Mr. Gormely calls for children's rights referendum, who opposes it and why?

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent post.

I agree that politicians seem to be positioning this as a referendum to absolve us of our national guilt at allowing this to happen in the first place.

Joyce was right, we are a horrible priest-ridden nation. To paraphrase the great man once more, the history of our cowardice is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake and having a referendum on what is, essentially, a non-issue is not the way to come through it.

Actually, it is more of a red herring to stop anyone trying to actually get Michael Woods dirty deal rescinded, via our Supreme Court, the European Court or the UN's International Court of Human Rights.
I will not repeat my earlier more detailed posts in this regard unless someone asks.

seamus

goldenbrown wrote: »

We saw in the Roscommon incest case where a parent (a the mother) was jailed that the position of children and their rights needs to be strengthened

HSE employees and the Gardai took pressure calls from extreme Catholic activists (Maire Bean Ui Cribin) to stay out of that investigation

The fact that other organisations "put pressure" on Gardai has absolutely nothing to do with "rights" and absolutely everything to do with having Government employees follow their procedures and ignore "pressure" from anyone, be it the local priest, TD, businessman or hobo.

This is basically what we're talking about here - people want the state to be able to walk into a home and seize children, "for their own good", based on rumour and suspicion. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, there are one or two horrific cases, but we've also heard cases of constant harrasment against parents - neighbours or family spreading rumours and accusations in an attempt to have their children removed or otherwise make their life hell.

There has to be a middle ground - a way to assess cases without the obvious flaws in the current system of home visits by social workers, but without the human-rights-stompingly extreme system of seizing children first and asking questions later.

Children have moved from being possessions to young citizens in most other E.U. states - perhaps we need to make that journey too

Again, middle ground. They can be "young citizens", but they can't be empowered with the full rights of an adult because they are not mature enough to exercise those rights correctly (though you could say the same about many adults). No, they aren't "possessions", but at the same time we need to protect the ultimate right of the parent to control their child and decide what is best for their child. I'm not willing to piss all over the rights of millions of parents in the interests of protecting a handful of children.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

Ah, that would be the Irish Constitution? The one deValera gave to Arch-Bishop Mc Quaid to edit and correct? The same Mc Quaid that Dr. Noel Browne, former Minister for Health is said to have accused of sexually assaulting his young patients when he was a junior GP?
Maybe we need to look very carefully at that constitution after all?

This is so so wrong. Read Dermot Keogh's book and educate yourself please.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so so wrong. Read Dermot Keogh's book and educate yourself please.

Noel Browne's widow confirmed all this for the record some time ago.
These, unfortunately, are the facts.
There is much debate whether DeValera's illegitimacy and lack of knowledge of who his father actually was, pushed him over a sort of psychological edge and drove him into a dark place, morally, where he strove to give all power he could to the Roman Catholic Church, in an unconscious attempt to "gain" or "buy" some kind of sad "social legitimacy".

Irlandese

seamus wrote: »

The fact that other organisations "put pressure" on Gardai has absolutely nothing to do with "rights" and absolutely everything to do with having Government employees follow their procedures and ignore "pressure" from anyone, be it the local priest, TD, businessman or hobo.

This is basically what we're talking about here - people want the state to be able to walk into a home and seize children, "for their own good", based on rumour and suspicion. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, there are one or two horrific cases, but we've also heard cases of constant harrasment against parents - neighbours or family spreading rumours and accusations in an attempt to have their children removed or otherwise make their life hell.

There has to be a middle ground - a way to assess cases without the obvious flaws in the current system of home visits by social workers, but without the human-rights-stompingly extreme system of seizing children first and asking questions later.
Again, middle ground. They can be "young citizens", but they can't be empowered with the full rights of an adult because they are not mature enough to exercise those rights correctly (though you could say the same about many adults). No, they aren't "possessions", but at the same time we need to protect the ultimate right of the parent to control their child and decide what is best for their child. I'm not willing to piss all over the rights of millions of parents in the interests of protecting a handful of children.

That last sentence was so " Fr. Michael Cleary".

