I have recently received an adjudication from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) with respect to a religious discrimination case against the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The case related to decisions made by Hazel Chu as the then Lord Mayor, which facilitated religious groups in using public resources at the Mansion House while excluding the non-religious. The very Trumpian position adopted in the written legal submission to the Hearing on behalf of Hazel Chu, was that as the Lord Mayor arranging the relevant service she was effectively immune from the Equal Status Act:
“… as an elected representative the Lord Mayor is responsible to both voters and councillors … It is clearly not the intention of the Oireachtas in the framing of the Equal Status Act to make every decision of elected representatives … subject to scrutiny by the WRC. In this area, the accountability of public representatives to those whom they represent is promoted at the ballot box, not by adjudicators.”
Quote from written legal submission on behalf of Hazel Chu (paragraph 43 on page 10)
A full copy of this written legal submission, along with all of the other documents related to this case, is available at the bottom of this page. Moreover, Hazel Chu was also sworn in as a witness during the Hearing. With regard to this Trumpian position from her written submission, I asked what the implications would be for a hypothetical future Lord Mayor who decided to for example, exclude all Jews from the Mansion House. That is, if a future Lord Mayor decided to allow all other groups to attend the Mansion House, while explicitly excluding only the Jews, in what way would Hazel Chu’s understanding of equality laws view such a decision? Hazel Chu answered as follows:
“I think you will find that social values will dictate that, Mr Hamill. As a Lord Mayor who was quite stern against racism, I would hope that future Lord Mayors would not opt for that, and I think they will have common sense.”
Evidence given under oath to the Hearing by Hazel Chu
According to this answer given under oath, the only thing stopping a future Lord Mayor from introducing a “no Jews” policy at the Mansion House would be “hope”. Subsequent to this exchange, the barrister acting for Hazel Chu withdrew this argument, and accepted that the actions of any Lord Mayor in allocating public resources are indeed subject to the Equal Status Act:
“I am happy to withdraw the argument that the Equality Acts don’t apply to the Mansion House and to the Lord Mayor and to how this operates.”
Statement to the Hearing by the barrister acting for Hazel Chu
Notwithstanding this withdrawal of Hazel Chu’s immunity claim, the WRC has nevertheless now decided to provide more extensive kind of immunity to the Lord Mayor than anyone had ever asked for. Much like the approach of SCOTUS to the recent Trump immunity case, the WRC has decided that equality law does not apply to these services if they are provided by the Lord Mayor. This is despite the fact that counsel for the Lord Mayor explicitly withdrew this claim and accepted that the Lord Mayor must be fully accountable under the Equal Status Act. A full copy of the WRC Decision is available at the bottom of this page, which states that “this matter falls outside the scope of the Equal Status Act”. Consequently, it seems that Hazel Chu was right the first time when she said that “hope” is the only thing stopping a future Lord Mayor from declaring a “no Jews in the Mansion House” policy. Similarly, Ms Chu’s decision to facilitate only religious groups in using public resources at the Mansion House, while excluding any non-religious citizens seeking equal treatment, is not reviewable under the Equal Status Act.
Context Of The Complaint
During December of 2020, the Lord Mayor of Dublin decided to facilitate a series of “Rewind 2020” events from the Mansion House. As the official residence for the Lord Mayor of Dublin, public resources at the Mansion House were allocated to “Rewind 2020” so that the religious could commemorate the gatherings that they had to cancel during the pandemic. Whereas all of the major religious groups were invited to participate in a series of “Rewind 2020” events, attendance was restricted to the faithful only with all non-faith groups being excluded. I had requested that an alliance of non-faith groups should be included, but Hazel Chu decided that only the mainstream religions would be permitted to attend “Rewind 2020” in the public spaces at the Mansion House.
