“All religious beliefs must be regarded as equally valid, good and true”.

What would you do if the government started to insist that you agree with that statement? Or if the school your child, grandchild, nephew or niece attends started to teach it?

That is not beyond the bounds of possibility in Northern Ireland thanks to legislation passed in 2022 that could be interpreted this way.

Part 1, section 1 of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 mandates the insertion into the Northern Ireland Act 1998 of new provisions about ‘National and Cultural Identity’.1 

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp

At the core of these provisions core are two “national and cultural identity principles”, which are stated as follows:

(a) the principle that everybody in Northern Ireland is free to: (i) choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity, and (ii) express and celebrate that identity in a manner that takes account of the sensitivities of those with different national and cultural identities and respect the rule of law

(b) the principle that public authorities should encourage and promote reconciliation, tolerance and meaningful dialogue between those with different national and cultural identities with a view to promoting parity of esteem, mutual respect and understanding, and cooperation.

[destacate]The Act clarifies that “a reference to a person national and cultural identity is a reference to a person’s religious belief, political opinion or racial group”[/destacate]Importantly, there is no definition in the Act of the terms “sensitivities”, “tolerance”, “parity of esteem”, or “mutual respect”. This leaves them open to a wide latitude of interpretation.

The Act clarifies that “a reference to a person’s national and cultural identity is a reference to a person’s religious belief, political opinion or racial group”.

These principles, therefore, are speaking about how we view diverse religious beliefs among other aspects of a person’s beliefs.

As I will explain, they could be applied in schools and other settings in ways that should concern Christians.

This is an important subject that takes some explaining. For that reason, I will split it over two articles.

In this article, I will trace the history of parity of esteem and explain how these principles expand it.

‘Parity of esteem’ up to the 1998 agreement

For the purposes of this article, my focus will be on the term “parity of esteem”, which is the first of four aims the Act seeks to promote. What I say is equally applicable to “mutual respect” if it is understood by dictionary definitions.

The term ‘parity of esteem’ has an interesting history. 2 It was first used in relation to education theory from the 1960s onwards, shaping the background to the establishment of comprehensive schools and the re-classification of polytechnics as universities.

In more recent years, its most prominent use outside Northern Ireland has been in calls for mental and physical health services to be given equal emphasis, although it has also been used in South Africa to refer to equal esteem for languages.

In Northern Ireland politics, the term ‘parity of esteem’ was first introduced by David Bleakley of the Northern Ireland Labour Party during the Constitutional Convention of 1975.

He argued that parity of esteem between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is an essential foundation for cooperation between the two countries on the future of Northern Ireland.

The phrase was adopted by the Opsahl Commission in 1992 when it reported on the views of people in Northern Ireland, applied not to North-South relationships but to relationships between Northern Ireland’s two historic communities: Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist and Catholic/Nationalist/Republican.

[destacate]The term ‘parity of esteem’ was first used in relation to education theory from the 1960s onwards, shaping the background to the establishment of comprehensive schools and the re-classification of polytechnics as universities[/destacate]From there it entered into the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, which said that the governments of the UK and Ireland affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities.

Parity of esteem between the two communities – here tied to just and equal treatment – thus became foundational to the peace process and the power-sharing arrangements that followed.

In the 1998 Agreement, ‘parity of esteem’ was limited in its application to how the two governments would regard the two historic communities.

Some of its strongest advocates argued that it should be a temporary measure and that it needed to be extended in time beyond the historic communities to include other minority cultural groups. 3 

Its vagueness and flexibility of interpretation was also recognised. 4 Taken plainly, the phrase could plausibly be read to mean means that the “identity, ethos, and aspirations” of each community should be seen as equally valid, which implies that they are regarded as equally true and good.

In practice, it has generally been interpreted to mean that they should be given equal treatment under the law.

Despite these limitations of the term, it was widely accepted at the time as a necessary step towards a peaceful settlement.

The extension of ‘parity of esteem’ in the 2022 legislation

So far so good. The idea of governments giving two communities parity of esteem is likely to be uncontentious for many.

It does not require those governments, their members or the population at large to see both perspectives as equally good. It simply means that the governments of Ireland and the UK must consider both communities and treat their members fairly and equally.

Where the difficulties arise is with the 2022 legislation, which extends the principle of parity of esteem in several ways.

