LAST UPDATE | 18 Nov 2021
A GROUP OF Irish politicians has failed in a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) challenge to the wording of the presidential oath in Ireland, which currently requires those elected to swear to “almighty God”.
The Constitution states that the President and members of the Council of State when entering office must make a declaration “in the presence of Almighty God” about their promise to fulfil their duties and maintain the constitution.
The challenge was taken by TDs Roisin Shortall and John Brady, Senator David Norris, former CEO of Barnardos Fergus Finlay and Trinity College Dublin Chancellor David McConnell.
The applicants claim the declarations required by Articles 12.8 and 31.4 of the Irish Constitution “exclude conscientious non-Christians, non-believers and those who do not wish to violate their consciences both from the office of President and from membership of the Council of State”.
They claimed that, as prominent politicians and members of Irish civil society, they can legitimately aspire to being elected to the office of President or to being appointed to the Council of State.
The applicants claim that the requirements for religious declaration for these offices in the Constitution would either prevent them from taking up these offices or require them to make a religious declaration against their conscience.
A seven panel of judges in the ECHR delivered their verdict this morning in the case and said that the challenge could not succeed as none of the applicants could show evidence that they were directly impacted by the oath.
“The Court therefore considers that none of the applicants provided reasonable and convincing evidence that there was a real risk of being directly affected by the constitutional requirements relating to taking the oath, and dismisses the complaints of the five applicants as inadmissible.
“The Court then notes that while the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in issues relating to the relationship between state and religion, this nevertheless goes hand in hand with the European control.
“The reference by a State to a tradition cannot exempt it from its obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention,” the judgement said.
In a statement, following the verdict, Róisín Shorthall said that the State’s defence of mandatory religious oaths in the Constitution is “both surprising and deeply disappointing”.
The Social Democrats leader said she will now bring forward a Bill to the Oireachtas to propose a referendum to remove the provision.
“In a modern republic, it is anathema that those elected to one of the highest political offices in the land, that of President, are required to swear an oath to “almighty God”.
“It beggars belief that the government would attempt to argue that mandatory and nakedly religious oaths are somehow “conducive to public order in a democratic society”.
“The government had argued that the State had a wide discretion when it came to questions concerning the State and religion and argued the clauses were not religious per se, but manifestations of the political and cultural heritage of the country.
“Given the ECHR has ruled the case was essentially inadmissible as neither I, nor any of the other plaintiffs had demonstrated we were personally victimised by the requirement to swear an oath, I am now going to attempt to address this issue in another way.
“I will be bringing forward a Bill proposing a referendum to amend the Constitution, to remove the requirement to make a religious oath when elected President or appointed to the Council of State,” Shorthall said.
With reporting from Hayley Halpin.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say