Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mr. Gormely calls for children's rights referendum, who opposes it and why?
Options
Comments
-
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.
You are on a totally different subject.
Unless you are some kind of apologist for paedofile priests and are trying to change the subject away from as many people as possible pushing for the taking of strong legal action etc. against the people involved, I suggest you try another chat group.0 -
Actually, the topic is the proposed Children's Rights referendum. Leave the moderating to me, thanks.You are on a totally different subject.
Unless you are some kind of apologist for paedofile priests and are trying to change the subject away from as many people as possible pushing for the taking of strong legal action etc. against the people involved, I suggest you try another chat group.0 -
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.
Please show me where the EU has a law regarding human rights.Do not be confused by contributors throwing out red herrings re section 26 or whatever.
I was not throwing out any red herrings. Nothing I have said about the Art 26 procedure is incorrect.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.
This is true, although initially it must be done in Irish courts to test its consistency and a citizen may appeal to the ECJ if they are not satisfied from there.My suggestion that the president do so, on our behalf, is superfluous at one level
This is true.but highly desireable under another, that of moral ethics.
Moral ethics? Do you really understand how the courts system works? The ECJ will NEVER touch the deal Woods made. For a number of reasons.
1. The State is a person in the eyes of the law and may enter into contracts. The courts will not go behind the privity of contract.
2. The ECJ hates interfering in domestic legal issues.
3. There is absolutely no conflict that I can see with this deal and EU law. Therefore the ECJ has no competence to rule on the issue.Do not be fuddled by fellow-travellers opposed to our human rights and those of abused children, now adults.
This had better not be directed at me.0 -
You are on a totally different subject.
Unless you are some kind of apologist for paedofile priests and are trying to change the subject away from as many people as possible pushing for the taking of strong legal action etc. against the people involved, I suggest you try another chat group.
Dammit, youve spotted my evil plan. If it wasnt for Irlandese and his brilliant insight, Id have got away with it too
:rolleyes:0 -
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.
Let's leave aside the first part of your post which is really just pointless. I was clarifying my position, nothing else.
Let me explain this to you.
The courts will not go behind a contract to see if it is fair. Once all the rules of construction for a contract are in place neither the Irish courts nor the ECJ can alter the terms in absence of a statutory power allowing them to do so.
Also I have to assume you are joking at the UN legally reviewing this deal. The UN has absolutely no power whatsoever to force the Irish Government to do anything.
I think Woods' deal was a total disgrace. However an argument about unequal treatment of citizens will fail simply because the State, which is all the people, was complicit in the crime. Industrial schools were State run and children were put there using State authority. I just don't see any argument that will convince any court to go behind this deal and set it aside. I wish there was such an argument, I just cannot see it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Unless you are some kind of apologist for paedofile (sic) priests
There is already sufficient scope under the existing constitution to criminalise and prosecute paedophiles (clerical or otherwise) and while the state may at times have been lax in its approach to investigating and prosecuting them (and those who harboured and otherwise assist them) nobody has yet explained why it is necessary to have a constitutional amendment in order to address this.
And inferring that criticism of such a proposal amounts to bring an apologist for paedophiles (or harbouring a desire to have ones evil way with Under 15's) is a pretty scurrilous line of argument.0 -
I thought it was 16, hence my reference to 15.The age of consent in Ireland is 17 not 15In 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.
Fair enough, spies will not be deployed. (I was speaking in the erroneous context of 16 being the age of consent, and having sex with a 15 year old being illegal. )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.
I think this is the real challenge, seperating out the predatory male, regardless of age, from a honest misunderstanding. I truly don't know what the right answer is. Neither do I believe a constitutional referendum is the best approach.0 -
I thought it was 16, hence my reference to 15. .
Actually a lot of people in Ireland seem to be under the same impression but its definitely 17 in the Republic. Its 16 in the UK In some European countries its as low as 12 (although personally Im not sure it should be that low)wikipedia Ages_of_consent_in_Europe Bizzarely (or perhaps not) It appears that the country with the lowest age of consent in Europe is Vatican City.
