Indultar por Semana Santa, esa ‘bonita tradición’ de la que no disfrutará María Salmerón

Este tipo de indultos lanzan un mensaje confuso a la sociedad y, especialmente, desalentador a la población reclusa no católica, la mayoría. El indulto en este formato vincula de manera errónea “puesta en libertad” con ser un buen católico. Algo que para nada responde a los criterios de justicia y equidad que deben valorarse en su concesión.

Comparto con los representantes de Compromís en el Congreso que “la concesión de indultos por la Semana Santa nos acerca más a las dictaduras o regímenes teocráticos que a un Estado de Derecho” y que “por muy mayoritaria sea la religión y costumbre católica en España, otorgarle el privilegio de proponer a quién indultar y que el Gobierno lo acate, nos retrotrae al nacionalcatolicismo más negro”. Pero, en cambio, no puedo compartir su visión de que esta medida es partidista y no responde a criterios objetivos. Es cierto que la actual regulación del indulto necesita importantes mejoras (como prohibir que se conceda a condenados por corrupción o por alguna de las violencias de género), pero los principios en los que se inspira (justicia y equidad) son pilares fundamentales para la construcción de la política penitenciaria restaurativa que recoge nuestra Constitución. De ahí que esta sea una medida que deba tomarse en serio y no como parte del folclore religioso y/o popular o como una forma de devolver favores a las instancias de poder.

Precisamente, en estos días, el protagonismo de estos “indultos” avalados por las cofradías contrasta con el gran fiasco que ha resultado ser el indulto con el que “avaló” el Gobierno a María Salmerón. Acabamos de conocer como el Tribunal Supremo ha anulado el indulto parcial que se le concedió a esta mujer víctima de violencia de género. Medida que la eximía de entrar en la cárcel a cumplir la condena de seis meses de prisión que se le había impuesto por desobedecer la medida de custodia que compartía con el padre de su hija, un hombre condenado a 21 meses de prisión por maltratarla.

La decisión que ahora adopta el Supremo nace de un recurso interpuesto por el propio hombre condenado y por una asociación que dice defender a los perjudicados por la Ley de Violencia de Género. La sentencia sostiene que el Gobierno, cuando concedió el indulto parcial, no acreditó suficientemente las razones de justicia y equidad que son necesarias para su concesión. También añade el Supremo que, al no ser un indulto total, María Salmerón debía cumplir la condena sustitutoria (30 días de trabajos en beneficio de la comunidad) y pagar a su maltratador la cuantía correspondiente a la responsabilidad civil. Algo que al parecer no ha hecho. En su defensa, María Salmerón, afirma que de lo primero no ha recibido notificación y que a lo segundo no ha podido hacer frente, pero que su ex ya está cobrando la indemnización se le han embargado las cuentas a tal efecto. A todo esto, la hija común, de 17 años, se niega a ver al padre.

Dos hechos bien distintos ante la misma hipotética medida de gracia. Frente a ellos, el Gobierno actúa desde miradas y creencias muy dispares. Mientras que, a la Iglesia Católica, año tras año, le otorga el privilegio de solicitar indultos que le sirven para dar cumplimiento a sus tradiciones y dogmas; a una mujer víctima de violencia de género le perdona a regañadientes y de forma parcial, dejándola expuesta al hostigamiento del hombre que la maltrató y condenándola a la ruina económica que implican el laberinto judicial en el que se tiene que embarcar para defender algo que las leyes dicen proteger: el interés del menor.

No es nuevo el distinto rasero que usan los poderes a la hora de velar por la justicia y la equidad pero nunca está de más anotar en el margen como se arraigan privilegios y desgastan derechos. Esto sí que viene siendo una tradición en el Gobierno de Rajoy.

Fuente: https://www.eldiario.es/zonacritica/Indultar-Semana-Santa-Maria-Salmeron_6_754934526.html

Comparte este contenido:

Australia: Religion in Australian schools: an historical and contemporary debate

Oceanía/Australia/Agosto del 2017/Noticias/https://theconversation.com/

Australia maintains one of the highest concentrations of religious schools compared to other OECD countries. This proportion fits with the higher proportion of students who are enrolled in private schools in Australia.

Approximately 30% of all schools in Australia are affiliated with a religion, or 94% of private schools.

Research from the Centre For Independent Studies compared this proportion of religious schools in Australia to countries such as Sweden (2% of schools are religious), the US (10% of all schools), and the Netherlands (60% of all schools).

Religious schools in Australia predominantly consist of Anglican and Christian. But there are numerous religious affiliations represented in schools, and also diverse ways of practising religion.

Contextually, our population is shifting (and increasing). We have a rising population of minority religious groups; a sharp increase of people identifying with “no religion” on the census (29.6%); and a declining population of individuals identifying with Christianity. However, Christianity continues to be the dominant religion (57.7%).

But how an individual identifies on the Census does not readily translate to choosing a religious or non-religious school.

A brief history of religious schools in Australia

Historically speaking, religion in schools has always been contentious. This is a contentious issue in many parts of the world. The question of whether to include religion in schools is conflated with our views around the purpose of education.

In other words, what is the social purpose of education? What kind of views, ideologies and values do we want our children to learn in school? The topic of sex education and abstinence education is often paired with this debate.

As a democratic society, we will all have various responses to these questions.

The fact that religion is contentious, and not a unified consensus, was a motivation for the original foundation of our state or public schooling system.

In the state of Victoria, the Education Act founded our schools on the principle of “free, secular and compulsory”.

It was argued that secular education would remove religious discrimination and unite the community. Leading campaigners arguedthat religion should be taught in church and at home, rather than in schools.

Even though state schools were founded on secular principles, they were far from equitable or accessible for all.

The education acts were established in the context of the Stolen Generations, genocide and endemic racism towards Indigenous children. Indigenous people did not gain the right to vote until much later, in 1965.

Historians claim that our earlier schools were largely influenced by arguments around biological determinism and eugenics. Reportedly, leading commentators argued that you could measure a child’s head to determine their ability for academic work. Biological determinism disadvantaged poor children and Indigenous children.

Religious schools in contemporary times

Historically speaking, and also constitutionally, Australia is a secularcountry. Following this, each state and territory maintains slightly different policies around the inclusion or exclusion of religion in schools.

In Victoria, for example, the state department follows the Education and Training Reform Act. This act stipulates that public school education must be secular. Schools are not permitted to promote “any particular religious practice, denomination or sect, and must be open to adherents of any philosophy, religion or faith”.

Some groups, such as the Australian Secular Lobby, argue that the policy commitment to secularism in state schools is being eroded.

They have identified four key areas of concern:

  • the National School Chaplaincy Program, which provides funding for schools to employ a chaplain (government funding for this program has recently increased);
  • religious instruction classes conducted during school hours, predominantly by evangelical religious groups (this can be an “opt-out” or “opt-in” arrangement. In the state of Victoria, this is now held at lunchtime or out of school hours);
  • state funding for religious schools; and
  • the teaching of creationism in schools.

On the other hand, lobbyist groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby are highly active in campaigning for greater inclusion of religion in schools.

The Australian Christian Lobby has been very proactive in lobbying against the Safe Schools program. This is an example of how sex education, and sexuality, becomes conflated with religion.

A commitment to secularism?

Constitutionally, Australia is committed to secularism. However, the way in which this translates to schools, and the inclusion or exclusion of religion in schools, is slippery.

Religion and religious instruction is taken up differently across states and territories. This is influenced by the state political party, and fluctuates across voting periods. This often results in rapid changes to policy, and volatility.

It is fair to argue, then, that religion in schools is an ongoing contentious issue. This is strongly indicated by the ongoing debates and controversies surrounding government funding for religious schools.

While we may be secular on paper, government policy takes a largely empathetic approach to religion in schools, with a stronger preference for Christianity

Comparte este contenido: