David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am glad we have come to this point and while I congratulate Senator Bacik on introducing amending legislation, the Bill before us does not go far enough. I remember the entire debate on the principal legislation. Former Senator Joe O'Toole and I strongly opposed section 37, which was included, I am ashamed to note, at the request of all the Christian churches, including my church. The Church of Ireland was as deeply implicated in the matter as the Catholic Church. I believe the churches were motivated by the fear that, in circumstances in which they were a minority, their religious ethos would be diminished or evaporate. This is an unnecessary fear. If one has faith, one should believe one's religion is capable of surviving.
In my imperfect way, I am a deeply religious person and regular church attender. I never received any religious instruction of the slightest value throughout my entire educational career. Such instruction was regarded as a total nonsense and took place occasionally for perhaps one hour per week. Most of the time, the clergy did not turn up for instruction and when they did they got us to read Lady Chatterley's Lover and similar books to broaden our minds. We did not learn anything.
Religious instruction is the responsibility of parents - if they want to continue a religious tradition - and is much more valuable when it comes from parents. It is from my mother, aunt and grandmother - my father was dead - that I got my love of the church.
While there are reasonable circumstances in which a person with a religious belief can be favoured, this Bill goes much too far. It would be bad for all concerned, for example, if a committed atheist were required to teach religion. Children are not fools and would know immediately that their teacher did not believe what he or she was teaching. To require an atheist to teach religion would, therefore, do violence to the children and the conscience of the person who was required to teach something that went against his or her beliefs. Such an approach is wrong. I am sure any flexible school will be able to find a proper, practical and pragmatic solution to this problem. It is not one that requires discrimination to be enshrined in law. While the Bill introduced by Senator Bacik moves a considerable way in the right direction, it continues to allow for discrimination.
I remind the House of a fine speech made many years ago - it may be 20 years ago now - by the then Minister for Justice, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, in response to an attempt by the Opposition to introduce a nasty set of amendments aimed at inserting in legislation a discriminatory age of consent for gay people. In fairness to the Fine Gael Party, a revolt in the ranks resulted in the proposals being filibustered in the Dáil by party Deputies, including the current Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, a man whom I do not always praise. They did a good job in talking out the amendments. While I may not remember her words entirely accurately, the sentiment the then Minister expressed when the Bill was introduced in the Seanad burned into my conscience because they expressed a golden role. Ms Geoghegan-Quinn noted that she had been asked to accept amendments which would provide for discrimination, stating that, as a Minister for Justice, she would only introduce a measure of discrimination against an Irish citizen if clear, cogent and factual reasons for such discrimination were produced for her in the House. As such reasons had not been produced, she would not, she said, introduce the proposed measure. This was a very important statement because it demonstrated that the issue is not sexuality but the principle of those moments where discrimination is required.
I have received an unusual flurry of communications on this issue from people who are concerned about their jobs and the extraordinary and outrageous decision taken in the Flynn v. Power case which related to the dismissal of Ms Eileen Flynn simply because she was pregnant and was living with a person who was not her husband. I also remember a case involving, I believe, two history professors in NUI Maynooth who were discharged because they left the priesthood. The decision in that shocking case was upheld in the Supreme Court. I would be very concerned if such cases were to continue.
While I am not an atheist, I believe that the rights of all citizens should be protected. Under this Bill, if one is gay and an atheist, one may be protected to some extent as a gay person but one would not be protected as an atheist. Atheists have a right of conscience and their position should be regarded as a form of belief because atheism is a belief in that involves, for example, the belief that there is no God and the universal is a nonsensical mistake, an accident that took place at the time of the big bang and so forth. While I do not agree with those views, people are perfectly entitled to hold such a principled position, which, while not particularly scientific, is a form of belief. I will table a Report Stage amendment to provide that atheism be treated as a belief.
The Bill, as it stands, negates the whole point of equality law by making some types of equality more equal than others. As I stated, a gay, atheist teacher could be fired on the basis of his or her belief but not on the basis of his or her sexuality.
The position in respect of European Union directive 2000/78/EC is inaccurate because Article 4 does not require but merely allows member states to permit discrimination in certain circumstances. Article 8 explicitly allows member states to introduce or maintain provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in the directive. In other words, we have considerable room for manoeuvre and are not required by the European Union to do what is done in the Bill. On the contrary, we are almost encouraged to be more open and liberal.
Some years ago, the Supreme Court examined this section of the Act and found that the legislation provided for a reasonable balance of the different rights involved, including, chiefly, the rights to earn a living and to freedom of religion and association. It found that the 1996 Bill was not repugnant to the Constitution, which is a very interesting phrase. Nowhere in the Supreme Court judgment is it suggested that such a provision is required by the Constitution. The Seanad, as a calm and reflective House, should consider these subtle distinctions. Institutions that are State funded should not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief. The State should not fund religious discrimination against its citizens. Further, institutions that are not State funded should be subject to restrictions of the type the Bill places on State funded bodies.
As I stated, it is a violation of conscience to require an atheist to teach religion. It is both absurd and an example of very bad teaching practice. I understand the Minister of State is a teacher. Is that correct?