We need real state protection for children, but with no involvement from strange creatures like predominantly celibate, largely homosexual and all too frequently paedophilic Roman Catholic priests. Now, that is offensive, but, unfortunately, all too true, as we are learning.

The Woods deal with the church to protect the vast wealth of the abusers host organisation, the RC Church, is very easy to block, if the will was there. As a starter, the President should be shamed into referring it to the Supreme Court.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... we need to protect the ultimate right of the parent to control their child and decide what is best for their child...

I'm not persuaded that it is an ultimate right, because a parent might make choices that are bad for the child. It must be a right balanced with an agreed social view about what is good for children.

Irlandese

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not persuaded that it is an ultimate right, because a parent might make choices that are bad for the child. It must be a right balanced with an agreed social view about what is good for children.

Of course. Having sex and creating children is no guarantee of sanity or fitness to parent.
Just because some deficient abusive thug can father a child, we should not be pushed into abrogating societal responsibility to protect all children, by giving him or his wife all rights to treat them as they wish.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not persuaded that it is an ultimate right, because a parent might make choices that are bad for the child. It must be a right balanced with an agreed social view about what is good for children.

That's one step away from, "Do as we say or we're taking your children from you". The fact that we can't agree on a relatively simple items such as immigration shows that there's no such thing as an "agreed social view" about what's right for children and whatever "we" decide is best for the child doesn't necessarily make it best just because we say so.

I'm not for a second saying that parents can treat children as they wish, but this is such a dangerous area to be legislating in that no decision can be taken lightly. One badly-phrased word and before we know it, we're in a communist state.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

Noel Browne's widow confirmed all this for the record some time ago.
These, unfortunately, are the facts.
There is much debate whether DeValera's illegitimacy and lack of knowledge of who his father actually was, pushed him over a sort of psychological edge and drove him into a dark place, morally, where he strove to give all power he could to the Roman Catholic Church, in an unconscious attempt to "gain" or "buy" some kind of sad "social legitimacy".

Ok, first off it was not the Noel Browne issue that I was referring to although the 2nd hand confirmation from a person intimately connected to a man who was riven with bitterness over how he was treated by the Church (and it was a total disgrace what happened) is hardly conclusive proof.

Secondly; you are wrong about De Valera and McQuaid. Keogh has shown that De Valera resisted huge pressure from the religious orders and the Church to place certain elements into the Constitution. The 1937 Constitution, taken in the context of its time, is remarkably progressive.

Lastly; I am NOT getting into a historical debate on the Constitution so I won't respond again.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

The Woods deal with the church to protect the vast wealth of the abusers host organisation, the RC Church, is very easy to block, if the will was there. As a starter, the President should be shamed into referring it to the Supreme Court.

The President cannot refer a Bill under Art 26 that has already been made law.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

That's one step away from, "Do as we say or we're taking your children from you". The fact that we can't agree on a relatively simple items such as immigration shows that there's no such thing as an "agreed social view" about what's right for children and whatever "we" decide is best for the child doesn't necessarily make it best just because we say so.

I think we need to find agreed social views. That's what a constitution is based on. I'm not saying it is easy.

I'm not for a second saying that parents can treat children as they wish, but this is such a dangerous area to be legislating in that no decision can be taken lightly. One badly-phrased word and before we know it, we're in a communist state.

I'd start by looking into giving children the same rights as adults. How those rights might be vindicated is a difficult area, but not one for a constitution.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

The President cannot refer a Bill under Art 26 that has already been made law.

