Showing posts with label Secularism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secularism. Show all posts
Maryam Namazie ✏ Press Release Paris, 29 November 2023.

Per the request of City Hall, the final guest list must be submitted by December 3, so please register your intent to participate at the latest by 5pm on that day by completing this form.

To see conference brochure, click on this link.

For the first time in France, an international conference bringing together defenders of Laicity from across the world is being held during 8-9 December 2023 at the Auditorium of Paris City Hall. 

The conference is co-organised by Laïques Sans Frontières (LSF), a 1901 Law association created in January 2023 in Paris, and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB), in collaboration with the Comité Laïcité Republic (CLR) and EGALE. 

This event will take place in partnership with the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, Marianne magazine, Freedom from Religion Foundation (USA), National Secular Society (UK) and Center for Inquiry (USA).

The uprising of Iranians demanding a civil state reinforces our idea that all people aspire to freedom. It seems urgent and essential to us to bring together those throughout the world who fight for freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and for Laicity, in particular those from the "Muslim world" who often risk their lives as unbelievers or worse, apostates.

There are "atheists in Islam" and we believe that Laicity is the condition to ensure them a life worthy of free citizens in their countries. This movement of "ex-Muslims", which grows from year to year and Muslim believers who defend laicity, need international solidarity.

The event will bring together over 40 Laic figures, coming from the four corners of the globe, such as Nadia El Fani, Tunisian and French filmmaker, Maryam Namazie, Iranian Campaigner and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, Hamadi Redissi, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tunis and author of "Expressing yourself freely in Islam," Joumana Haddad, Lebanese Writer and Feminist Activist, Rana Ahmed, Saudi refugee in Germany and Founder of Atheist Refugee Relief, Marieme Helie Lucas, Algerian Sociologist and Founder of Secularism is a Women’s Issue, and many others.

Panellists will address the intersection between Laicity and women's rights, atheism in the Islamic context, contemporary challenges related to Laicity and its role in preserving democracy. Democracy cannot be full and complete where religion dictates its rules.

This conference is in line with previously conferences organised by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain bringing together atheists from around the world, entitled "Celebrating Dissent", which were held in London (2014 and 2017), Amsterdam (2019) and Cologne (2022).

For LSF, it was time for Paris to relay these voices that are rising to demand the separation of religion and the state on a global scale.

For more information: laiquessansfrontieres@gmail.com

Contacts: (French. Arabic. English)

Nadia El Fani - President of LSF Tél: +33 620225671

Betty Lachgar - Secretary-General of LSF Tél: +33 788028012

Maryam Namazie - Spokesperson of CEMB Tel: +44 7719 166731

Communique De Presse

Laïques De Tous Les Pays, Unissez-Vous !

Soyons Réalistes, Exigeons La Laïcité Partout

Paris, le 29 Novembre 2023

À la demande de l'Hôtel de Ville, la liste finale des personnes invitées doit être soumise le 3 décembre. Veuillez s'il vous plaît confirmer votre présence au plus tard ce jour-là à 17 heures en remplissant le formulaire suivant.

Pour consulter la brochure veuillez cliquer sur ce lien.

Pour la première fois en France, une conférence internationale réunissant défenseurs et défenseuses de la laïcité du monde entieraura lieu les 8 et 9 décembre 2023 à l’Auditorium de l’Hôtel de Villede Paris. Cette conférence est co-organisée par l’Association Laïques Sans Frontières (LSF), une association Loi 1901, créée en janvier 2023 à Paris, et le Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB), en collaboration avec le Comité Laïcité République (CLR) et l’Association EGALE (Égalité Laïcité Europe). Cet événement se déroule en partenariat avec le journal satirique Charlie Hebdo, le magazine Marianne, Freedom From Religion Foundation (USA), National Secular Society (UK) et Center for Inquiry (USA).

Le soulèvement des Iraniennes et Iraniens qui revendiquent un État civil nous conforte dans l'idée que tout peuple aspire à la liberté. Il nous semble urgent et indispensable de réunir celles et ceux qui à travers le monde, luttent pour la liberté de conscience, la liberté d'expression et pour la laïcité, et notamment celles et ceux des "mondes musulmans", qui souvent, risquent leur vie en tant que mécréant ou pire, apostats.

Il y a des "athées en Islam" et nous pensons que la laïcité est la condition pour leur assurer une vie digne de citoyennes et citoyens libres dans leurs pays.

Ce mouvement d' ”Ex-Muslims", qui grandit d'année en année, mais aussi de personnes croyantes musulmanes qui défendent la laïcité, a besoin de solidarité internationale.

L'événement réunira plus de 40 personnalités laïques, venant des quatre coins du monde, telles que Nadia El Fani, cinéaste Tunisienne et Française, présidente de Laïques Sans Frontières, Maryam Namazie, militante iranienne et porte-parole du Conseil des ex-musulmans de Grande-Bretagne, Hamadi Redissi, professeur émérite à l'Université de Tunis et auteur de « S'exprimer librement dans l'Islam », JoumanaHaddad, écrivaine libanaise et militante féministe, Rana Ahmed, réfugiée saoudienne en Allemagne et fondatrice d'Atheist RefugeeRelief, Marieme Helie Lucas, sociologue algérienne et fondatrice de Secularism Is A Women's Issue, et bien d’autres.

Les panélistes aborderont l'intersection entre la laïcité et les droits des femmes, l’athéisme dans le contexte islamique, les défis contemporains liés à la laïcité et son rôle dans la préservation de la démocratie. La démocratie ne peut être pleine et entière là où la religion dicte ses règles.

Cette conférence s'inscrit dans la droite ligne des rencontres précédemment organisées par le Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, réunissant des athées du monde entier, intitulées "Celebrating Dissent", qui se sont tenues à Londres (2014 et 2017), Amsterdam (2019) et à Cologne (2022).

Pour LSF, il était temps que Paris se fasse le relais de ces voix qui s'élèvent pour réclamer la séparation du religieux et du politique à l'échelle mondiale.

Pour plus d'informations : laiquessansfrontieres@gmail.com

Contacts : (Français. Arabe. Anglais)

Nadia El Fani Présidente de LSF​​​ Tél : +33 620225671

Betty Lachgar Secrétaire Générale de LSF​ Tél : +33 788028012

Maryam Namazie Porte-Parole du CEMB​ Tel: +44 7719 166731

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

Laics Of All Countries, Unite! Let’s Be Realistic, Let’s Demand Laicity Everywhere

Homa Arjomand ✊ Tarek Fatah was at the forefront against political Islam, and he was a strong defender of secularism. 

My condolences go to Tarek Fatah’s family, and friends. He died this past weekend after a long illness. Despite of our differences, we shared the following three principles: 

He was a defender of secularism (total separation of religion from the state, and duly fought for a one secular school system,) freedom of speech with no condition and Integration. 

During the rise of a Sharia Court in Canada, in 2003, we, the defenders of women’s rights in Iran called for an “International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada”. We understood that interference of Sharia in the justice system would push back women’s rights. Not only for women whose faith was Islam but also for all women living in Canada. 

Tarek Fatah was among one of the first who understood the move of Islamists in Canada and admired the activists of the campaign for confronting a Sharia Court. Political Islam is a movement that always aims to penetrate the system of a state. Their main target is justice and the educational systems, especially if they find a weak piece of legislation, such as the arbitration act of 1991 in Family Law; or if they receive government support. 

Tarek was one of the speakers at the campaign’s panel discussions, demonstrations, and conferences that we organized for two years, 2003-2005. He was also among members who met with government officials. When the arbitration Act of 1991 was amended, he was the first to congratulate us for the victory. 

Tarek also became one of the speakers in our campaigns against polygamy (one man having several wives), against the niqab (covering head to toe and even the face with a piece of cloth. The niqab is well-known as a flag of political Islam/ known as Islamists), against honor killing (killing a member of a family, or relative or community to protect their so-called honor). The victims are usually at the forefront of women’s rights, someone who wants to integrate, or outspoken against backward traditions and customs). 

Tarek was against child brides, forced and arranged marriages and always blamed the system for not putting harsh consequences for the wrongdoers. 

On March 8th, 2022, for International Women’s Day, we organized a panel discussion on “Rising Secularism, Challenging Islamism” in several countries: Canada, England, Sweden, Germany, France, and Afghanistan. He was invited to participate as a speaker. As soon as he received the invitation, he called to say he was delighted with the title of the panel and very pleased with the composition of the participants. (Participants were mixed gender). He liked the idea of men speaking on Women’s rights on International Women’s Day. Due to the situation in Iran, the conversation lasted over 45 minutes. He stated that all his life, he believed that Islam can be reformed but with the revolutionary uprising in Iran led by women, he realized that he was wrong. He was fascinated by the movement of women and men side by side, fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran and chanting, “the time is over for the reformist, and the fundamentalist” while burning their compulsory Hijabs. 

He was confident that the rise of secularism will be the end of Islamism not only in Iran, and the Middle East but also in the West too. For more information about his speech and the panel visit No Sharia.

While activists fled from Iran and were busy with the revolutionary uprising led by women, on January 3, an Islamic Scholar Sheikh Tariq Abdelhaleem called on all Muslims to learn from the Taliban. 

After long discussions with the activists of “The International Campaign for One Secular School System” Tarek too agreed that the only way the members of society can be safeguarded from the rise of Islamists in Canada, is for Ontario to adopt a bill such as “Quebec’s Bill 21 law”. For more information, about the meeting discussion please follow this link below in the Toronto Sun

A few weeks ago, I called Tarek to let him know about the Charter of the Minimum Demands of Iran’s Independent Trade Unions and Civic Organizations.  He was not feeling well but he wanted to be involved in the revolutionary uprising in Iran. He was very pleased with the following demand in the charter: 

Unconditional freedom of belief, expression and thought, freedom of the press, political parties and local and national labour and grassroots groups, freedom to organise, strike and demonstrate, and freedom of social media, as well as audio-visual media.

Without hesitation Tarek stated that “we don’t have this in Canada” he then added, as day by day this act of freedom of expression in Canada gets limited by Islamophobic acts and now by the Trudeau appointed Hijabi Islamic activist Amira Elghawa, we in Canada must say so long to freedom of expression. Tarek voice has now been silenced but never forgotten. 

Homa Arjomand is an Iranian political activist, resident in Canada, where she is a member of the International Campaign against the Sharia Court and the Director of Children First Now.

Silent But Not Forgotten

Maryam Namaziefirst published in Spanish and Catalan in An Inclusive Secularism for a Diverse Society, Ferrer Guàrdia Report, 23 November 2022. 

Secularism is an important principle and fundamental human right. By secularism, I am referring to the French ideal of laïcité, which is the separation of Church and state and the state’s disengaging from and declaring itself incompetent in matters of religion. (Helie-Lucas, M. 2011. A Definition of Laïcité/Secularism. Women Living Under Muslim Laws, page 17.)

Whilst secularism is often portrayed as western, the demand for secularism is on the rise, particularly in countries ruled by the religious-Right. In fact, no one understands the need for the separation of religion from the state better than those living in theocracies. The large numbers of refugees fleeing Islamic states and movements to secular societies is one case in point. As is the rising tide of the ex-Muslim movement in the Middle East and North Africa despite the fact that atheism, apostasy, blasphemy and heresy are punishable by death in over a dozen Islamic states. (Holleis, J. 2021. Middle East: Are people losing their religion? DW.) The unfolding women’s revolution in Iran is the most current example.

A secular society is a minimum precondition for the enjoyment of rights and freedoms, especially for minorities. People have a right to religion and belief as personal matters. When people enter the public space, however, they must do so as citizens not members of ‘tribes.’ This is key because beliefs can and will conflict. Not all citizens think alike. It’s only a secular framework that safeguards the believer AND the non-believer. In secular societies, the choice belongs to the individual. Have an abortion or don’t. Be an atheist or not. Wear the hijab or discard it. In plural societies with many differences of opinion, it’s crucial that citizens are equal and have full rights and freedoms irrespective of beliefs. Of course, this leads to tensions, like when the Islamist project wants to impose veils on children in secular schools, or when a far-Right mayor instructs police to remove a woman wearing a burkini on a French beach (a decision overturned by a French civil court). In general, though, the main source of conflict comes from religious rules, backed by violent fundamentalists, not secularism.

Another point that needs to be made is that the equality of citizens is not the same as the equality of beliefs or religions. All beliefs are not equal or equally valid. For example, enabling Sharia courts to operate in Britain because of the existence of Jewish Beth Dinn shows more concern for ‘equality’ of beliefs rather than women’s equality. Women’s rights must trump religion and religious courts that discriminate against women if women are considered equal citizens and not extensions of the family, community and male honour.

One has a right to their misogynist beliefs but imposing those via religious courts, community leaders or religious states has nothing to do with the right to a personal religion and everything to do with the right of fundamentalists to impose their political project on the society at large. A pillar of which is controlling and erasing women from the public space. Fundamentalists ‘reduce plural spaces and the right to interpret, dissent and doubt.’ (Dhaliwal, S, Cowden, S. 2016. Nationalism, Fundamentalism and the Monopoly on Violence: A Reply to Sara R. Farris. Verso Books.)

Unfortunately, the concept of citizenship, which is key for secular societies has been diminished. This is rooted in the end of the Cold War where the collapse of the Soviet Union ‘meant also the demise of the West as its opposite pole.’ (Hekmat, M. 1991. The Gory Dawn of the New World Order, US War in the Middle East. Worker Today.)

The 1991 war on Iraq and the US’ division of Iraq based on religious and ethnic identities marked a new era of identity politics and an end to concepts of citizenship and universal values and rights. So much so that this ‘Iraqisation’ can be seen everywhere, including in Europe under the guise of ‘multiculturalism’ as public policy that separates and divides citizens based on their so-called community. Instead of citizens and individuals with rights, we have now group identities and group rights.

We know, however, that no society, group or community is homogenous. And this is the crux of the problem with identity politics. Complex human beings with innumerable identities, often conflicting, are reduced to one primary homogenous group identity. Therefore, if you are presumed Muslim and unveiled, or are an atheist or socialist, you are not an authentic member of the so-called community. The more reactionary one is, the more authentic since it is those in power who decide who is authentic and who is not. An ‘authentic’ Muslim, for example, is a stereotype of the worst Muslim (the fundamentalist or green fascist). Both Right and Left are guilty of fostering, albeit for different reasons this stereotype. The Right does it to show that Muslims are incompatible with life in the West; the Left does it to show its patronising support of a minoritized group by defending the powerful at the expense of victims and survivors. Both place collective blame or acclaim by seeing Muslims in the image of their fundamentalists.

In the face of this anti-democratic contract between states and minoritised communities, ‘it has become increasingly difficult and risky to engage in internal critiques of minority culture and religion and to challenge a policy consensus built around cultural relativism and moral absolutism. The consequence is a rise in violence against women, gender segregation in schools, the imposition of discriminatory religious personal laws, and strict dress codes all of which has threatened to wipe out the gains made in the struggle for women’s human rights and citizenship.’ (Patel, P. 2022. Personal Correspondence.)

Identity politics, used by both Left and Right, doesn’t acknowledge our multiple identities, social and political movements, class politics, material realities or for that matter systems at play. It doesn’t recognise human complexities and more importantly our common humanity. It doesn’t make a distinction between oppressor and oppressed. For the Right, all Muslims are fundamentalists. For the Left, it is also very much the same; under the cover of ‘anti-racism,’ many defend the fundamentalists.

According to Algerian women’s rights activist, Marieme Helie Lucas, the Left’s support of identity politics is what Senegalese historian Cheikh Anta Diop used to call ‘Leftist laziness.’ She adds, ‘Highly contaminated by the virulent identity politics virus, Left parties in Western Europe lazily fail to analyse the new extreme-Right political force that emerged in Europe more than 40 years ago, after having invaded and deeply damaged our own countries. They reduce it to an oppressed religious indigenous movement and justify its inhuman and draconian policies and punishments against us, the people, by its supposedly victim character. The Left fails to identify its pro-capitalist character and the ideological analogy one can draw between the so-called “Muslim fundamentalism,” in fact a devastating religious far-Right, and the Nazis and fascists doctrinal key points.’ (Helie Lucas, M. 2022. Personal Correspondence.)

Writer Elif Shafak further explains the negative impact of identity politics. ‘We grow up in cultures with narratives that tell us who we are by ways of simplification and this is happening everywhere… All extremist ideologies what they have in common is they simplify complexity and they base it on identity politics… based on a distinction between us versus them and the presumption that us is better than them, sometimes expressed, sometimes not…If I can have multiple belongings there’s a bigger chance that my multiple belongings will converge with yours but if I am defined on the basis of a single exclusivist identity politics there is no way we can find common ground.’ (Shafak, E. 2022. On multiple identities and radical humanism. Nexus Institute.)

For identity politics, it’s not our common humanity or values that matter but difference. ‘The idea of difference has always been the fundamental principle of a racist agenda. The defeat of Nazism and its biological theory of difference largely discredited racial superiority. The racism behind it, however, found another more acceptable form of expression for this era. Instead of expression in racial terms, difference is now portrayed in cultural terms.’ (Namazie, M. 1998. Cultural Relativism is this era’s fascism.)

Interestingly, whilst identity politics is the mainstay of Right-wing politics and states, it is often the Left that is criticised for ‘cancel culture’ or ‘woke’ politics. All you hear is how universities are breeding grounds for this. Whilst I myself have been barred from universities or had talks cancelled by Left-wing student unions and groups that think that defending fundamentalism is the same as defending Muslims against bigotry, the claim against universities is somewhat exaggerated as Salman Rushdie has also stated. (Rushdie, S. 2017. On identity politics, trigger warnings and the weirdness of reality. ABC News.)

What the focus on the Left’s cancel culture and universities does, however, is remove attention from the fact that identity politics is a mainstay of Right-wing politics. White identity politics via the normalisation of the concept of the white working class (what happened to workers of the world unite?), the rise of Trump, Brexit, draconian immigration laws, the criminalisation of the right to asylum, separating children from parents and putting them in cages and a policy to send the persecuted to Rwanda from Britain… are nothing but institutionalised state identity politics. Us versus them with the stated assertion that us is better than them.

According to author Kenan Malik, ‘the origins of the politics of identity lie not on the Left but on the reactionary Right. It developed in the late 18th century after the counter enlightenment, out of the romantic views of human differences and its primary expression was in a concept of race.’ He adds: ‘original politics of identity was that of racial difference… Now, identitarians of the far-Right are seizing upon the opportunity provided by the Left’s adoption of identity politics to legitimise their once-toxic brand. Racism became rebranded as white identity politics. It’s an expression of the pernicious befuddlement of today’s politics that Right-wing critics of identity politics are among the most vehement defenders of the idea of a European homeland to be protected against immigrant invaders, while Left-wing critics of white identity are staunch defenders of every other form of identity politics. (Malik, K. 2020. Beware the politics of identity. They help legitimise the toxic far right. The Guardian.)

If the Left is busy defending difference over our common values, identity over collective action and solidarity, how can things change? As author Asad Haider says: ‘identity politics leads to neutralisation and depoliticisation marking a retreat from the crucial passage of identity to solidarity, and from individual recognition to the collective struggle against an oppressive social structure.’ (Haider, A. 2018. Mistaken Identity: Anti-Racism and the Struggle Against White Supremacy. Verso.)

Our only way out of this quagmire is for the Left to abandon the reactionary politics of identity and once again raise the banner of secularism, citizenship and universal values. It must once again renew its politics of solidarity and collective action. After all, we are shaped by our values and our politics and choices, not oppressive, singular identities.

As the women’s rights activist Rahila Gupta says, ‘The key lesson for us on the Left is that we must organise around a shared and inclusive political platform of liberation and empowerment, which any of us should be able to promote without worrying about whether our right to speak is disabled by who we are and questionable notions of authenticity.’ (Gupta, R. 2022. Personal Correspondence.)

And finally, a plea from Kenan Malik:

At the heart of any radical project is the acceptance both of equal rights for all, irrespective of one’s race or nation or culture or faith or sex or sexuality, and the insistence on humans having the freedom to question everything, the insistence that humans “shape their futures by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the unsayable”, as Salman Rushdie once put it. To place people in cultural boxes and to define their needs and aspirations by the boxes into which they have been put, is to undermine the very foundations of such a radical project. (Malik, K. 2022. Personal Correspondence.)

🖼Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

Defending Secularism Is The Task Of The Left

Atheist Irelandwelcomes a report that should herald a secularisation of the Irish Defence Forces. 


Atheist Ireland  the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland welcome that the Report of the Commission of the Defence Forces, published yesterday, has recommended that:

  • A number of outdated practices should be discontinued, including but not limited to the convening of a Roman Catholic mass associated with an induction ceremony; and
  • The Defence Forces’ Chaplaincy service needs to be adjusted in line with international best practice to better reflect the religious/non‐religious affiliations of younger Irish people today.