I think the legal phrase "knowingly or recklessly" would cover it quite well (would also be a good idea for a law in relation to paying for sex with those forced into prostitution) shouldnt just apply to predatory males though.I think this is the real challenge, seperating out the predatory male, regardless of age, from a honest misunderstanding. I truly don't know what the right answer is..
Niether do I. For one thing I dont see what it can achieve in terms of effective child protection measures which couldnt also be acomplished without a referendum. And weve seen before how referenda/constitutional amendments when badly thought out can have unintended consequences.Neither do I believe a constitutional referendum is the best approach.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Actually, the topic is the proposed Children's Rights referendum. Leave the moderating to me, thanks.
ha ha, you have me there, but, actually, I think you will find that we strayed quite a few posts ago on this one ! No, not interested in moderating. I have little time as it is to just keep up with replying.0 -
This is really what I don't understand. The law is there. The facilities to protect children are there. The various reports and scandals which have come out over the years are *systemic* failures, and not loopholes found in law. Amending the constitution won't suddenly make paedophiles disappear or somehow make them "more guilty". The processes and frameworks to prosecute offenders and protect children are already there. What will a constitutional amendment achieve?There is already sufficient scope under the existing constitution to criminalise and prosecute paedophiles (clerical or otherwise) and while the state may at times have been lax in its approach to investigating and prosecuting them (and those who harboured and otherwise assist them) nobody has yet explained why it is necessary to have a constitutional amendment in order to address this.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is really what I don't understand. The law is there. The facilities to protect children are there. The various reports and scandals which have come out over the years are *systemic* failures, and not loopholes found in law. Amending the constitution won't suddenly make paedophiles disappear or somehow make them "more guilty". The processes and frameworks to prosecute offenders and protect children are already there. What will a constitutional amendment achieve?
Perhaps we could amand the constitution to eliminate the sectarian references to any special position for the Roman catholic Church, which has adequately shown itself to be a safe and supportive home for paedophiles and a parasitic and manipulative influence on Irish society generally?
Our constitution should reflect the pluralist and hopefully more humane values of a modern European Ireland, than those of a priest-ridden theocracy terrorised by clerical political thugs like Arch-bishop Mc Quaide, who Dr. Noel Browne claims was an active and very violent paedophile, whose victims he personally treated while a GP in Dublin.0 -
Perhaps we could amand the constitution to eliminate the sectarian references to any special position for the Roman catholic Church, which has adequately shown itself to be a safe and supportive home for paedophiles and a parasitic and manipulative influence on Irish society generally?
Our constitution should reflect the pluralist and hopefully more humane values of a modern European Ireland, than those of a priest-ridden theocracy terrorised by clerical political thugs like Arch-bishop Mc Quaide, who Dr. Noel Browne claims was an active and very violent paedophile, whose victims he personally treated while a GP in Dublin.
Dont tar all preiests and bishops with the same brush. Questions have to be answered but im sure there were some "good apples" as well.
As for the churches special place in the Irish constitution, is this still true. I know that when Dev wrote the constitution he gave special privileges to the church but I was under the assumption that this had been eliminated over time? Am I mistaken?
I believe the church still has power, but not on a constitutional basis...0 -
While we are at it, we might ask how the President, Government , Houses of the Oireachtas and we the people, allowed the approval of Dr. Michael Woods deal to save the Roman Catholic Church from compensation claims, that threatened it's vast financial endowments, when article 44, subsection 2.2. of said Irish Constitution states:This is really what I don't understand. The law is there. The facilities to protect children are there. The various reports and scandals which have come out over the years are *systemic* failures, and not loopholes found in law. Amending the constitution won't suddenly make paedophiles disappear or somehow make them "more guilty". The processes and frameworks to prosecute offenders and protect children are already there. What will a constitutional amendment achieve?
"The state guarantees not to endow any religion"0 -
I am a believer in not accepting that something is impossible, just because most presume so. I can see some angles that could be successful. Start with the Supreme Court on a challenge based on article 44.2.2. whereby Woods acting in his own words as a "strong catholic" effectively endowed the RC church with an open cheque.Deleted User wrote: »Let's leave aside the first part of your post which is really just pointless. I was clarifying my position, nothing else.
Let me explain this to you.
The courts will not go behind a contract to see if it is fair. Once all the rules of construction for a contract are in place neither the Irish courts nor the ECJ can alter the terms in absence of a statutory power allowing them to do so.
Also I have to assume you are joking at the UN legally reviewing this deal. The UN has absolutely no power whatsoever to force the Irish Government to do anything.
I think Woods' deal was a total disgrace. However an argument about unequal treatment of citizens will fail simply because the State, which is all the people, was complicit in the crime. Industrial schools were State run and children were put there using State authority. I just don't see any argument that will convince any court to go behind this deal and set it aside. I wish there was such an argument, I just cannot see it.
The same facts can be raised with ECJ in that Woods and Co. have effectively forced the entire population to endow one religion in this manner, while said religion has been shown to have systematically abused children in it's care.
The UN angle is difficult, but, again, there are angles: Some of the paedofile priests were shipped around between Ireland, England, the USA and elsewhere, to continue their paedophilic careers under the knowing and supportive protection of the RC Church.
There is a case for a proposal for an International investigation to determine the extent of the crimes fostered in this manner, by the RC Church, against children and the examination of possible criminal prosecutions and perhaps actions by the International community to restrict the possibility of this continuing to happen, with so many paedophiles in positions of responsibility within that sick organisation.
Others may see other angles.
We live in hope........0 -
Any reference to a special position of the church is gone a long time. Any special privilege enjoyed by the church is the failure of democracy to properly elect officials who act with secular morals, even if they themselves are religious.Perhaps we could amand the constitution to eliminate the sectarian references to any special position for the Roman catholic Church, which has adequately shown itself to be a safe and supportive home for paedophiles and a parasitic and manipulative influence on Irish society generally?
The agreement in regards to compensation isn't in violation of the consitution because it's an agreement between the government and various religious orders, and the not religion as a whole.While we are at it, we might ask how the President, Government , Houses of the Oireachtas and we the people, allowed the approval of Dr. Michael Woods deal to save the Roman Catholic Church from compensation claims, that threatened it's vast financial endowments, when article 44, subsection 2.2. of said Irish Constitution states:
"The state guarantees not to endow any religion"
The constitution must also be interpreted from an "intent" point-of-view, and not from a literal one. Guaranteeing to endow any religion is a guarantee not to favour any one religion over another. It is not relevant to this issue, since the deal is not detrimental any other religious standpoint.0 -
Sorry, but your points are both incorrect and miss the points I was making.Any reference to a special position of the church is gone a long time. Any special privilege enjoyed by the church is the failure of democracy to properly elect officials who act with secular morals, even if they themselves are religious.
The agreement in regards to compensation isn't in violation of the consitution because it's an agreement between the government and various religious orders, and the not religion as a whole.
The constitution must also be interpreted from an "intent" point-of-view, and not from a literal one. Guaranteeing to endow any religion is a guarantee not to favour any one religion over another. It is not relevant to this issue, since the deal is not detrimental any other religious standpoint.
The agreement clearly endows one religious group and that, by definition, favours it over not only the members of other faiths but also over all of us agnostics and aetheists etc. who probably well outnumber the roman catholics.0 -
How so? Are other religions as well as agnostics and atheists currently being asked to pay compensation?Sorry, but your points are both incorrect and miss the points I was making.
The agreement clearly endows one religious group and that, by definition, favours it over not only the members of other faiths but also over all of us agnostics and aetheists etc. who probably well outnumber the roman catholics.
Actually you are right on one thing - my interpretation is incorrect. The consitution requires that the state does not provide money to religious insitutions. The agreement does not provide money to the religious institutions, it just limits their liability.
You are still also incorrect on what you consider a "religion". The "Legion of Mary" is not a "religion", it's a religious order. The difference is quite clear.0 -
How so? Are other religions as well as agnostics and atheists currently being asked to pay compensation?