The President MUST refer any law to the Supreme Court that may be repugnant to the constitution.
The "deal" worked out by Woods with the bishops, while he was, in his own words, acting as a "strong catholic" is clearly sectarian and repugnant to a constitution that purports to treat all citizens equally. Woods excluded the Attorney General and his staff from all involvement, because they had specified the RC Church should pay at least 50% of all claims and that the payments to be made by the church could not retrospectively include previous transfers made for other purposes.
The grounds? You should not be able to make all future citizens of all denominations, including agnostics, pay for the awful sexual and violent crimes of the agents of one religion, which incidentally is the wealthiest legal and financial body in the state.
My comments and recommendations?:
There is a very well funded and cleverly thought-out PR job on the go, at the moment.
It has many facets and many actors.
It is designed to get the Irish People to move on quickly and to forget the real issues behind the Ryan report on Abuse of Children in Care by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Above all, this clever PR campaign is about stopping any attempt to over-turn the dirty deal done by Michael Woods, to protect the enormous wealth of the RC Church in Ireland. It has the support of many senior members of both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, but not of all of them!
Some facts confirmed by the records that should be borne in mind:
1. Michael Woods excluded the Attorney General and his staff from any access to the details, and signed off on it in his LAST day in office, to avoid any chance that it would be blocked.
2. He did so, while aware that the Attorney General, the Irish Government’s Legal Officer, had told him in person and in writing that much more stringent and financially onerous terms than the appallingly lax ones he later applied should be imposed on the Roman Catholic Church, in any binding agreement.
3. Michael Woods signed off on behalf of the future poor taxpayers of Ireland, while describing himself in the media as a “strong Catholic”, not as someone who should uphold the equal rights of all citizens under our constitution, for whom he was being paid as a Government Minister, at the time.
4. This self-declaration that he acted as a “strong catholic” in forcing the taxpayers of all creeds to pay for the sins of one church, is enough to justify requests for legal action to overturn the deal by Irish citizens to our own constitutional courts, the EU Courts and the UN Courts on Human Rights.
5. We do not need proof of the membership of Opus Dei, Knights of Columbanus or of Crosseo, of Michael Woods, Bertie Ahearne, Dermot Ahearne or Brian Lenihan, to take this action. These should be investigated, by a legal tribunal, but the legal actions to over-turn the dirty deal should start now, with letters from interested parties and groups direct to the various legal groups mentioned above.
6. This is a time for popular action, by citizens, not waiting for further dirty deals between Church and State. We owe it to our children and their children’s children, to protect the economic viability of their future, more so because we did not protect the past of thousands of sexually and emotionally abused young children, given to the Roman Catholic Church as little more than animals to use and abuse at their perverse pleasure.
7. I call on all of you who can, to act. Start writing to anyone who will listen, to get these legal actions underway. If we have learned anything from all this, it is that We cannot trust the RC Church or our Politicians to act as they should. They are guilty of disgraceful collusion in all of this.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

The President MUST refer any law to the Supreme Court that may be repugnant to the constitution.

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the Art 26 procedure. The President can only refer Bills and not Acts. Therefore once she signs it into law she cannot refer it subsequently for constitutional examination by the Supreme Court.

Also, Art 26.1.1 specifically states that the President MAY refer bills, not MUST refer bills as you say.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the Art 26 procedure. The President can only refer Bills and not Acts. Therefore once she signs it into law she cannot refer it subsequently for constitutional examination by the Supreme Court.

Also, Art 26.1.1 specifically states that the President MAY refer bills, not MUST refer bills as you say.

First, she "may" is a choice. My use of "must" is a moral imperative, stating that she must employ her "may" if she is to enjoy moral support for her performance.
Secondly, you are limited in your appreciation of the power of the President to refer any law or statutory instrument or government proposal to the state's highest legal body, when and if he or she finds or believes that such are likely to be repugnant to the constitution.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

First, she "may" is a choice. My use of "must" is a moral imperative, stating that she must employ her "may" if she is to enjoy moral support for her performance.

Morals have nothing to do with it. Once it is a law she cannot refer it. There is no legal mechanism to do so.

Irlandese wrote: »

Secondly, you are limited in your appreciation of the power of the President to refer any law or statutory instrument or government proposal to the state's highest legal body, when and if he or she finds or believes that such are likely to be repugnant to the constitution.

Actually I am very much aware of the Presidents powers. Alas I think you are somewhat deluded as to them.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

Morals have nothing to do with it. Once it is a law she cannot refer it. There is no legal mechanism to do so.




Actually I am very much aware of the Presidents powers. Alas I think you are somewhat deluded as to them.

Morality has everything to do with it.
That there is no easy legal mechanism is unclear, given that whatever the President or the Dail do or do not do, we are all subject, thankfully, to EU law, which, incidentally, is 95% responsible for all of the progressive social legislation that we now enjoy, beyonf the dark days of almost total church control over our lives, as seen in Mc Quaides letter to the then taoiseach over the mother and child scheme proposals.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

Morality has everything to do with it.

