rights to development and to be at home in society

Continue reading →

Filed under: announcements, constitution, cultural issues, Dáil Éireann, education, law, religion, science, Seanad Éireann, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists send submission to Department of Education on strategy 2016-2018

Posted on June 9th, 2016 by peterohara

The new government that formed in 2016 made a Program for Government. This includes chapter 10 (page 86) on Education.

The Department of Education and Skills asked people for submissions on the Program, to contribute to the Department’s strategy for 2016 to 2018. The strategy was online, but is not available since the date for receiving submissions. They published a survey form with their set of questions. They set Wednesday 08 June 2016 as the last day for submissions.

The Mid-West Humanists have sent a submission early on 08 June 2016.

Our submission concentrates on secular education, how this is more important than a greater variety or diversity of patrons for schools (that plan is in fact a mistake); and on how the Minister and Department of Education and Skills can make all National Schools fairly secular by instructing those schools to follow the System of National Education (as their leases oblige them), Rule 69 of the Rules for National Schools of 1965, and Article 44.2.4 of Ireland’s Constitution.

Submissions will be available on the Department’s website, but we also show our submission here.

Continue reading →

Filed under: announcements, constitution, Dáil Éireann, education, ireland, law, political issues, Seanad Éireann, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

August 2015 meeting

Posted on August 24th, 2015 by peterohara

The meeting on 19 August 2015 supported the petition by Paddy Monahan that no baptismal certificate be required of a child on entry to school.

The meeting considered how to further publicise the information that the Leases of National Schools are very secular, and how to make use of the recent great publicity about the unfairness or requiring a child to be baptised in order to get a place in the local school.

Filed under: Dáil Éireann, education, law, Meetings, politics, religion, Seanad Éireann, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

July 2015 meeting

Posted on July 16th, 2015 by peterohara

The meeting on 15 July 2015 supported the campaign by Atheist Ireland for every person to visit the TDs in your constituency to ask that they vote for the Private Members Bill amending section 37 (1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998. This is NOT to support the amending Bill that the Government has promised, which intends to remove discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or identity, but also intends to keep discrimination on the grounds of religion or lack of religion.

The meeting considered as much allying with other secular groups as is possible, in the campaign to make people aware that the Leases of National Schools are very secular, and thus to forestall the leases being changed by the Minister for Education signing Deeds of Variation.

Filed under: Dáil Éireann, education, law, Meetings, politics, religion, Seanad Éireann, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Abolish All Blasphemy Laws! Humanists launch new campaign

Posted on February 5th, 2015 by peterohara

The Mid West Humanists received this message recently from the European Humanist Federation. Atheist Ireland is one of the 200 supporting organisations.

It is good to see international support for our campaign to remove the law against Blasphemy from Ireland’s Constitution.

——————————————————————————–

The End Blasphemy Laws Campaign is thought to be the first campaign focusing solely on the issue of laws against “blasphemy” including “ridicule” and “insult” to religion or “hurting religious sentiments”.

The coalition behind the campaign, led by the European Humanist Federation (EHF), the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) and various national partners, represents around 200 Humanist and secular organizations globally.

Campaign’s website: end-blasphemy-laws.org

Sonja Eggerickx, President of the IHEU, said, “In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings there have been renewed calls to abolish ‘blasphemy’ and related laws in almost every country where they still exist. Our organizations have worked for many years to protect this important right: to question, criticise, and yes even ridicule religion. Given this new impetus to challenge these anachronistic laws, we believe that we can work together across national boundaries to support local voices calling for the repeal of all such laws.

“The idea that it is wrong to satirize religion, lends false legitimacy to those who murder in the name of being offended. The idea that it is taboo to question or to criticise religious authorities is one reason why sexual abuse in the Catholic Church persisted so long. The idea that “insult” to religion is a crime, is why humanists like Asif Mohiuddin are jailed in Bangladesh, is why secularists like Raif Badawi are being lashed in Saudi Arabia, is why atheists and religious minorities are persecuted in places like Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and the list goes on!”

