Atheist Ireland joined a meeting this week of women’s rights groups and secular groups that want the State to own and manage the new National Maternity Hospital. The meeting was convened by Jo Tully, chairperson of the Campaign Against Church Ownership of Women’s Healthcare.
This growing campaign has two demands:

• That the site of our new National Maternity Hospital (NMH) be publicly owned
• That the hospital be owned and managed on a secular basis by the State

You can get ongoing news about the campaign on Twitter and Facebook or by following the Twitter hashtag #MakeNMHOurs.
To date, due to public scrutiny and continued media attention, the Minister for Health has been forced to delay the signing off of the contracts which would gift the hospital and its management to the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG).
SVHG is a private charity owned by the Religious Sisters of Charity. Its practices are run according to Catholic ethos dictated by The Vatican. These Directives prohibit access to abortion, IVF and gender affirming surgeries & treatments, but also directly influence the medical treatment of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies.
In a democratic republic, the State should own and directly manage the National Maternity Hospital. It should not cede control over this essential public service to any private body, never mind to a charity associated with the Catholic church, which has an appalling record of human rights abuses and an ethos that opposes reproductive rights for women.
Atheist Ireland campaigns for a secular healthcare system based on compassion, human rights and the medical needs of patients. No religious values should be imposed on patients who do not share those religious beliefs. The State should remove, not reinforce, the traditional privileges that religious bodies have in our healthcare provision.
Scandalously, the government is planning to spend €800 million of public money on a project that requires the Sisters of Charity to obtain permission from the Vatican to agree to it. The Vatican is the headquarters of a global religion that poses as a quasi-State when it suits its purposes. Its primary aim is not to provide healthcare, but to evangelise people into Catholicism.
This issue is not just about access to reproductive healthcare, but also about the right to freedom of conscience. Those of us who seek a National Maternity Hospital free from religious influence do so on the basis of our constitutionally protected right to freedom of conscience. The reason that politicians don’t see this as an issue of conscience is because of the influence of the Catholic Church in relation to the definition of freedom of conscience, religion and belief.
The European Court has said that secularism is a belief protected by Article 9 of the Convention, and that an aim to uphold secular and democratic values can be linked to the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of Article 9 of the European Convention (Hamidovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.3.2018 European Court). Article 9 of the European Convention relates to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Recent referendums on marriage equality, abortion, and blasphemy, have shown a consistent majority in favour of secular government. Our politicians should heed this message, and the State should own and manage the new National Maternity Hospital. If you would like to help with this important campaign, please contact Atheist Ireland or the Campaign Against Church Ownership of Women’s Healthcare. Read more…

Atheist Ireland asks Department to protect rights of children from secular families in schools

The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration, and Youth is preparing Ireland’s 5th/6th State Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Atheist Ireland has made the following submission to the consultation on the draft State Report.
We are making this submission with regard to three aspects of the Draft State Report:
C. Civil Rights and Freedoms (Arts. 7, 8, 13–17), Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion:

“17. Please inform the Committee on the measures taken to ensure accessible options for
children to opt out of religious classes and access appropriate alternatives to such classes,
in accordance with the needs of children of minority faith or non-faith backgrounds.”

G. Basic health and welfare (Arts. 6, 18 (3), 24, 26, 27 (1)–(3) and 33):

“25(c) Ensure comprehensive, age-appropriate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, including information on family planning, contraceptives and the risks related to early pregnancies, as well as the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.”

H. Education, leisure and cultural activities (Arts. 28 – 31):

“28(b) Assess the impact of the 2018 Education (Admission to Schools) Act in ensuring children’s right to education without discrimination, including in cases where admission can be denied on religious grounds;
28(c) Increase the availability of non-denominational and multi-denominational schools.”

Contents

1. Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
The relevant section with regard to C. Civil rights and freedoms (arts. 7, 8 and 13–17), under Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, appears on page 34 of the Department’s draft report as follows:

“Question 17
Please inform the Committee on the measures taken to ensure accessible options for
children to opt out of religious classes and access appropriate alternatives to such classes,
in accordance with the needs of children of minority faith or non-faith backgrounds.”

1.1 Primary level
The State response says:

“Responsibility for providing a programme of religious education rests with the patron bodies of individual schools and not the State. There are a diverse number of patrons’ programmes within the primary school system. Some are denominational or religious, emphasising the place of children’s faith, spiritual and moral development in their lives. Others foster understanding of ethics and values.”

At primary level there is no option to access another subject if students exercise their Constitutional right to ‘not attend’ religious instruction, or their right under the Constitution as reflected in the Education Act to ‘not attend’ any subject that is contrary to their or their parents’ conscience, which includes religious education classes however they are classified.
Their Constitutional right to ‘not attend’ is not protected and enforced by the State notwithstanding the fact that the funding of schools is conditional on this right. Schools provide no supervision outside the religious instruction class and never provide another subject. Students are left sitting in the class where religious instruction takes place.
The Constitution envisages students attending publicly funded schools while having a right to ‘not attend’ religious instruction. Every word in the Constitution has meaning and Article 44.2.4 does not state that students need ‘not participate’ in religious instruction. It clearly states ‘without attending religious instruction.’
In addition the Primary School Curriculum supports the integration of subjects. Religious instruction developed by various Patron bodies is integrated into all subjects under the curriculum and no opt out is possible from this teaching. Parents are never informed that this is happening and it is supported by State funding and State policy.
The 1999 Primary school curriculum framework has enabled Patron bodies, schools and teachers to promote the spiritual education of students by evangelising them into a religious way of life. It discriminates against non-religious minorities. It does not take on board the positive right of non-religious minorities under Article 42.1 in relation to the education of their children. This is also reflected in Section 15-2(b) of the Education Act 1998. Read more…

Calling concerned teachers