Actually you are right on one thing - my interpretation is incorrect. The consitution requires that the state does not provide money to religious insitutions. The agreement does not provide money to the religious institutions, it just limits their liability.
You are still also incorrect on what you consider a "religion". The "Legion of Mary" is not a "religion", it's a religious order. The difference is quite clear.
The word used in the constitution ( 44.2.2) is "endow". Limiting their liability to pay their due bills for sexual and physical and emotional abuse of innocent children is more than simply paying them, my friend.
If you have to pay something and a kind person offers to pay over 90% of your bill for you, is that not "paying" you? The awards are already in excess of one thousand, for hundred million. Then, to add insult to injury, as Vincent Browne pointed out in a recent article, the church has already successfully cheated us of it's tiny 10% to date limit, by having Woods accept as part of it's own pitiful payment, properties already transferred to the state in return for earlier concessions and payments by we, the tax-payers.
Your attempted semantics about alleged differences between being a member of the roman catholic religion and being a member of a roman catholic order certainly surprises me. Members of Roman Catholic religious orders are presumably fully committed and benefitting members of that religion, follow the directions of the pope, hold and use property in the name of that religion and incidentally pontificate to others about how to live according to the rules of that religion. What kind of arrant nonsense are you pushing here?0 -
I forgot to respond to the first surprising section:How so? Are other religions as well as agnostics and atheists currently being asked to pay compensation?
Actually you are right on one thing - my interpretation is incorrect. The consitution requires that the state does not provide money to religious insitutions. The agreement does not provide money to the religious institutions, it just limits their liability.
You are still also incorrect on what you consider a "religion". The "Legion of Mary" is not a "religion", it's a religious order. The difference is quite clear.
Yes, as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.
Everyone, us included, are now paying the compensation that the RC Church should be paying from it's enormous wealth, for the sins of the members of that church.0 -
The reasons I am skeptical of any proposed children's rights amendments are as follows:
- because children already have individual rights (they're human rights, not adult rights).
- because the only barrier to children's rights (despite the tragedy of the industrial schools) is the rights of the family itself - which can trump the rights of a child; an example would be parents refusing a PKU test for their infant child. It's not a remedy for the shock the country's still reeling from.
- because of the way this country works, it's unlikely we'll get anything more solid than "with due regard to the rights of the parents" - which means next to nothing more than the existing family provisions; besides, would you give the state more influence over the rights of children?
- because due to the political balancing act that the provision goes through, it's likely that the amendment won't change anything.
- because recognising something in a legal document doesn't create any impetus to protect it - we don't really protect woman's place in the home, for example.
- because people will suggest making statutory rape a strict liability offense, in the Constitution (so it can't be overruled) - I don't believe locking up 17 year old guys sleeping with 16 year old girls is particularly just, and I don't believe that a guy who has been told his partner is 17 should risk a jail sentence.
- because we could actually be having a debate and discussion about how to stop what happened from happening again, but instead this will distract from it
- because anyone who dares question something as obviously good a children's rights amendment (seriously, it even sounds like the best, most noble thing ever) will be faily quickly silenced by the groundswell of public opinion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
goldenbrown wrote: »what are the arguments against it? who is opposing it and why?
I might possibly oppose it, i'd have to read up more on it.
I do object to the wording though.
Minors aren't getting any more power, the state is.
And as we all know, it is wise to be cautious when the state intends to increase it's power.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13665
Deleted User wrote: »Excuse my cynicism but isnt this just some bullcrap to try and claw back some popularity for the Greens after being slaughtered in the locals?
Yeah, who would vote against "children's rights"?
But is it really about children's rights?
My main objections to it are:
1) it is very badly worded and vague
2) they haven't tried to bring in legislation to deal with the alleged problems which should be their first port of call, not going straight to a constitutional amendment
3) it will seek to re-introduce absolute liability for kids having sex with each other
4) it will allow the state greater powers to remove children from their parents
5) it doesn't really confer any new rights on children, more it confers greater powers on the state to prosecute children and put them in care.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement