Secular College Victory For Atheist Schoolgirl

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-04-09 02:27pm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 91,00.html

A former Lancashire policeman has won several hundred pounds' compensation from his local council after being forced for several years to pay for buses to take his atheist daughter to a non-religious school.

The decision by Lancashire County Council is likely to have profound national implications. Children whose parents want them to attend a religious school receive subsidies to pay for their school transport pass. But families who don't want their children educated in a religious school have to pay for their own buses to take them to secular state schools.

But now a council has conceded that non-believers are entitled to the same rights as religious families, in a decision that could have national repercussions.

'This case sets a precedent that other local authorities should take note of,' said Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society. 'If they don't, they will almost certainly be violating the Human Rights Act.

'It is blatant discrimination to deny non-believing families wishing to avoid their children attending a nearby church school the equivalent transport concession given to, for example, Roman Catholics to attend an RC school.'

Ian Abbott - who lives near Poulton-le-Fylde - had fought for five years to challenge his local council's school bus policy after his daughter, Laura, now aged 16, decided that she did not want to attend her local school, St Aidans C of E School, because of her atheism.

Instead, she asked to travel eight miles to the nearest non-religious community school, Hodgson High School Technology College in Poulton-le-Fylde. The Council refused to subsidise the travel, even though they were funding other pupils who wanted to travel to religious schools.

Abbott calculated he spent more than £2,000 in fares for his daughter over the five years she attended Hodgson school. Throughout that period, the local authority steadfastedly refused to help Laura with a bus pass, claiming that nearby St Aidans would have provided a suitable education.

'My argument is, and always has been, that Laura was as entitled to a non-religious education as a child from a Catholic or Church of England background is to attend a church school,' said Abbott. 'We need to see an end to these attitudes which suggest that having faith makes you superior to someone who does not.

'The non-religious are just as entitled to travelling assistance to go to a school without a religious ethos as the religious are to a denominational school. My only regret is that the council would not change without the threat of legal action.'

Abbott originally used arguments based on 'natural justice', but he made little progress. It was only when he was backed by the National Secular Society, which brought in a team of human rights lawyers, that he made progress. They argued that to deny Abbott school transport support was to discriminate against him on grounds of his philosophical belief.

After several years' intransigence, the council last month admitted that Abbott had a case under the Human Rights Act and it agreed to refund him several hundred pounds. Abbot is now pressing for the council to pay him the full £2,000.

The decision is likely to affect the outcome of the School Transport Act now progressing through committee in the House of Commons. It currently states that poor people should not be discriminated against because of their denominational beliefs.

The Abbot case may now force the committee to broaden the scope of that passage, so that individual families may receive less help with school bus passes but that such support will be made available to many more parents and children.

'The most equitable policy on school transport would be for all children to be granted the same concessions, whether they were attending a school on religious/philosophical grounds or simply to attend a specialised school,' said Porteous Wood.

'We hope that the new School Transport Bill, currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, will address these issues.'

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-09 03:21pm

Don't get too excited, its only England their talking about.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-04-09 03:22pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Don't get too excited, its only England their talking about.

I just happen to live in Lancashire in England, but hey.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-09 03:25pm

Rye wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Don't get too excited, its only England their talking about.
I just happen to live in Lancashire in England, but hey.

Thats not what I mean, England dosne't have a reputation for being the home of rabid fundamentalists, like the USA and Mid-East do.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-04-09 03:31pm

Rye wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Don't get too excited, its only England their talking about.
I just happen to live in Lancashire in England, but hey.

As do I (saw this on BBC News North-West Tonight) and I found it to be a bit bitchy at first, but then it seemed more justified when the father gave his thoughts on the incident.

For what it's worth, Lancashire County Council are bastards when it comes to transport fees as my brother had to pay some £600 a year for a bus he only uses to get to his sixth form college since he works later and misses the return home bus.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-04-09 03:48pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote: As do I (saw this on BBC News North-West Tonight) and I found it to be a bit bitchy at first, but then it seemed more justified when the father gave his thoughts on the incident.

For what it's worth, Lancashire County Council are bastards when it comes to transport fees as my brother had to pay some £600 a year for a bus he only uses to get to his sixth form college since he works later and misses the return home bus.

I had a similar thing, since i went to a sixthform over a county boundary. That also stopped me getting paid for going to college, and i paid well over the odds for the bus journey.

Thats not what I mean, England dosne't have a reputation for being the home of rabid fundamentalists, like the USA and Mid-East do.

Ah, i see. Well we do have some shitty laws regarding religion, usually in little ways like this, thanks to the CoE being in the official running of things for so long, it's the done thing.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-04-09 04:01pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Don't get too excited, its only England their talking about.

Still, it's a step in the right direction. I wholeheartedly support this movement towards more equal rights.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-09 07:35pm

This is a clear cut case of oppressing religious thought!

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-04-10 01:05am

Well, congrats to England, and envy to Rye for living there. I only hope this country can follow the example, though I doubt it. Perhaps when Bushwacker's out of office *hopes and dreams*.

-Damien

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-10 05:41am

I remember there was a case in Durham of a catholic school girl not being eligible for free transport because her parents were Protestants (the girl had converted).

Hopefully as the article says, the new bill will do something to set the scales straight (which means charge people more than now, no doubt).

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-10 07:30am

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Well, congrats to England, and envy to Rye for living there. I only hope this country can follow the example, though I doubt it. Perhaps when Bushwacker's out of office *hopes and dreams*.

-Damien

Don't be too envious, they're the ones living with an official state religion.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-10 07:43am

Frank Hipper wrote:Don't be too envious, they're the ones living with an official state religion.

Not to mention the flag being made up of three Christian symbols.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-10 07:57am

TheDarkling wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:Don't be too envious, they're the ones living with an official state religion.
Not to mention the flag being made up of three Christian symbols.

I thought it was two distinct symbols with multiple placement, St. George's and St. Andrew's.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-10 08:06am

Frank Hipper wrote: Not to mention the flag being made up of three Christian symbols.

I thought it was two distinct symbols with multiple placement, St. George's and St. Andrew's.

[/quote]

No it is St George (for England), St Andrew (for Scotland) and St Patrick (for Ireland).

The Red X being for St Patrick.

The Welsh get nothing.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-10 08:10am

is this whole pay to use the bus for public school thing an exclusive British deal? i don't seem to recall ever hearing about the public buses costing any type of fees growing up at all, and usually i was told about what cost so much when it was done. so . . .anyone know what the deal with that is Stateside?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-10 08:15am

TheDarkling wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: Not to mention the flag being made up of three Christian symbols.
I thought it was two distinct symbols with multiple placement, St. George's and St. Andrew's.
No it is St George (for England), St Andrew (for Scotland) and St Patrick (for Ireland).

The Red X being for St Patrick.

The Welsh get nothing.

Well of course they get nothing! All those unpronounceable "LLawflayleninnnn" sort of names, it's what they deserve!

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-04-10 09:16am

Frank Hipper wrote: Don't be too envious, they're the ones living with an official state religion.

That said, we do have Darwin on the back of £10 notes, and creationism hasn't been officially taught anywhere here in like a century

. We're also one of the most secular nations on Earth, according to recent polls, along with Russia and S.Korea. Weird how these things work out.

The Darkling wrote:The Welsh get nothing.

Rightly so. This'll teach 'em to be contrary for no good reason!

Darth Zod wrote:is this whole pay to use the bus for public school thing an exclusive British deal? i don't seem to recall ever hearing about the public buses costing any type of fees growing up at all, and usually i was told about what cost so much when it was done. so . . .anyone know what the deal with that is Stateside?

According to all the american films I've seen, and of course, the Simpsons, kids don't pay to use the schoolbuses.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-10 10:08am

Nope. School buses in the US are paid for out of property tax levies.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-04-10 10:46am

There's no way that someone who wants their children to attend a more distant school for philosophical/religious reasons should recieve public subsidies for the transport. Send your kids to the local school, live closer to the school of your choice, carpool, or pay for the bus and shut the fuck up.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-10 10:50am

The Dude wrote:There's no way that someone who wants their children to attend a more distant school for philosophical/religious reasons should recieve public subsidies for the transport. Send your kids to the local school, live closer to the school of your choice, carpool, or pay for the bus and shut the fuck up.

It actually works the other way around, if you live within three miles of the school you have to pay but outside of the three miles you get a free bus pass. Of course that was when we used regular public transportation, they now run a special bus service (or 5), to my old school.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-10 10:52am

The Dude wrote:There's no way that someone who wants their children to attend a more distant school for philosophical/religious reasons should recieve public subsidies for the transport. Send your kids to the local school, live closer to the school of your choice, carpool, or pay for the bus and shut the fuck up.

what exactly are you talking about? the guy in the article wanted to send his daughter to a secular public school, but had to pay extra money to send her there because the only other ones that were nearby -were- religious schools. which he didn't want to send her to.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-04-10 10:56am

Darth_Zod wrote:what exactly are you talking about? the guy in the article wanted to send his daughter to a secular public school, but had to pay extra money to send her there because the only other ones that were nearby -were- religious schools. which he didn't want to send her to.

I get it - and it's stupid. If he wanted to send his daughter to a secular school, he should have moved near one. Failing that, he should arrange the transport himself. Naturally, the same goes for those wishing to send their children to religious schools.

IOW, the thing to do was not to grant him the same silly subsidy, but scrap it altogether.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-10 11:01am

The Dude wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:what exactly are you talking about? the guy in the article wanted to send his daughter to a secular public school, but had to pay extra money to send her there because the only other ones that were nearby -were- religious schools. which he didn't want to send her to.
I get it - and it's stupid. If he wanted to send his daughter to a secular school, he should have moved near one. Failing that, he should arrange the transport himself. Naturally, the same goes for those wishing to send their children to religious schools.

IOW, the thing to do was not to grant him the same silly subsidy, but scrap it altogether.

in england, where the article was published, religious schools are granted free use of buses, so the parents of the children attending them do not have to pay. why should they be granted special exemption when those wishing to attend a secular school has to pay for their transportation costs? it's idiotic because it gives parents who may not be able to afford it an added cost if they don't want their children going to a religious school when they don't necessarily follow the religion in question and don't want their children to get sucked into it.

why should secular schools have to ask parents to pay for the transportation while religious ones don't?

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-04-10 11:02am

TheDarkling wrote:It actually works the other way around, if you live within three miles of the school you have to pay but outside of the three miles you get a free bus pass. Of course that was when we used regular public transportation, they now run a special bus service (or 5), to my old school.

That's insane. They actually penalized people for living close to their kids' schools?

BTW, are there really non-rural places in the UK where there is no secular school within 3 miles?

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-04-10 11:08am

Darth_Zod wrote:in england, where the article was published, religious schools are granted free use of buses, so the parents of the children attending them do not have to pay. why should they be granted special exemption when those wishing to attend a secular school has to pay for their transportation costs? it's idiotic because it gives parents who may not be able to afford it an added cost if they don't want their children going to a religious school when they don't necessarily follow the religion in question and don't want their children to get sucked into it.

why should secular schools have to ask parents to pay for the transportation while religious ones don't?

Please reread. I said pretty clearly no one should get such a subsidy. Hence, IMO the correct response would not be to expand the subsidy, but eliminate it altogether.

Any responsible parent will take the location and orientation of local schools into account when deciding where to live - if they don't, or choose to give other considerations higher priority, then they should be prepared to arrange their own transportation.