Pierre Galand, EHF President, explained: “Our campaign does not target laws against incitement to hatred, which are legitimate. What we are concerned about is laws which restrict freedom of expression about religion. As a first step, we want to see the remaining laws against blasphemy and religious insult in Europe repealed. There is an obvious double standard issue as the EU has taken a clear stand against blasphemy laws in the world. Now it must encourage its Members States to abolish existing blasphemy laws, as recommended by the Council of Europe.”

The campaign calls on transnational bodies and world leaders to look on “blasphemy” laws as they might look on law restricting press freedom: as a restriction on free expression and indicator of social harm.

Contact information:

EHF (European Humanist Federation): Pierre-Arnaud Perrouty (Executive Director): T +32 4 84 18 35 35, p-a.perrouty@laicite.net

IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) : Bob Churchill (Director of Communications): T +44 7743971937, bob.churchill@iheu.org

 

EHF
Campus de la Plaine ULB
CP 236 1050 Brussels
Belgium

International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
39 Moreland Street
London EC1V 8BB
United Kingdom

Filed under: atheism, blasphemy, constitution, Dáil Éireann, humanism, law, political issues, religion, Seanad Éireann | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Support Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech

Posted on January 8th, 2015 by peterohara

We are Charlie Hebdo

Nous sommes Charlie Hebdo

Is sinn Charlie Hebdo

I and I hope most Mid West Humanists support the right to life of 10 staff at Charlie Hebdo in Paris and of 2 officers of French police; and support their right to freedom of speech, and all people’s right to read any writing and any cartoon or other communication, whether or not it criticises or satirises any idea, whether religious, political, social, sporting, or scientific.

I praise Charlie Hebdo staff for publishing words and pictures without any respect for the ideas of several religions.

 

Are you powerless to do anything about some people murdering cartoonists and journalists who are doing their job (enabling you to read things that are prohibited in some countries)?

You are not powerless.

On TV I see that all the government of France and very many of the people support the right to speak, draw, and publish any matter, irrespective of any offence to any ideas.

France has a principle of secularism in the state (laicité) since 1905, now nearly half the time since the revolution in 1789. Ireland is weak in secularism, as the Constitution since 1937 states that blasphemy is an offence, and in 2009 our legislators continued a law to give effect to that article of the Constitution. Government and other people in Pakistan quote Ireland’s law to say that it is normal, including in Europe, for the law to prohibit criticism of religion. Our constitution and law fail to support the strong efforts of the constitution and law of France to maintain and defend freedom of speech. Today Thursday 08 January Dr Ali Salim of the Islamic Cultural Centre in Dublin said on RTE Radio 1 lunchtime news that it is correct that outraging many adherents of a religion is prohibited by law, and he said that if such outrage comes to his attention he will consult his lawyer as to what to do.

In 2013 the Constitutional Convention voted to suggest to the Government that they hold a referendum to let us choose to remove the law against blasphemy from the Constitution. The Government promised that it would hold this referendum, but at the end of 2014 they said that they will not let us vote on this.

 

You have power as a voter.

Visit all of the TDs in your constituency soon, and tell them that you demand that the Dáil and Senate vote for a bill to let us vote in a referendum on removing the sentence making blasphemy an offence from our Constitution. And tell them NOT to include substituting any sentence in its place.

I feel I owe this support to Charlie Hebdo’s journalists and cartoonists, and to all publishing staff there and in other parts of the world, and to the police who have been trying to protect them, as they are defending my right to freedom of speech.

 

Vive la liberté!

 

We are Charlie Hebdo

Nous sommes Charlie Hebdo

Is sinn Charlie Hebdo

Filed under: blasphemy, constitution, Dáil Éireann, humanism, ireland, islam, political issues, Press, religion, Seanad Éireann, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Next Page »