Under international human rights law every child has a right to access their local school without religious discrimination. They also have a right to education and teaching that is objective, critical and pluralistic and free from religious coercion and indoctrination.
In the Burke case at the Court of Appeal in 2023, Justice Whelan stated that in interpreting the obligations of the Board pursuant to the Education Act 1998 (as amended) regard must be had to the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
In the Louise O’Keeffe case, the European Court found that, even if the State outsourced the obligation to provide for education to non-State entities, the national-school model could, and should have accommodated greater child-protection regulations. One way or the other, a State could not avoid its Convention protective obligations by delegating primary education to a private entity. Finally, the State could not absolve itself by saying that the applicant had had other educational options which, in any event, she had not.
The Council of Europe Guide on Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European convention defines what respecting parents religious and philosophical convictions means on the ground. The word “respect” means more than “acknowledge” or “taken into account”; in addition to a primarily negative undertaking, it implies some positive obligation on the part of the State (Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 1982, § 37).
