The recent case at the UK Supreme Court, about withdrawing from religious education in schools, highlights the flaws in a WRC decision in Ireland three years ago. The UK case was based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which Ireland has ratified (European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003)
The UK Supreme Court found that exercising the right to withdraw children from religious education placed an undue burden on parents, and was capable of putting them in a position that they felt they had to reveal their convictions.
There has been no case before the Irish courts in relation to not attending religious instruction. However, there has been a case at the WRC under the Equal Status Act in 2023. A parent brought a case to the WRC because his child was left in the religion class and was not given another subject.
The WRC found against the parent. They said it wasn’t discrimination under the Equal Status Act for a child to be left sitting in the religion class and not get another subject.
The WRC also said it was reasonable approach to ask parents to come to a meeting to discuss options for withdrawal from religious instruction. They also said it would cause chaos in a school if students got another subject and that it could be seen as unfair to students taking religious education.
The findings of the UK Supreme Court in relation to non-religious parents and their children regarding withdrawal from religious education is completely at odds with this case at the WRC in 2023.
Has the Equal Status Act failed to protect non-religious families from religious discrimination in the education system? The answer seems to be, yes it has.
The case at the WRC
The WRC case was in relation to the following:
”The Complainant stated that his daughter, C, who does not want to participate in religion classes because she is non-religious, is receiving an inferior education to her religious sister, E. This discrepancy is attributed to the Respondent’s failure to allow C to participate in alternative classes while religious classes are ongoing. The Complainant argues that this treatment constitutes an instance of discrimination.”
https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/august/adj-00044317.html
The WRC found the school could insist on a meeting between the parent and the principal
The parent argued that the school was obliged by law to put the arrangements for not attending in their admission policy. The WRC found:
“While the Complainant also stated that the Respondent breached the requirement of section 67 of the Education (Admission to Schools) Act on the basis that the arrangements in relation to opt outs of religion are not transparent, I am satisfied based on the evidence presented to me by the Respondent that this is not the case.
In making this finding, I noted that the Respondent’s mission statement allows for opt-out requests from religious classes and sensibly, in my view, acknowledges the absence of a universal ”no one size fits all” solution for such requests.
Considering this, I believe that engaging in a conversation with the child or the parents about the arrangements for the religious classes, as described by the principal in his evidence, constitutes a reasonable approach and does not breach the transparency obligations outlined in the Act.”
The WRC found offering another subject might cause chaos
The parent wanted the child to be offered another subject. The WRC found this might cause chaos in the school:
“In deciding whether the Respondent breached the Equal Status Act by not offering the Complainant additional classes instead of the religious ones she opted out of, I accept the Respondent’s argument that providing alternative classes for opt-out students might potentially result in chaos within the school.
Moreover, one can easily envision that the situation could become even more complex if students exempt from other subjects also sought alternative classes, citing the precedent set for those opting out of religion.
Although I accept the Complainant’s evidence that other schools do offer alternative classes for students opting out of religious education, without apparent issues, the Respondent’s decision not to do so in this case does not inherently amount to discrimination.”
The WRC found it could be unfair to students who did religious education
Bizarrely, the WRC said that it was possible that offering another subject could discriminate against students that took religious instruction, because the school would be offering extra tuition to a student that did not take it.
“However, what could potentially be considered discriminatory would be if the Respondent offered extra tuition in a different subject to a student who opted out of religion but refused to provide additional tuition to a student who chose to attend religious classes on the grounds of their belief.
This difference in treatment based on students’ choices regarding religious education could raise concerns of discrimination under the Equal Status Act as the Respondent‘s representative correctly highlighted.
Specifically, if the Respondent allowed C to participate in additional history classes due to her decision not to study religion, then it could be argued that E has a valid claim of discrimination because she chose to study religion but was not given the same opportunity for extra history classes.”
What the UK Supreme Court found
The UK Supreme Court found that the right of withdrawal in N.I schools places an undue burden on parents and was capable of putting them in a position that they felt they had to reveal their convictions.
They found a breach of the right to freedom of conscience under Article 9 of the European Convention and also a breach of Article 2 of Protocol 1, the right to education.
The parents had said that they had to go to a meeting with the school to discuss withdrawing their child from religion classes. They said that this meeting put them in the position that:
“ (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.”
Here’s some detail of what the Supreme Court found:
“It might be thought that withdrawing a pupil was a simple matter of a parent making a request with which the school must comply… However… absent established alternative arrangements, decisions must be made as to the arrangements for the pupil. In practice those decisions involve discussion and negotiations between the school and the parents giving rise to “a potential breeding ground for conflict:” see Folgerø at para 98.
116. If the right of withdrawal is capable of placing an undue burden on [parents], then their rights and the rights of JR87 under A2P1 read with article 9 ECHR would be theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective.
119. In practice it was reasonable for the parents to have felt compelled to disclose to the School their non-religious and philosophical convictions even though there was no obligation “as such” to do so. Furthermore, in practice the discussions and negotiations to be entered into with the School “prior” to withdrawal of JR87 would have led to a real risk that the parents would feel compelled to disclose their convictions to the School.
120. There was ample evidence to support the factual finding of a danger of being deterred from seeking withdrawal. The risk of stigmatisation of JR87 alone would give rise to that risk.
Conclusion
If the process of withdrawal from religious education in Northern Ireland schools breaches the rights of non-religious families, under the same European Convention that Ireland has subscribed to, why do we have to put up with the similar withdrawal process in our schools? What about our human rights?
The parent who took the case to the WRC felt discriminated against because of their non-religious philosophical beliefs. The withdrawal process in the school was flawed, and placed an undue burden on them.
The idea that a student who took religious education class could have a case of discrimination if a non-religious child got another subject is seriously flawed, given the case at the UK Supreme Court. What were the WRC thinking?
The rights are the same. The rights that were breached in the UK case were rights that non-religious families have in Irish schools. The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 is in place here.
It seems clear that the WRC is not the place for non-religious families to take a case in relation to discrimination in the education system as they have failed to protect us. It seems to us that the parent in question simply suffered further discrimination at the WRC.
Atheist Ireland continues to campaign for a secular education system based on human rights principle, that treats everyone equally regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs.