CITIZENS TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE GROUP TO CAMPAIGN FOR A 'NO' VOTE IN REFERENDUM

Press release for immediate use: 12/03/15nFrom: Citizens to Separate Church and State (CSCS)nnnCITIZENS TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE GROUP TO CAMPAIGN FOR A ‘NO’ VOTE IN REFERENDUMnnnCitizens to Separate Church & State (CSCS)  a group formed to stop the 35th Amendmentnreferendum, unless it is accompanies by a right to ‘Affirm’ alongsidenthe currently mandated religious oath, has decided to campaign againstnthe Presidential Age Referendum and urges citizens to Vote ‘No’.nnOur efforts to persuade the government to accompany the referendumnwith the enshrinement of an alternative right to affirm have drawn anblank. [See letter to cabinet dated 24th February 2015 reproduced below. No reply has been received.]nnWe are left with no choice as a consequence but to urge a No vote innorder to reject the extension of the existing religious discriminationnto a new generation.nnThe governing parties are doing this in defiance of UN human rightsncommitments and their own stated endorsement of equal rights for allncitizens.   That they can campaign for equality on the basis of gendernand yet extend discrimination on religious grounds is mind-boggling. Itnshows an incredible lack of joined up thinking and is insulting in thenextreme to the large non-religious community. We are appealing to allncitizens to reject this disgraceful discrimination being put beforenthem.nnDick Spicer: 086-609 5799nn

nnLetter to government from CSCS dated 24 February 2015nDear Taoiseach and cabinet members –nnCitizens to Separate of Church and State (CCCS) is a group of citizens who are concerned about the government’s proposed Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Age of Eligibility for Election to the Office of President) Bill 2015 which is at the Order for Second Stage in the Oireachtas.nnOur understanding is that the wording of the Bill does not contemplate the supplementation of the religious oath that a candidate-elect has to swear at the inauguration ceremony, with a parallel affirmation for those citizens who cannot, in conscience, swear an oath.nnAND WHEREAS it is proposed to amend Article 12 of the Constitution for the purposennof providing that the age of eligibility for election to the office of President shall benntwenty-one years instead of thirty-five years. nn[http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/615/b615d.pdf]nn nnThe requirement to swear a religious oath at installation is covered by Article No. 12.8:nnThe President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:                        nn“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.”nnWe hope the government understands that the State has been under UN HRC scrutiny for decades over the fact that no alternate ‘affirmation’ is permitted under our Constitution [Article No. 12.8].nnThe All-Party Oireachtas Committee, which was established on 16 Octobern1997, also warned about the Oath requirement in its report on the ‘President’ (November 1998):nn9 declaration upon entering officennThe Constitution Review Group noted the UN Human RightsnnCommittee’s concern in their report on Ireland of August 1993nnabout the religious aspects of the President’s declaration undernnArticle 12.8: ‘The constitutional requirement that the Presidentnnand judges must take a religious oath excludes some people fromnnholding these offices’. Ireland ratified the UN InternationalnnCovenant on Civil and Political Rights on 8 December 1989 andnnour laws must be in conformity with the principles laid down innnthe covenant. In its second national report under the covenant tonnthe UN Human Rights Committee, the state, referring to thennCommittee’s comment, pointed out that no practical problems hadnnarisen to date and that the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on thennConstitution was reviewing the matter because a change in thenndeclaration would require a constitutional amendment.nn[http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/3rd-Report-President.pdf]nn nnAs recently as December 2011 Ireland affirmed to the UN Human Rights CouncilnNineteenth session Report of the Working Group on the UniversalnPeriodic Review Ireland:n

n
9. nnIreland emphasized that its commitment to human rights was based on the principlenthat governments must always act with the intention of respecting the rights of thenindividual and human dignity.

n

n[http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/175/20/PDF/G1117520.pdf?OpenElement]nWe are at a loss to understand why the government is not addressing the human rights abnegation occasioned by the continuance of the discriminatory religious oath for holding high office.nnWe would consider it unethical if the import of the passing of the referendum was to extend the discriminatory oath to a new cohort and we urge you to not proceed with the referendum until such time as it is accompanied by one to insert the right to affirm upon taking high office.nnYours sincerely,nnDr. Mike McKillen and Dick Spicer