Firstly, ‘parity of esteem’ was about two communities, now it is about every individual

The principles move beyond the historic two communities – which is welcome – but in a specific way that is problematic. It insists that “everybody” – that is individuals, not communities – is free to “choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity”, which includes their religious beliefs as well as politics and racial group.

[destacate]Religion has no fixed definition in law, meaning that this freedom effectively extends to all questions metaphysical, spiritual, theological , and ethical [/destacate]The inclusion of racial groups should immediately cause us to reflect. The term ‘racial group’ is imported from existing equality legislation, but its placement here as one aspect of a chosen identity creates confusion.

In what sense can someone choose a racial identity? Whatever is meant by ‘race’ – which is not without its critics – it is inherited rather than self-chosen. The inclusion of race illustrates the conceptual looseness of the legislation: it treats inherited identities and chosen identities as if they were the same kind of thing.

The idea of choice of religion may seem less problematic – the idea of freedom of religion is, in my view, consistent with Christian convictions – but the combination of verbs here suggests more than choosing from existing religious options.

It implies a more radical right to self-create one’s religious beliefs. Whilst I may still agree in principle that people should be free to do so, I am not convinced that any public body should be actively encouraging it.

It is also important to realise that religion has no fixed definition in law, meaning that this freedom effectively extends to all questions metaphysical (what is ultimate reality?), spiritual (do spiritual powers exist and how should we interact with them?), theological (does God exist and what is God like?), and ethical (what is right or wrong, good or bad?).

Under this law individuals are free to believe whatever they want about any of these questions even if no recognised religious authority or group agrees. Again, I do not disagree in principle. The issues arise as we follow the principles through.

Secondly, ‘parity of esteem’ now relates to expression of identity

These principles say that individuals (not groups) should be free to “express and celebrate that identity”. There are two limits: the sensitivities of others and legality.

The latter of these is relatively easily determined, but the former is open to a great latitude of interpretation. Some may criticise it as unhelpfully restrictive – the law does not specify how many people need to be uncomfortable or to what degree.

Without such clarity, in theory, one person voicing strong concerns could veto expression of religious beliefs by large groups of people.

If that interpretation were applied, Christians should rightly be deeply concerned. It would mean that one person could stop evangelism.

[destacate]This law is unclear and open to a great latitude of interpretation and application[/destacate]However, it is equally possible that the provision could be interpreted much more liberally to mean that a view that is widely seen as morally reprehensible – such as misogyny (hatred of women), misandry (hatred of men), racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, or even paedophilia – could be expressed and celebrated on the basis that just one individual says it is part of his or her religious beliefs.

In short, this law is unclear and open to a great latitude of interpretation and application. Courts tend to require that restrictions on expressions of belief should be clear and proportionate, which may suggest a court would interpret “sensitivities” relatively narrowly, but “sensitivities” is not a standard term in law, and it has not yet, to my knowledge, been tested through the courts.

The right to freedom of expression is already protected in law under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, where it is said to be limited by “such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. 5

The Act continues to list what “necessary in a democratic society” might mean, but it does not include “sensitivities” or any equivalent concern for how others might feel about it.

The wording of the principles appears to conflict with this human right provision by adding the additional, unclear limit of “sensitivities”.

The wider issue with the principle of expression is that it encourages expressions of individual identities rather than encouraging people to find commonalities, to hold to inherited identities (even critically), or to consider the claims or other inherited belief systems.

Its wording seems to cohere with a particular ideology often called ‘expressive individualism’, which claims that every individual has a unique inner identity that must be expressed for the individual to flourish.

The principles could be interpreted as promoting this ideology, which is already widespread among contemporary younger people.

Thirdly, ‘parity of esteem’ now appears to apply to beliefs not people

The principles do not explicitly say what ‘parity of esteem’ applies to – whether people or their beliefs. Some may argue that ‘parity of esteem’ refers only to equal treatment of people, not equal valuation of beliefs, but the Act does not say this, and nothing limits the term to persons.

[destacate]Without any clarification in the wording of this legislation and other laws, the principles require that all religious beliefs be esteemed equally, which implies that they must be regarded as equally true[/destacate]Indeed, in the absence of wording that limits it to people, the natural reading would seem to be that applied to the cultural identities (including religious beliefs) that are the focus of the principles. To speak of ‘parity of esteem’ in this way is problematic.

As stated above, there is no precise definition in this law or elsewhere in law of what “parity of esteem” means. For some it may be simply shorthand for toleration and non-discrimination, but that is not the plain meaning of the words and existing commentary includes phrases like “equal moral value” as explanations. 6

Understood by dictionary definitions, parity means equality and esteem means value or regard. ‘Parity of esteem’, unless specifically defined otherwise, therefore means to value equally.

Without any clarification in the wording of this legislation or other laws, the principles require that all religious beliefs be esteemed equally, which implies that they must be regarded as equally true – if the person esteeming them believes in absolute truth that can be known with sufficient certainty to make judgements – or good – if the person making the judgement does not believe in absolute truth.

This is a formula for both moral subjectivism – the belief that all moral values are personally chosen and true for the individual – and theological pluralism – the belief that all religions contain truth.

Indeed, since the moral values and theological claims that are held and asserted may be contradictory, it is a formula for something even more radical – the idea that truth is inevitably perspectival and interpretive and that absolute truth is not knowable – known as epistemic anti-realism.

Fourthly, ‘parity of esteem’ is now required of all public bodies, including schools

The application of the legislation is much broader than the two governments who were bound by the 1998 Agreement.

It applies to all public authorities in Northern Ireland. That includes the boards of governors of grant-aided schools as well as government bodies.

This raises serious questions about freedom of speech, the tension between values in schools and families, and the promotion of the ideologies implicit in the principles as state. That is the subject of my next article.

Conclusion - bad laws are dangerous

It is a good thing to want to live together in harmony with others who do not share our religious beliefs. Indeed, Christians are commanded “so far as it depends on [us to] live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18).

We can, therefore, welcome the aims of protecting freedom of religion – whilst opposing the spread of violent extremism – and preventing discrimination on cultural and religious grounds.

This is especially important in a divided and post-conflict context like Northern Ireland. However, this does not mean that we should, or can, regard all beliefs as equally good or true.

Religious and cultural pluralism is a fact – people of different religions and cultures live side by side – but theological pluralism and moral subjectivism are dangerous, contradictory ideologies.

None of this is to claim that the Act will inevitably be interpreted in the most troubling ways. The concern is that the Act provides no guardrails to prevent such interpretations.

It is my view that the “national and cultural identity principles”, however well-intentioned they may be, are an example of bad law. Good law should be clear, limited, and precise. This law is none of those things.

[destacate]The “national and cultural identity principles”, however well-intentioned they may be, are an example of bad law. Good law should be clear, limited, and precise.This law is none of those things[/destacate]The principles are vague, open to contradictory interpretations, could theoretically be used for extremist purposes, and conflict in their plain meaning with other legislation.

They pile up multiple words and ideas that do not clarify but obfuscate the overall meaning. This is not only about the phrases “parity of esteem” and “mutual respect”.

We might also ask what is meant by “cooperation” – working together on what to what end? The Act does not clarify this.

Vague identity‑related law is uniquely risky because it governs aspects of life in which interpretation is inherently contested. Taken at face value, the principles appear to set a goal that people should regard every religious belief as equally valid and to endorse the self-creation and expression of values.

They seem to be consistent with highly contentious, and arguably self-contradictory ideologies – expressive individualism, moral subjectivism, and theological pluralism.

Besides the philosophical problems, the fundamental idea that any law can mandate esteem from a person for anything is problematic in itself. Laws should encourage good behaviour and discourage bad behaviour.

They should not seek to control beliefs or thoughts. The principles are also unnecessary to achieve their intended purpose, since anti-discrimination and freedom of speech principles can do the job.

In the next article, I will explore the way these principles will be promoted in schools and why this may concern Christians.

Paul Coulter, author, executive director of the Centre for Christianity in Society in Northern Ireland. This article was first published on the author's blog, Connected Christianity. If you would like to be informed when the Christian Leadership Integrity Commitments are released, please subscribe to this blog.

Notes

1 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/45

2 This historical survey is dependent on the work of Simon Lee available here

3 See Simon Lee’s piece in the Journal of Dialogue for the 30th anniversary of grassroots dialogue in NI

4 https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/dd/report7/report7b.htm

5 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression

6 Here

[analysis]

[title] Do you see a need for this kind of journalism? [/title]

[text] Evangelical Focus is a network of many people in Europe and beyond who strive to bring a uniquely Christian perspective to the big issues of conversation.

Through news, interviews, opinion and analysis, we seek to build bridges between evangelical churches and the societies in which they live.

As a non-profit entity, the big challenge is to be sustainable, month by month. We invite you to make a difference! Join the readers who make Evangelical Focus possible.

[/text][/analysis]