Parents have the right to not be put in a position that they must reveal their religious or philosophical beliefs to their children’s school or teachers.
This is one of the human rights principles that the UK Supreme Court raised in the recent case regarding indoctrination in Northern Ireland schools. It is part of the negative aspect of the right to freedom of religion and belief.
In Northern Ireland there was no explicit legal requirement on parents to reveal their beliefs. However, In Northern Ireland schools, parents are required to come to a meeting to discuss the issue of removing their child from religion.
While doing this, the parent in question felt compelled to reveal their beliefs while negotiating with the school to remove their children from religion.
European Court principles
The UK Supreme Court stated in relation to Northern Ireland schools:
44. Thirdly, JR87’s parents stated that exercising the right to withdraw her from religious education and collective worship was capable of placing an undue burden on them by:
(a) the risk of exposing their philosophical but non-religious beliefs to the School and to the wider School community;
(b) the potential for conflict with the School in relation to alternative arrangements for JR87 if she were to be excused from attendance; and
(c) the risk of the School viewing them as “difficult or awkward parents.”
They considered that these matters not only placed an undue burden on them but also had a deterrent effect.
45. The parents of JR87 acknowledge that there was no legal requirement for them to reveal their philosophical but non-religious beliefs and that the School did not expressly ask them to do so. They also acknowledge that in their letter dated 30 May 2019 they chose to reveal their beliefs to the School.
However, they contend that:
(a) they felt compelled to do so; and
(b) inevitably, in practice, they would have been required to do so in the discussions as to alternative arrangements for JR87 which the School stipulated should take place “prior” to her withdrawal from religious education and collective worship.
46. Fourthly, JR87’s parents also considered that where, as here, the statutory scheme does not provide any alternative educational provision, an undue burden was placed on them in conjunction with the School to devise alternative arrangements for JR87 “prior” to her withdrawal. JR87’s parents considered that devising alternative arrangements in conjunction with the School not only placed an undue burden on them but also had a deterrent effect.
The European Court in the Grzelak v Poland case in 2010 held that:
87. The Court reiterates that freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs comprises also a negative aspect, namely the right of individuals not to be required to reveal their faith or religious beliefs and not to be compelled to assume a stance from which it may be inferred whether or not they have such beliefs (see, Alexandridis v. Greece, no. 19516/06, § 38, ECHR 2008…, and, mutatis mutandis, Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, § 76 in fine, ECHR 2007XI).
The Court has accepted, as noted above, that Article 9 is also a precious asset for non-believers like the third applicant in the present case. It necessarily follows that there will be an interference with the negative aspect of this provision when the State brings about a situation in which individuals are obliged – directly or indirectly – to reveal that they are non-believers. This is all the more important when such obligation occurs in the context of the provision of an important public service such as education.
The situation in Ireland
There are no state guidelines issued by the Department of Education in relation to respecting all parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. Patron bodies, schools and teachers are not aware that there is a right to not reveal your convictions to the schools or to be put in a position where you feel obliged to reveal your convictions.
This is not part of the principle of any courses in schools on religion, beliefs or ethics whether it is developed by Patron bodies or the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
Nearly all schools require parents to come to a meeting to discuss their child not attending religious instruction.
Section 62-7(n) of the Education (Admission) to Schools Act 2018 requires schools to put in their Admission Policy the arrangements for not attending religious instruction. All schools ignore this requirement, and the Department of Education refuses to oblige them to comply with the legislation.
In addition a WRC in 2023 held that requiring parents to come to a meeting to discuss the issue was a reasonable approach.
Many schools claim that they do not teach religious instruction but religious education and therefore Section 62-7(n) of the Education Admission to Schools Act, does not apply. They then require parents to come to a meeting to discuss the issue.
The reason for this interpretation of Article 44.2.4 is because the Department of Education has decided to interpret a Constitution right (Article 44.2.4) when they have no legal authority to do so. This interpretation has interfered in our Constitutional rights.
Religion and ethics courses in schools
During the teaching of religious education, teachers discuss and refer to the religious and philosophical beliefs of their students. Students are encouraged to speak about their beliefs with other students in the class.
In Community National schools, teachers are required to know the religious or philosophical beliefs of their students. Part of the course is to put together a project with their parents and discuss it with the rest of the class.
Schools and teachers are not aware of the right of parents and students not to be put in a position where they feel obliged to reveal their religious or philosophical convictions.
It is not only a matter of the failure of schools to ensure that parents are not put in a position where they feel they must revel their convictions while negotiating with the school the removal of their child from religion. It is also the case that children are just enrolled into various religion and ethics courses and, as part of those courses, they must reveal their religious or philosophical beliefs to the teacher and other students in the class.
Conclusion
The Irish state ignores the right of parents and their children to not be put in a position that they must reveal their religious or philosophical convictions. So do Patron bodies, schools and teachers.
There are no statutory guidelines issued by the Department of Education that oblige schools to respect all parents religious and philosophical beliefs, and to ensure that parents and their children are not put in a position where they feel obliged to reveal their convictions.
Atheist Ireland will continue to lobby for the human rights of all parents and their children to be given practical application on the ground.