ADJ-00008556

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Complainant

Government Department

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00011002-001

26/04/2017

The Complainant sought information from the named Government Department. He believes that incorrect information was deliberately given to him because they knew of his religious beliefs. They discriminated and victimised him because of his religion. He is seeking compensation.

The Complainant stated that he contacted the named Department to establish if political parties are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (FOI). He stated that political parties are public bodies and in receipt of state funding. He received incorrect information from the Respondent. It is not stated anywhere in the FOI Act that political parties are private bodies and are exempt from the provisions of the FOI Act. Political parties are in fact entities established under enactments namely the Constitutional right to freedom of association and Sec 25 of the Electoral Act 1992 as amended by Sec 11 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001.

The Respondent has been victimised, discriminated and treated less favourably than others because of his religious beliefs. The Respondent knows his religious beliefs because he has taken other cases against them. The Department when responding to him won’t identify themselves. Despite him credibly refuting the Department’s assertions that political parties don’t come within the scope of the FOI Act and reminding them that he had a case pending in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the fact that they knew his religious beliefs because he had told them, they still maintained that political parties are not subject to the provisions of the FOI Act. This is preventing him from getting information concerning a particular political party. He believes that the Respondent victimised him and treated him less favourably than someone else in similar circumstances who would not be covered by the ground of religion from not having made the Respondent aware of any religious belief that they may hold in approaching it with the expectancy of getting accurate and correct and honest information in regard to a query made. He believes that this is because there may be LGBT personnel working with the Respondent or individuals working in the Department whom he has been dealing with and who may have colleagues, friends and/or relations who have a LGBT condition and as such would despise him for his religious beliefs which hold that same sex marriage is a perversion of equality and that homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder inclined towards evil and that gender blurring ideology poses a grave threat to humanity in addition to his religious belief holding that abortion on demand is grossly evil. He believes that the discrimination against people like him who stand up for and assert their religious beliefs in a law abiding peaceful manner is systemic in the political establishment and such discrimination is disguised under disingenuous rhetoric with the aim of suppressing people who hold religious beliefs that disapprove of abortion or LGBT lifestyles.

The Respondent has discriminated against him and continue to do so as this is the second claim. He is seeking that the Adjudication Officer to decide if political parties are exempt. He stated that the information that he received at the hearing should have been given to him earlier.

It is the Respondent’s position that political parties are not covered by the FOI Act. The responses that the Complainant received are standard responses and not specific responses. Given that this is their position they cannot understand how this claim has got off the ground. There can’t be a ground for discrimination and/or victimisation. The Respondent replied on 5^th October 2016 and stated “I wish to clarify that Political Parties are private bodies and therefore are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2014.” It was signed off as Best Regards FOI/CPU.

Not naming a person but using FOI/CPU which is Central Policy Unit does not take from or reduce the authority. The Respondent states that it is absolutely consistent in how it deals with all its responses that political parties are not listed in the Act. The Act lists a number of organisations that are covered by the Act. Political parties are not listed and so are not comprehended by the Act.

Findings and Conclusions:

Discrimination, victimisation on religious grounds