Atheist Ireland, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland, made a joint submission to the Commission calling for these changes. In our submission we said that:

  • Defence Force personnel have been coerced to take part in Catholic or Catholic-led religious ceremonies without any effort made to put in place rules/guidelines to ensure that they need not participate on the grounds of conscience.
  • The Defence Forces discriminate on religious grounds by failing to put the position of Chaplain out to tender. The position is just given, almost always, to a nominee of a Bishop of the Catholic Church.
  • The only other Church allowed to nominate Chaplains is the Church of Ireland. There are no Chaplains or nonreligious equivalents for members with no religion or who are of minority faiths including Evangelicals and Muslims.

We said that these practices breach:

  • The Constitutional Rights of minorities in relation to Freedom of conscience, religion and belief, including Article 44.2.3 which states “The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.”
  • The Defence Forces’ Public Service Duty under the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act, which the Defence Forces accept that they are subject to. It also has implications on the gender ground as the Catholic Chaplains are male priests.
  • The EU Equality Directive which forbids discrimination on religious grounds. The Defence Forces does not have a religious ethos but regardless the position of Chaplains is mainly offered to Catholics and one Church of Ireland Chaplain.
  • Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, which provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.

Here are the relevant sections of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces published yesterday:

Moreover, the Commission has also noted a number of examples of outdated practices which should be discontinued. These include, but are not limited to, the convening of a Roman Catholic mass associated with an induction ceremony; treatment of pregnancy/childbirth as an irregular absence from duty; and not permitting certain styles of facial hair, such as beards. These and all other exclusionary practices should be removed. In addition, the Defence Forces’ Chaplaincy service needs to be adjusted in line with international best practice to better reflect the religious/non‐religious affiliations of younger Irish people today.” (p 97)

Should the Government decide to accept and implement the vision and recommendations proposed in this report it will result in the Defence Forces of 2030+ being a more modern, diverse organisation, with a coherent structure…. On foot of this transformation… The Defence Forces’ culture will reflect the diverse nature of modern Irish society, and embrace contemporary work practices that enhance the experience and performance of all personnel. (p 145)

Atheist Ireland ➖ Promoting Atheism, Reason And An Ethical Secular State.

Defence Forces Report Calls For Updating Chaplaincy And Ending Catholic Masses At Induction

Atheist IrelandOur politicians are now wrestling with the issues around the National Maternity Hospital and the Sisters of Charity.


Those issues are not just about access to reproductive healthcare, but also about the right to freedom of conscience. Those who seek a National Maternity Hospital free from religious influence do so on the basis of their constitutionally protected right to freedom of conscience.

Article 44.1 of the Irish Constitution protects the right to freedom of conscience. The Irish State has failed to recognise the right of those who, on the basis of conscience, seek healthcare without a religious purpose because that religious purpose undermines the dignity of the human person and is based on the tenets of a particular religion. 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.

In 2010 the Irish State argued at the European Court in the A, B and C case that the restriction on abortion pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of morals, of which the protection in Ireland of the right to life of the unborn was one aspect. It is clear since the abortion referendum that a majority in Ireland disagreed with restricting abortion on the basis of a particular moral view.

The courts in Ireland have already recognised the right to freedom of conscience applies to those with philosophical convictions. Given the finding of the European court, it seems likely that the Irish courts would recognise that those who seek a secular healthcare system on the basis of their conscience are protected by Article 44.1 of the constitution.

In the High Court in 2011, Justice Hogan stated that:

27. Along with the guarantee of free speech in Article 40.6.i, Article 44.2.1 guarantees freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion. Taken together, these constitutional provisions ensure that, subject to limited exceptions, all citizens have complete freedom of philosophical and religious thought, along with the freedom to speak their mind and to say what they please in all such matters….
35. There is thus no doubt at all but that parents have the constitutional right to raise their children by reference to their own religious and philosophical views. (AB v Children’s Hospital Temple Street & CD & EF – January 2011)

Denying women their reproductive rights is discrimination, and it undermines the rights of women. Many people object on the ground of conscience to the State involving a religious body in the National Maternity Hospital project, and especially when that body actively campaigns internationally to deny reproductive rights to women.

The supporters of secularism can be those with no religious affiliation, atheists, or humanists, but also those with a religious belief, as there are many religious secularists.

Under the Constitution everyone has a right to equality before the law and the State cannot discriminate in access to termination of pregnancy on moral grounds. The State also has a duty to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen, which includes the right to freedom of conscience. Handing over public healthcare to private religious bodies that deny access to reproductive rights because of Canon law is a clear disregard for the rights of secularists and the outcome of the abortion referendum.

Atheist Ireland ➖ Promoting Atheism, Reason And An Ethical Secular State.

Protecting The Freedom Of Conscience Of Secularists In The National Maternity Hospital

Michael McDowellShould Ireland pursue French policy of ‘laïcisme’ or simple pluralism? 


Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief to all citizens and provides that the State will not endow any particular religion.

In the 1960s our Supreme Court developed a theory that the Constitution guaranteed unenumerated rights to citizens in addition to those rights explicitly mentioned in the 1937 text.

The court held that these unenumerated rights fell to be identified by the courts by reference to what was implied by the “Christian and democratic” nature of the Irish State.

What the term “Christian” meant in that context was never tied down. Whether it involved basic Christian philosophy concerning the equal worth of all individuals and the moral imperative of charity in all human dealings was never clarified.

Whatever about theology, it still seems that the great majority of Irish people would consider themselves to be philosophically Christian in the foregoing sense. That raises questions about the relationship of Irish society to non-Christian beliefs, whether ancient or comparatively modern.

Continue reading @ Irish Times.

Profound Issues At Stake Over Free Speech And Islam

UnHerdSamuel Paty, slaughtered for a lesson in tolerance, has become a martyr for the Republic.
 
John Lichfield

Samuel Paty’s lesson for 13 and-14 year-old pupils on tolerance and freedom of speech is a lesson for the whole of France. It’s a lesson for all of us.

The facts are appalling. They are grindingly familiar and disturbingly novel – a collision between the murderous certainties of fundamentalist Islam; a well-meaning school lecture; and the mendacious, conflagratory power of the internet. On October 6, Mr Paty, 47, a much-liked history and geography teacher in a dull Paris suburb, produced for his middle school civics class a pair of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago.

How can publishing such cartoons be justified, he asked the teenagers, if they offend people of the Islamic faith? Where does the freedom of expression end and respect for others’ feelings begin?

These questions are not easy, Mr Paty explained. That is why fundamental principles exist in democratic states such as France to help people of different faiths and opinions to get along without murdering one another (as they have in not-so-distant parts of French history). The complexities are the lesson. But this lesson cost Mr Paty his life. Ten days later he was dead – decapitated by a 19-year-old Chechen refugee to France as he walked home from school.

Continue reading @ UnHerd. 

Is France’s Secularism Worth Dying For?

A Press release from Americans United welcoming the SCOTUS decision to strike down a request from religious exemption from Covid-19 laws. 

Tonight, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request for a religious exemption to California’s public health order that temporarily limits both religious and secular gatherings – a measure enacted to protect people from the spread of the deadly coronavirus.

Casting the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts explained:

Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods. 

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, issued the following statement:

The Supreme Court’s order allows Governor Newsom to protect the health and religious freedom of the people of California. Governor Newsom’s public health order, which applies to both religious and secular gatherings, does not violate religious freedom; it advances it by ensuring that the government is not favoring some people’s religious practices in a way that endangers other people’s lives.
We applaud the faith leaders who are finding new methods to provide solace, spiritual guidance and community to their congregations while it is still unsafe for them to meet in person. Because COVID-19 can spread easily at both religious and secular gatherings, we are all relying on each other to follow the advice of health experts to keep everyone well.

The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to take action in a similar Illinois case after Gov. Jay Pritzker lifted all restrictions on religious services on Thursday.

Americans United has filed amicus briefs in both the California case, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, and the Illinois case, Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, as well as in 16 similar cases nationwide. AU has urged courts to protect both public health and religious freedom by treating secular and religious gatherings equally.

Americans United is a religious freedom advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the nonprofit educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom, Public Health By Allowing California Order To Stand

Atheist Ireland has asked political parties running in the General Election on 8th February to answer ten questions regarding secular issues. We have also got this response from Patrick Noonan, an independent candidate in Dublin Rathdown.

1. One Oath For All

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Constitution to enable the President, Judges, and members of the Council of State (which includes Taoiseach and Tanaiste) to swear an oath of loyalty to the state and the Constitution, that has no references to either religious or nonreligious beliefs?

Patrick Noonan: Yes, I am proposing a referendum to update the constitution to remove any mention of god or higher beings, this would include updating any oaths. If this can be done through legislation then even better but if it requires a referendum I would push for that too.

2. Secular Education

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending relevant laws to ensure that publicly-funded schools cannot discriminate on the ground of religion against students in access, and against teachers in employment, and by privileging one religion when appointing publicly-funded chaplains?

Patrick Noonan: Yes, I am for full secularisation of all public institutions. If public money is involved then religion shouldn’t be.

3. Alternative Classes to Religion

Atheist Ireland: Parents and students have the right, under the Constitution and Education Act, to attend any publicly-funded school without attending religious teaching. Will you support their right to do this without discrimination, and that they be given an alternative timetabled subject?

Patrick Noonan: I would support this as an interim but I think the better solution is to replace any religious education in public schools with some form of philosophy/ethics. If parents want to educate their children on their religion then this should be done in their own private time not by a publicly paid school teacher.

4. Data Protection in Schools

Atheist Ireland: Will you support the right of parents and students, under the data protection law, to not have to reveal their religious or philosophical convictions, directly or indirectly, when exercising their right to not attend religious teaching or worship in publicly-funded schools?

Patrick Noonan: Similar to Q3, I would support this as an interim step but would rather no religious teaching occur in a publicly-funded school to begin with.

5. Objective Sex Education


Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Education Act to ensure that students, in all publicly-funded schools, can exercise their right under the European Social Charter to objective sex education that is delivered objectively and not through a religious ethos?

Patrick Noonan:
Absolutely 100%

6. Secular Healthcare


Atheist Ireland: Will you support a publicly-funded healthcare system where decisions are based on human rights and the medical needs of patients, and not on religious ethics, in particular with regard to operation of the new National Maternity Hospital?