No, it doesn't.

Irlandese wrote: »

That there is no easy legal mechanism is unclear, given that whatever the President or the Dail do or do not do, we are all subject, thankfully, to EU law, which, incidentally, is 95% responsible for all of the progressive social legislation that we now enjoy, beyonf the dark days of almost total church control over our lives, as seen in Mc Quaides letter to the then taoiseach over the mother and child scheme proposals.

Let me just put this nice and clearly.

There is NO legal mechanism WHATSOEVER for the President to refer an Act to the Supreme Court. Once it is made law the President has NOTHING to do with it anymore.

EU law has nothing to do with it. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it doesn't.



Let me just put this nice and clearly.

There is NO legal mechanism WHATSOEVER for the President to refer an Act to the Supreme Court. Once it is made law the President has NOTHING to do with it anymore.

EU law has nothing to do with it. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

nice and clear, perhaps? but totally wrong, my dear.
have a look at some of the case law against Irish Gov. decisions, emanating from the EU courts.
It shows your circular arguaments to be quite erroneous and, dare i say, naive?

Have to go, work calls !

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

nice and clear, perhaps? but totally wrong, my dear.
have a look at some of the case law against Irish Gov. decisions, emanating from the EU courts.
It shows your circular arguaments to be quite erroneous and, dare i say, naive?

Have to go, work calls !

My circular arguments? What?

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

EU law has NOTHING to do with the Art 26 procedure. Nothing whatsoever. Not a jot. It is a domestic procedure.

The EU cannot pronounce on Irish Constitutional matters as it has no competence to do so. It only pronounces judgment on the treaties. Equally the ECtHR can only pronounce judgment on the European Convention on Human Rights.

Hillel

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU cannot pronounce on Irish Constitutional matters as it has no competence to do so. It only pronounces judgment on the treaties.

Have you any references to support this position? I thought that EU Law overruled Irish Law and the Irish Constitution. (Not my area, though. )
See also:

johnKarma wrote: »

Nope. The short answer is that European Law is superior both to Irish law and the Irish Constitution. This superiority can be explained with reference to three cases of the European Court of Justice: Costa, Van Gend en Loos, and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (it's easy to look them up.) Their combined effect is that the European treaties have created "their own legal system which…became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply". Accordingly, laws "stemming from the Treaty…cannot…be overridden by rules of national law" even if they run "counter to either fundamental rights [in]…the constitution of the State or the principles of a national constitutional structure." Pretty definitive.

Hillel

Hillel wrote: »

Have you any references to support this position? I thought that EU Law overruled Irish Law and the Irish Constitution. (Not my area, though. )
See also:

I will reference things tomorrow but I believe you may have took me up wrong.

Irish constitutional matters are of no importance to the EU because EU law is superior to it. Where a bill is in violation of our constitution but not EU law the EU don't care and the ECJ cannot and will not rule upon it. That is a matter for the superior courts of Ireland.

brianthebard

gcgirl wrote: »

Lets not open that can of worms!

Wasn't trying to open any can of worms, just wanted to see if this was a part of the referendum, obviously would be a reason people would vote for/against?

Sand wrote: »

The childrens rights thing sounds like hippy feel good crap to me. Who the **** exactly is going to vote against childrens rights? Regardless of what those rights are?

No one.

So its just hippy bull****.The hard part is actually avoiding talking about rights and actually working to improve practical, actual standards.

I can be pretty contrary sometimes, I might just vote against for the lolz.

Mike 1972

If "childrens rights referendum" means branding people who unknowingly have consensual sex with those below the (ludicrously high) age of consent as rapists/sex offenders/paedophiles then I would vote against it

If "childrens rights referendum" means a load of hippy feel good crap which doesnt actually do anything to enhance childrens rights and/or which couldnt be achieved by ordinary legislation (Havent we learned anything about how dangerous and counterproductive it is to insert badly worded, unnecessary and ill thought out nonsense into the constitution in order to deal with hypothetical or completly non existant problems ?) then I would vote against it.

If "childrens rights referendum" means promoting the notional "rights" of one group in society particularly to the detriment of the actual "rights" or another then I would vote against it.

There you go- I would vote against "Childrens rights" Obviously I must be a right sick evil twisted b@$t@rd who hates children. Do you want to send out the lynch mob to shoot me now or have a referendum on it first ? :rolleyes:

Hillel

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If "childrens rights referendum" means branding people who unknowingly have consensual sex with those below the (ludicrously high) age of consent as rapists/sex offenders/paedophiles then I would vote against it

Mike 1972 wrote: »

There you go- I would vote against "Childrens rights" Obviously I must be a right sick evil twisted b@$t@rd who hates children. Do you want to send out the lynch mob to shoot me now or have a referendum on it first ? :rolleyes:

I am against all forms of capital punishment, including lynching. However, I would support all legal measures that would allow a close watch be kept on any individual that suggests that sex with children of 15, or younger, is in any way OK. I would prefer that such legal means be by way of leglislation, rather than a referendum.

Mike 1972

The age of consent in Ireland is 17 not 15

In any case I never suggested that it was "OK” so having called the lynch mob off you can recall the spies as well.

Just because someone argues that something should be legal (or should carry a penalty more appropriate to actual circumstances) doesn’t mean that they think its "OK"

Neither does it mean that they have any inclination towards doing it personally.

Perhaps those in favour of “children’s rights” should consider the rights of 17 year old male children not to be falsely branded for life with some of the foulest crimes in the book by a legal system in the throes of a media-driven moral panic.

oscarBravo

Hillel wrote: »

Have you any references to support this position? I thought that EU Law overruled Irish Law and the Irish Constitution. (Not my area, though. )

As I understand it, EU law supersedes the Irish Constitution only insofar as it is impossible to challenge a law that originates in EU legislation on the grounds of Irish unconstitutionality.

Irlandese

oscarBravo wrote: »

As I understand it, EU law supersedes the Irish Constitution only insofar as it is impossible to challenge a law that originates in EU legislation on the grounds of Irish unconstitutionality.

This is quite wrong.
We are EU citizens and, thankfully, entitled to protection under it's laws, which supercede Irish Law in every situation, including Constitutional Law where this is found to be deficient against the higher standards of EU law as regards human rights etc.
Do not be confused by contributors throwing out red herrings re section 26 or whatever. Where Irish Law or government rules, regulations, procedures or legislation are considered to be in fringement of our greater rights under EU law, any citizen can ask that the position be tested under the EU legal systems. My suggestion that the president do so, on our behalf, is superfluous at one level but highly desireable under another, that of moral ethics. Do not be fuddled by fellow-travellers opposed to our human rights and those of abused children, now adults.

Irlandese

Deleted User wrote: »

I will reference things tomorrow but I believe you may have took me up wrong.

Irish constitutional matters are of no importance to the EU because EU law is superior to it. Where a bill is in violation of our constitution but not EU law the EU don't care and the ECJ cannot and will not rule upon it. That is a matter for the superior courts of Ireland.

Your earlier post stated:
"
The EU cannot pronounce on Irish Constitutional matters as it has no competence to do so. It only pronounces judgment on the treaties. Equally the ECtHR can only pronounce judgment on the European Convention on Human Rights."

Now, as informed contributors pile on the references etc. you retreat behind the strange excuse that it was in fact us who have in some way made a mistake, with further quote" "I believe you may have took me up wrong" sic.

I again urge readers to consider pushing for such urgent legal reviews, at Irish, EU and UN levels, of the dirty deal by Woods and others, that undermines the right to equal treatment of all EU citizens, where this deal asks all denominations and non-believers to end up paying for the crimes of sexual criminals, just because they happen to be active members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sand

Perhaps those in favour of “children’s rights” should consider the rights of 17 year old male children not to be falsely branded for life with some of the foulest crimes in the book by a legal system in the throes of a media-driven moral panic.

Yes, Ive always wondered why parents want their underage (or just overage) teenage sons branded as paedophiles and sexual predators for having consensual sex with someone elses (underage) teenage daughter who might be only slightly younger than them.

Mike 1972

Possibly because they are in denial about the possibiliy that their teenagers might be sexually active.