Many requests were made over a six month period to have just a single 30-minute “Rewind 2020” event for the non-religious, but even after the pandemic restrictions were lifted this was denied. For example, Hazel Chu as the Lord Mayor of Dublin wrote to multiple non-religious groups on 10th May 2021, indicating that she was no longer “considering any requests from external parties” for use of these public resources. This was despite the fact that she had already agreed to facilitate the “Rewind 2020” events, and that we were merely asking to be included within that series of events alongside the religious groups.
Conversely, just days after the Lord Mayor wrote the letter illustrated above, she did indeed go on to solicit requests from external parties with respect to attending Afternoon Tea in the Lord Mayor’s Garden. For example on 19th May 2021, Hazel Chu invited guests from groups like the St Andrew’s Resource Center to join her at the Mansion House. St Andrew’s Resource Center has had a longstanding relationship with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, such that the St Andrews website has provided services like live streams of Roman Catholic Mass from St Andrew’s parish church. Hazel Chu as the then Lord Mayor of Dublin went on to entertain the team from St Andrew’s at the Mansion House, whereas the non-religious applicants continued to be denied participation.
The email of 19th May illustrated above, makes it difficult to see how the letter from Hazel Chu on 10th May could have been in any way honest or truthful. However, the sections included below summarise the defences that were offered by the Lord Mayor of Dublin in relation to her denial of all non-religious requests to participate in “Rewind 2020”. This includes the sworn evidence given during the Hearing by Hazel Chu and others. For example, at one point during her evidence the then Lord Mayor of Dublin stated that she would never discriminate against a Pastafarian like me for the following reason:
“One of my friends is in Mr Hamill’s Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually, a good friend of mine Iarfhlaith O’Neill.”
Argument made by Hazel Chu in evidence as to why her actions were not discriminatory
There were several of the defences to the claim of religious discrimination, which I had anticipated would arise. However, I did not anticipate a “some of my best friends are Pastafarians” defence. Nevertheless, the other arguments made by Hazel Chu, both in evidence and within written legal submissions, are listed below.
Arguments Offered By The Lord Mayor
As described above, some of the arguments made by Hazel Chu were so absurd that they were withdrawn during the Hearing itself. Some others were at best mutually contradictory.
the lord mayor excluded all non-faith groups as part of her policy of inclusivity and integration
In order to demonstrate that the exclusion of all non-faith groups from “Rewind 2020” was not discriminatory, the Lord Mayor of Dublin argued that at all times her approach involved “inclusivity” and “integration”. In her evidence during the Hearing, Hazel Chu stated as follows:
“I emphasised to the Dublin City Interfaith Forum that whatever format they arranged for Rewind 2020, they had to be inclusive of everyone, even of those from outside their own faiths … For me, to make sure that everyone was included was very important. I made sure to tell them, you have to be inclusive, because that was one of the tenets of my term as Lord Mayor.”
Evidence given to the Hearing by Hazel Chu
This argument was also made within the written legal submission provided in advance of the Hearing, which stated that “The Lord Mayor Hazel Chu has noted that one of the priorities of her term of office is integration”. However, the original correspondence to Hazel Chu that had asked for non-religious inclusion within “Rewind 2020”, had already made the point that her approach involved precisely the opposite of “inclusivity” and “integration”. This was especially perspicuous in the case of the Alliance of Former Muslims in Ireland, which was another non-religious group that had sought to be included in “Rewind 2020”.
You refer to your priorities as as including “integration” but the members of the Alliance of Former Muslims in Ireland have experienced all of the same racism and discrimination as believing Muslims have experienced. In addition to this abhorrent treatment, they have also experienced oppression and persecution by believing Muslims in Ireland, based on the Islamic teachings against apostasy. This includes teachings that have been promoted by some of the Muslim groups that are included within the Dublin City Interfaith Forum. Your policy appears to support those who preach against apostasy within the Muslim community, leading to the abuse of former Muslims in Ireland, up to and including the threat of physical violence against many ex-Muslims within the Direct Provision system. At the same time, your policy is to exclude the Alliance of Former Muslims in Ireland, compounding the faith-based ostracisation that their members experience in Dublin on a daily basis. It is grossly insulting that you would behave in this manner while describing your policy as one that promotes “integration”.
Quote from letter to Hazel Chu while she was Lord Mayor of Dublin (page 38 of my submission)
Hazel Chu continued to maintain that her decision to include only religious groups, while excluding the non-religious, was motivated by her focus on “integration” and “inclusivity”.
pastafarians ARE NOT A FAITH GROUP
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been determined to be a religion in several countries (such as New Zealand and Austria) but its religiosity has been rejected by some other countries. In Ireland, there has been no way to know whether Pastafarians or any other group should be considered religious here, without litigating the issue. So, as a Pastafarian I did just that. When it was decided that Ireland considers the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be a non-religious group, then I accepted that outcome. On all subsequent occasions I represented the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as being a non-religious organisation.
Hazel Chu argued that my complaint with respect to “Rewind 2020” should be dismissed as “frivolous and misconceived”, because I had previously considered the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be religious:
“Mr Hamill previously made a complaint to the WRC against Dublin City Council on the grounds that he had been discriminated against based on his religion … the Adjudication Officer concluded that the complaint did not fall under the scope of Section 3.2(e) of the Equal Status Act because the complainant’s position did not amount to a religious belief … The complainant cannot now make another claim … under Section 3.2(e).”
Extracts from written legal submissions from Hazel Chu (paragraphs 29 and 30 on page 7)
Section 3.2(e) is the clause within the Equal Status Act that prohibits discrimination on the religious ground. Having argued that my complaint should fail on the basis that I should not be considered to be a member of a faith group, Hazel Chu then went on to argue that my complaint should fail on the basis that I should have considered becoming a member of a faith group.
pastafarians should JOIN FAITH GROUPS
Having stated that it was immediately disqualifying for me to have previously presented the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion, Hazel Chu then admonished me that I should have presented my Pastafarian group to the Dublin City Interfaith Forum just like a religion. Specifically, Hazel Chu gave evidence that this forum was open for anyone to join, including atheists.
“The Dublin City Interfaith Forum, within their charter or within their web site, state very clearly that they are open to all, so anyone within society can be part of it … when I spoke to the Chair of the Dublin City Interfaith Forum he said we are open to all and we have been very specific in our materials that we are open to all. So according to him there could be atheists in the Dublin City Interfaith Forum. You would need to talk to him.”
Evidence given to the Hearing by Hazel Chu
The problem with this evidence is that it is absolutely false. The charter and the web site that Hazel Chu referred to, actually state the precise polar opposite of what she represented them as describing. All of the materials published by the Dublin City Interfaith Forum make it clear that theirs is an organisation explicitly for “faith communities”. Non-faith groups are excluded, and indeed the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been excluded previously.
The written legal submission provided by Hazel Chu went on to emphasise that she made special arrangements for religious groups, in part because of Article 44 within the Irish Constitution. This provision requires the State to “respect and honour religion”. Of course though, Article 44 does not require that the non-religious should be excluded from public spaces.
services provided by the lord mayor ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EQUAL STATUS ACT
As described in my written submission that I provided in advance of the Hearing, and as I articulated in detail during my presentation to the Hearing, the services that were being provided by the Lord Mayor with respect to this case had been explicitly described within the relevant legal correspondence. A full copy of my written submission is available at the bottom of this page. In fact, my submission highlighted that lawyers acting for Hazel Chu had themselves described the services that she was providing as Lord Mayor, in the following manner:
“All communities and groups are welcome to make an application to the Lord Mayor for the use of the Mansion House and Lord Mayor’s Garden or to send an invitation to the Lord Mayor to attend an event that they are organising be it charitable, cultural, recreational or otherwise.”