Patrick Noonan: If public money is involved then religion should be in no way involved. That’s why I am calling for full secularisation of Ireland. This would naturally be extended to healthcare too.

7. Assisted Dying

Atheist Ireland: Will you support the right of seriously ill people to get the best medical resources if they want to stay alive for as long as they can, and the right of terminally or seriously ill people to have the right to die peacefully when they choose if they want to?

Patrick Noonan:
Yes and Yes. An individual has full autonomy of their body. I also support the legalisation of euthanasia, with regulations. Doctors would not be compelled to perform the procedure if they are personally against it though.

8. Solemnising of Marriages

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Civil Registration Act, so that bodies that can nominate solemnisers for marriages are treated equally under the law, instead of having different legal conditions for religious and secular bodies, and for different secular bodies?

Patrick Noonan:
Yes, there should be no legal distinction. Either you are a solemnisers for marriages or you aren’t. However, I still think a religious institution should get to choose if a particular solemniser is appropriate for their institution.

9. Prejudice-Motivated Crime


Atheist Ireland: Will you support legislation that tackles prejudice against groups through education, and tackles prejudice-motivated crime through the law, while protecting the right to freedom of expression, including about religion, based on human rights principles and standards?

Patrick Noonan:
This one sounds a little a vague, I would need further clarifications before giving an opinion on it. For example, how are you proving ‘prejudice’ in each context?

10. Political Funding and Spending

Atheist Ireland: Will you support stronger regulation of political funding and spending, so that religious bodies have to comply on the same basis as secular bodies, and protect the democratic process from online disinformation and the undue influence of wealthy donors?

Patrick Noonan:
Yes, I am also calling for the removal of any tax exemptions from religious institutions. Any charitable work done by a religion should have to go through the standard charity regulations. Anything a religious institution does that’s not officially charity would be taxed as normal e.g. income tax, property tax. You can see my full secularisation plan here.


➽Keep Up With Atheist Ireland.

Independent Patrick Noonan’s Responses To General Election Questions From Atheist Ireland

Atheist Ireland has asked political parties and candidates running in the General Election on 8th February to answer ten questions regarding secular issues. Here are the responses from People Before Profi.

1. One Oath For All

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Constitution to enable the President, Judges, and members of the Council of State (which includes Taoiseach and Tanaiste) to swear an oath of loyalty to the state and the Constitution, that has no references to either religious or nonreligious beliefs?

People Before Profit: Yes.

2. Secular Education

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending relevant laws to ensure that publicly-funded schools cannot discriminate on the ground of religion against students in access, and against teachers in employment, and by privileging one religion when appointing publicly-funded chaplains?

People Before Profit: Yes.

3. Alternative Classes to Religion

Atheist Ireland: Parents and students have the right, under the Constitution and Education Act, to attend any publicly-funded school without attending religious teaching. Will you support their right to do this without discrimination, and that they be given an alternative timetabled subject?

People Before Profit: Yes, but we advocate religion being taught as an optional extra after school.

4. Data Protection in Schools

Atheist Ireland: Will you support the right of parents and students, under the data protection law, to not have to reveal their religious or philosophical convictions, directly or indirectly, when exercising their right to not attend religious teaching or worship in publicly-funded schools?

People Before Profit: Yes.

5. Objective Sex Education

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Education Act to ensure that students, in all publicly-funded schools, can exercise their right under the European Social Charter to objective sex education that is delivered objectively and not through a religious ethos?

People Before Profit: Yes, and we brought a Bill to the Dail.

6. Secular Healthcare

Atheist Ireland: Will you support a publicly-funded healthcare system where decisions are based on human rights and the medical needs of patients, and not on religious ethics, in particular with regard to operation of the new National Maternity Hospital?

People Before Profit: Yes.

7. Assisted Dying

Atheist Ireland: Will you support the right of seriously ill people to get the best medical resources if they want to stay alive for as long as they can, and the right of terminally or seriously ill people to have the right to die peacefully when they choose if they want to?

People Before Profit: Yes.

8. Solemnising of Marriages

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Civil Registration Act, so that bodies that can nominate solemnisers for marriages are treated equally under the law, instead of having different legal conditions for religious and secular bodies, and for different secular bodies?

People Before Profit: Yes.

9. Prejudice-Motivated Crime

Atheist Ireland: Will you support legislation that tackles prejudice against groups through education, and tackles prejudice-motivated crime through the law, while protecting the right to freedom of expression, including about religion, based on human rights principles and standards?

People Before Profit: Yes.

10. Political Funding and Spending

Atheist Ireland: Will you support stronger regulation of political funding and spending, so that religious bodies have to comply on the same basis as secular bodies, and protect the democratic process from online disinformation and the undue influence of wealthy donors?

People Before Profit: Yes.

➽Keep Up With Atheist Ireland.

People Before Profit Responses To General Election Questions From Atheist Ireland

Atheist Ireland has asked political parties and candidates running in the General Election on 8th February to answer ten questions regarding secular issues. Here are the responses from   Solidarity.

1. One Oath For All

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Constitution to enable the President, Judges, and members of the Council of State (which includes Taoiseach and Tanaiste) to swear an oath of loyalty to the state and the Constitution, that has no references to either religious or nonreligious beliefs?

Solidarity: There should be no religious references in the constitution and no obligation for a religious-based oath for any office or taking part in court proceedings. Solidarity has introduced a Bill to make these amendments to the constitution and will reintroduce it in the next Dáil if elected. In the last Dáil our TDs strongly opposed the changes to the Dáil standing orders that obliged TDs to stand for prayer each morning if in the chamber.

2. Secular Education

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending relevant laws to ensure that publicly-funded schools cannot discriminate on the ground of religion against students in access, and against teachers in employment, and by privileging one religion when appointing publicly-funded chaplains? 

Solidarity: Solidarity are in favour of a full separation of church and state. Religion is a personal freedom and should not advantage or disadvantage anyone accessing public services such as education. Solidarity introduced the Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill in 2015 to remove the exemption from employment equality legislation that religious ethos based schools had. There were changes made following this Bill, but the ability to discriminate on religious grounds remain. Solidarity introduced the Equal Participation in Schools Bill which would have ended religious grounds for school admissions and would have separated religion from the curriculum. Chaplains should not be funded by the State. 

3. Alternative Classes to Religion

Atheist Ireland: Parents and students have the right, under the Constitution and Education Act, to attend any publicly-funded school without attending religious teaching. Will you support their right to do this without discrimination, and that they be given an alternative timetabled subject?

Solidarity: Yes, the right not to take part in religious teaching or worship is clear. There is no obligation on parents and pupils to give any reasons. There should be clear regulations applicable in all schools where opting out is straight forward and without question.

4. Data Protection in Schools

Atheist Ireland: Will you support the right of parents and students, under the data protection law, to not have to reveal their religious or philosophical convictions, directly or indirectly, when exercising their right to not attend religious teaching or worship in publicly-funded schools?

Solidarity: There’s a legal and constitutional right to opt out of any religious teaching in schools. However, there are no regulations to vindicate this right and make it a reality. Solidarity’s proposal in the Equal Participation in Schools Bill was to completely separate religion from the curriculum, for any religious teaching to be after core school hours and for the Minister to outline clear regulations on how the right not to participate will be vindicated in all schools. There should be alternative subjects available in all schools to religion, including an alternative to the NCCA Religious Education course. Our TDs strongly criticised the current government rowing back on basic reforms in this area in ETB schools.

5. Objective Sex Education

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Education Act to ensure that students, in all publicly-funded schools, can exercise their right under the European Social Charter to objective sex education that is delivered objectively and not through a religious ethos?

Solidarity: Children and young people have a right to the best possible relationships and sex education regardless of what school they attend. The Education Act must change if a high-quality RSE curriculum is to be implemented as the law gives schools the ability to place ethos over curriculum and puts an obligation on the Minister and school boards to adhere to ethos. Solidarity introduced the Provision of Objective Sex Education Bill in 2018 to do this. Since it passed the second stage in the Dail, Leo Varadkar has refused to give it a ‘money message’ and effectively vetoed the Bill. If re-elected our TDs will restore this Bill and continue to press this vital issue.

6. Secular Healthcare

Atheist Ireland: Will you support a publicly-funded healthcare system where decisions are based on human rights and the medical needs of patients, and not on religious ethics, in particular with regard to operation of the new National Maternity Hospital? 

Solidarity: Yes. Solidarity is for the full separation of church and state. There should be no ex-officio seats on any hospital boards for religious office holders, as is the case in the National Maternity Hospital. Religious orders should not be able to influence healthcare through ownership of land. Patients and medical professionals should make decisions based on human rights and clinical need. We also need a single-tier well-funded public health service where there are not waiting lists and ongoing crises.

7. Assisted Dying

Atheist Ireland: Will you support the right of seriously ill people to get the best medical resources if they want to stay alive for as long as they can, and the right of terminally or seriously ill people to have the right to die peacefully when they choose if they want to? 

Solidarity: Yes. A person who is capable of making a rational decision should be able to do so without legal risk to anyone assisting them in their choice.

8. Solemnising of Marriages

Atheist Ireland: Will you support amending the Civil Registration Act, so that bodies that can nominate solemnisers for marriages are treated equally under the law, instead of having different legal conditions for religious and secular bodies, and for different secular bodies?

Solidarity: Yes. Solidarity doesn’t think there should be restrictions on the freedoms of bodies that can nominate solemnisers simply because such a body is not religious based.

9. Prejudice-Motivated Crime

Atheist Ireland: Will you support legislation that tackles prejudice against groups through education, and tackles prejudice-motivated crime through the law, while protecting the right to freedom of expression, including about religion, based on human rights principles and standards?

Solidarity: There should be legislation that deals with hate crime against minority groups, which includes religious minority groups. Being critical of religion or religious teaching should not be considered hate crime.

10. Political Funding and Spending

Atheist Ireland: Will you support stronger regulation of political funding and spending, so that religious bodies have to comply on the same basis as secular bodies, and protect the democratic process from online disinformation and the undue influence of wealthy donors? 

Solidarity: Yes. Funding of political parties and causes should be fully transparent and without interference from big business. Ireland has a long history of big business donations impacting on political decision making such as in planning. There should not be any differences in political spending regulation between religious and secular bodies. Engaging in political discourse and activity is a civil right that should not be curtailed by whether an organisation is secular or religious.

➽Keep Up With Atheist Ireland.

Solidarity Responses To General Election Questions From Atheist Ireland