A BOY has been refused a bus pass because he doesn’t do superstition. At least, he has not had the mumbo-jumbo intoned over his protesting infant head while a man in flowing garb sprinkles water on him.
And, because of that, eleven-year-old Elliott Stewart has been denied his free pass to travel by bus to St Leonard’s School in Durham.
Elliott could have qualified if one of his parents had had the funny words chanted over him or her. But neither has. Is this what is meant in Exodus by “the sins of the fathers” (and/or mothers, in this case) and how they shall be “visited upon the children”?
This type of denial of equality on the grounds of superstition and lack of it has been done before. An asthma-suffering boy had to walk several miles because he was not a Christian.
Elliott’s case has now been raised with the Equality and Human Rights Commission by the Lib Dem MP Fiona Hall.
Among many who believe that school transport policy, as administered by local education authorities with more than scant respect for those who believe in sky fairies, is against human rights is the British Humanist Association. The matter has also been written about and campaigned on by the other British secular organisation, the National Secular Society.
“Having been told by the council that her son was not eligible on religious grounds,” says the website of the think tank Ekklesia, “Elliott’s mother Treena, 45, saw her complaint rejected by an independent ombudsman. She just can’t believe the whole thing is dragging on for so long.
“I’m hoping that this move might give a positive reaction,” Mrs Stewart says. “It’s an absolute waste of money – it’s incredible that it has gone this far. He just wants money to get to school – nothing else. I thought it would be resolved by now though.”
There really is no point in adding a comment here (though feel free to sound off in the comments section – please). It’s all been sad before (no, that’s not a typo). It’s hard to think about situations like these without feeling the blood reaching simmering point.
_____________
(Hat tip: Ekklesia)
One Comment
The council is following its own rule that that the child and at least one of his parents must be baptized in order for him to qualify for subsidized travel to the faith school. I assume that they apply this rule in all cases (short of making a mistake) and not just in this instance only. Presumably, also, the boy’s parents (and the supportive MP) are aware of the rule. The only question, then, is whether the rule itself is lawful. If it is (and the Equality and Human Rights Commission will no doubt pronounce on the matter) then the council is acting within its rights.
Why, exactly, is the Freethinker interested in this case? It seems to me that it is simply a legal dispute and has nothing to do with secularism v religious intolerance. After all, it is the council (which is supposedly secular) that is refusing to pay the money, not the school (which is religious).
As an aside, I think you have to wonder why, if neither the child nor either of the parents has been baptized, why they are sending him to a Catholic school. Presumably this is not for religious reasons but because they think that the school is academically better than the alternative state schools. I can’t say I find much sympathy in my heart for them either way.
Post a Comment