Quote from legal correspondence on behalf of Hazel Chu (highlighted at the bottom of page 41 within my submission)
The Lord Mayor was offering a service, which invited any member of the public to make an application for the use of specific public places. The nature of these services explicitly included cultural and recreational activities. Within the Equal Status Act, the definition of the services that are covered by the legislation is as follows:
“service” means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes access to and the use of any place for … entertainment, recreation, refreshment or cultural activities …
Extracts from the Equal Status Act
In other words, the legal representation for Hazel Chu themselves described the services being offered by the Lord Mayor, using almost exactly the definition of a “service” that is included in the legislation. Moreover, after this was highlighted during the Hearing, the barrister acting for Hazel Chu explicitly withdrew their claim that the services being provide by the Lord Mayor were not subject to the Equal Status Act. Notwithstanding this, the WRC has now decided that what the Lord Mayor provided to the religious groups “does not relate to a service which is provided to the public or a section of the public”. As such, the actions of Hazel Chu with respect to “Rewind 2020” are not subject to the Equal Status Act, and all such actions by any Lord Mayor will in future be similarly immune from review under the terms of our equality laws.
this individual complainant is not an individual
An additional argument made by counsel for Hazel Chu during the Hearing, was that I should not be considered an “individual” as the Complainant in the case. The written submission from Hazel Chu in advance of the Hearing stated as follows:
“the complainant does not have standing to make a complaint under the Equal Status Act because the treatment of which he complains did not relate to him as an individual, but rather to an organisation”
Quote from written legal submissions from Hazel Chu (paragraph 62 on page 14)
In response, I argued that at all times I was very clear that the Complainant in the case was me personally. None of the legal complaint forms that I submitted mentioned any organisation or our alliance of non-religious groups when specifying the Complainant. In contrast, the details of my complaint described how I as an individual person was treated less favourably that the religious people who were invited to “Rewind 2020”. The WRC seems to have agreed with me on this point, but nevertheless decided in favour of Hazel Chu as follows:
“I accept that the complaint is made by one named individual, the Complainant. It is obvious that when one reads the actual papers that any redress being sought is for the aforementioned alliance.”
Quote from the WRC Decision
This is pure fabrication on the part of the WRC. The full set of written submissions that I made to the Hearing is provided below. At no point in any of these papers did I suggest anything at all with respect to what the redress might be. The WRC Decision does not refer to which parts of my legal submission seek a specific remedy, because nothing within my submission mentions or even implies any such thing. The idea that I sought any specific redress at all, let alone an “obvious” redress that related to an alliance of non-religious groups, is pure invention. The WRC has just made this up out of thin air.
As a Complainant at the WRC, I am not required to specify any particular remedy or redress. That is entirely the job of the adjudicator. Moreover, the redress available to the adjudicator in this case was perfectly obvious. Having decided that the Complainant was an individual person, an order could have been made for this non-religious individual to be treated in the same manner as the religious individuals who were invited to participate in “Rewind 2020” by the Lord Mayor. Instead, the WRC has decided that the Lord Mayor may exclude people from public places because of their beliefs about religion, and there is nothing that can be done about that under the terms of the Equal Status Act.
Conclusion
Hazel Chu has been very vocal in the media with respect to her worries about far right in Ireland.
These concerns could be taken seriously by imagining that the next Lord Mayor of Dublin could be the kind of far right anti-Semite that Hazel Chu worries about. We could imagine that this hypothetical future Lord Mayor might invite Christian Nationalist groups to the Mansion House for a publicly funded event, while specifying a “no Jews allowed” policy. Hazel Chu was asked about exactly this kind of scenario under oath in the context of who she excluded from her own events as Lord Mayor, and her testimony indicated that “hope” is the only recourse we might have to prevent such an eventuality. In fact, her written legal submission explicitly argued that such a far right anti-Semite Lord Mayor should not be subject to our anti-discrimination laws. Her arguments in this area have now been successful in achieving the desired immunity for the manner in which such services can be provided by any future Lord Mayor of Dublin.
The irony here is that when she launched “Rewind 2020”, Hazel Chu as the then Lord Mayor explicitly stated that “we need enforcement when it comes to discrimination”. Apparently she believed that such enforcement is only for the little people. All future Lord Mayors will now have the Trumpian immunity she sought, whether they are far right or otherwise.