Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI

Scofflaw

I'm pro-Europe, and indeed there are good elements of the Lisbon Treaty nobody could argue with, but there are elements of it I really dislike, the centralisation of power being one of them.

.
Can you delve a little bit deeper into the "centralization of power article", i want to know more and we can have a lively debate

Worth a thread, I would say, rather than dragging this one off-topic.

moderately,
Scofflaw

BluntGuy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Can you delve a little bit deeper into the "centralization of power article", i want to know more and we can have a lively debate

Don't want to drag this off-topic, but I'll most likely end up mentioning it on another thread at some stage in which case I'll go into more detail. I'll be only too happy to debate it.

Media are product/service if you dont like Fox news does it mean you are forced to watch it? Theres plenty of debate on Lisbon on the internet (media) which caters for a wide spectrum of opinions from tinfoil hatters to more refined debates like we have here on boards.

When media are a private product/service then fine, they are entitled to be as biased as they like. Even though a newspaper should (ideally) always try to be impartial, fair and unbiased in reporting the facts, and should encourage balanced debate... by virtue of the fact they are private, and we have a choice to pay or not, they are entitled to put their own slant on things.

RTE is a public service though. They are not entitled to start taking sides, especially over a referendum. They should be legally obliged to give a 50/50 split. This isn't some silly, minor issue... it is something that is going to help define the shape of Europe in the future. Both sides deserve the chance to demonstrate their points of view. The quality of the people representing each side, and the validity of their arguments is a seperate issue altogether.

ei.sdraob

BluntGuy wrote: »

RTE is a public service though. They are not entitled to start taking sides, especially over a referendum. They should be legally obliged to give a 50/50 split. This isn't some silly, minor issue... it is something that is going to help define the shape of Europe in the future. Both sides deserve the chance to demonstrate their points of view. The quality of the people representing each side, and the validity of their arguments is a seperate issue altogether.

But why are RTE a drain on the public? If i had it my way I would detach RTE from the public tit and let them float (or sink) on their own
as I already mentioned TV license is a bad joke and they make money from ads as well, not to mention paying crazy salaries to bad presenters, tho thats a whole other thread

You speak as if RTE will prevent the NO side from participating altogether, now that would be wrong! and not fair


The artificial restriction last year gave airtime more than they deserve to extreme parties with extreme views (see parallel threads today about SF and Garda murderers) whats even more scary is that people fell for some of these "nuts"

actually knowing RTE they would still try to balance things, for example Question and Answers, as some of these "weights" such as M Lou are rather entertaining to watch for some

djpbarry

BluntGuy wrote: »

Joe Higgins, Arthur Morgan and possibly Vincent Browne would probably be the most likely choices. I'm not particularly impressed with any of the "no" side campaigners...

That's really saying something, don't you think? You think that there is a legitimate argument to be made against this treaty, but you can't think of anyone who could properly articulate your argument?

K-9

Libertyed wrote: »

The people vote No, cause they have no trust, and they did not believe the goverment,
thats why?

Actually ignoring the rest, that is the biggest problem the Yes side faces!

BluntGuy wrote: »

The majority of people are probably going into this voting "yes" based on how "good" Europe has been for us before.

True and on the other side you have people voting No because of how bad it has been and how much worse it will be in the future. Very little specifics usually on both sides.

Martin 2

BluntGuy wrote: »

Whatever happens though, the world isn't going to end, our economy will still be crap, and Europe won't abandon us... so, getting back to the topic-in-hand... considering all the newspapers etc. seem to advocate a "yes", it's only fair that the broadcast national media that we ALL pay for, presents us both sides of the debate in equal measure.

Yes but will the economy be crap or crappier, that is the question, and you know my answer.
Europe won't abandon us but will we abandon Europe:)
Sorry for that last sound bite but this is a media thread

Personally I wouldn't mind if the state media were still obliged to give equal time to both sides for the reasons you mentioned.

BluntGuy

djpbarry wrote: »

That's really saying something, don't you think? You think that there is a legitimate argument to be made against this treaty, but you can't think of anyone who could properly articulate your argument?

It's a pity isn't it.

Those are the "best", suitably-known public figures I can think of. Other people like Patricia McKenna, Gerry Adams... well, who's going to listen to them? Declan Ganley was the closest thing the "no" side had to someone who could actually speak. Well, Joe Higgins is quite a good speaker on occasion, but the other two... nope.

I do feel there is a very legitimate argument for the "no" side, and I even feel there is a legitimate argument for the "yes" side - I do see positives in the Lisbon Treaty. However, those are not arguments we're getting mostly presented.

I watched Nightly News a few weeks back, and they had some guy on, can't remember his name - and he was trying to explain why we should vote yes - all I heard was crap. "Enhances democracy", "heart of Europe" blah blah blah... no actual reasons. However, the "yes" side are able to articulate rubbish like that far better, and make it sound valid, so I'll give them credit.

The "yes" campaign is also lucky to have the newspapers nearly universally in favour of it. That means you have the benefit of well thought out editorial pieces. Off the point slightly, but thought I'd mention it.

The "no" campaign needs somebody knowledgeable and well-spoken to spearhead the effort and participate in debates, somebody who can pick the flaws in the "yes" side's arguments. Because I don't think many of "yes" side public figures actually understand how the treaty works or what it's about beyond the soundbites. Who this mythical person may be... I really don't know sadly.

Until we get someone like that, we are almost destined to lose this campaign. "No" figures and "yes" figures will continue to have soundbite arguments... and I think the "yes" side will come out on top on that basis.

But it doesn't change my original point... both sides should be given 50/50. Few of the people debating this issue on TV have any real quality on either of the sides to be quite frank. But if the public are gonna make their opinion based on soundbites, they should at least get an equal share of soundbites from each side.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Taking it slightly more seriously - would most people say that the view above deserves to be treated exactly the same as any other view on Lisbon?

Perhaps not. Primarily because Libertyed's kind of view has been thrown out 100 times here. It has been shown to be false and misleading time upon time. And yet we still get people who will casually call into the EU forum and drop a "EU = army" or "they stole our fish" and scuttle away. Even though one can address their views it gets all too tedious.

So it probably is best if Libertyed is simply ignored. However, we do this in the fear that someone will be drawn in by his points, see no attempt to refute them, and thus take them as true.

BluntGuy

turgon wrote: »

Perhaps not. Primarily because Libertyed's kind of view has been thrown out 100 times here. It has been shown to be false and misleading time upon time. And yet we still get people who will casually call into the EU forum and drop a "EU = army" or "they stole our fish" and scuttle away. Even though one can address their views it gets all too tedious.

As long as they can quote the exact articles of the Lisbon Treaty or point to a reliable source, or use some sort of good, common sense logic, then debate can be engaged into. It doesn't matter how disagreeable the statement is to you, if there's evidence to support it, then you have debate.

I will agree though that people thrashing out random statements, on both sides of the debate, must get tedious.

So it probably is best if Libertyed is simply ignored. However, we do this in the fear that someone will be drawn in by his points, see no attempt to refute them, and thus take them as true.

I don't think Libertyed should be ignored, IF, as said before, he can support all his points with the relevant evidence.

oscarBravo

BluntGuy wrote: »

The "yes" campaign is also lucky to have the newspapers nearly universally in favour of it. That means you have the benefit of well thought out editorial pieces.

There can only be well thought out editorials (and op-eds) if there's a reasonable basis for them. On the flip side you have op-eds from Richard Greene, Patricia McKenna et al which are full of blatant falsehoods.

If there was a reasonable case to be made for a "no" vote, there would be reasonable spokepersons for it, as well as well-thought out op-ed articles. There are neither.

Zuiderzee

Berliosconi said recently it was wrong for state media to criticize the Government- this is the same type of mentality.
It was the same with the Bush administrations way of dealing with unpopular questions, reporters asking uncomfortable questions were sidelined, moved or fired.

As usual, many Yes posters here like PopeB, meglome et al seem to glory in what to me is a very disturbing development.

Freedom of the press is important, but the press is a private business.
Editorial policy is set by the owners.

Equally the overt Yes bias here is not something I am impressed with - its why I dont post here so much anymore, its my choice, like not buying the Sun or Mirror. But it is a private venture. Moderation, control, ethos and bias reflect the owner - much as politics.ie reflects the No campaign.

However, the impartiality of the state broadcaster and open debate are vital parts of our political progress.
RTE is the primary source of news and information for many people.
Sky, BBC et al will never give the same coverage or depth.

Being part of a democratic process means at times you need to listen to and debate those who dissent.
Regardless of what you think of their opinions, there needs to be debate.

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose RTE put together another "Questions & Answers" style programme prior to the second referendum

No chance, its too risky for the Government and the Yes campaign.

This is hardly surprising when Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the new EU assurances were worthless.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This is hardly surprising when Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the new EU assurances were worthless.

Do you understand, and can you explain why they are 'worthless'?

Zuiderzee

Go to RTE, use google to search their website and watch Q&A.

This thread is about fairness with the national broadcaster, equal time for both sides of the issue.
His comments are a different debate.

The point is I feel after the loss of the first vote, the Yes side do not want to take the risk of a debate or Q&A style program where someone of his caliber does not tow the line.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I hate manufactured 'balance'.
It's the sort of entitlement rubbish that leads to 'controversy' over Global Warming and Evolution. Bury it fully I say.

I think it might be a good idea to involve McDermott in a balanced open debate on the Lisbon II treaty, but maybe in your book he is a crank, after all, he disagrees with you.

BlitzKrieg

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Go to RTE, use google to search their website and watch Q&A.

http://www.rte.ie/search.html?query=Dr.+Paul+Anthony+McDermott&branch=&sort=true

hmm according to the directions you gave, the last Q+A DcDermott gave to Q+A was back in 2008

any chance of a more specific direction?

I'll keep looking anyway

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Go to RTE, use google to search their website and watch Q&A.

This thread is about fairness with the national broadcaster, equal time for both sides of the issue.
His comments are a different debate.

The point is I feel after the loss of the first vote, the Yes side do not want to take the risk of a debate or Q&A style program where someone of his caliber does not tow the line.



I think it might be a good idea to involve McDermott in a balanced open debate on the Lisbon II treaty, but maybe in your book he is a crank, after all, he disagrees with you.

I'll repeat the question, do you understand and can you explain why the guarantees are worthless?

You brought it up, after all.

Zuiderzee

My advice is that you see what McDermott had to say, for an explaination of what he meant, ask him - he's the expert.

Any chance of staying on point about balance and fairness??

PopeBuckfastXVI

You brought him, and his opinions into this discussion.

I'm disinclined to search out the programme for myself, but I suspect that I would agree with his analysis of the 'worthlessness' of the guarantee's, it's the reason why they are worthless that's important.

Perhaps you shouldn't parrot positions you don't understand, and aren't prepared to discuss, in future.

BlitzKrieg

Zuiderzee wrote: »

My advice is that you see what McDermott had to say, for an explaination of what he meant, ask him - he's the expert.

Any chance of staying on point about balance and fairness??

you misunderstand.

You said:

Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the new EU assurances were worthless.

A search of RTE website shows up that he has not been on Q&A since 2008 (novemebr to be specific) here's the section http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1117/qanda_av.html?2450381,null,230


Of course the issue here is that this is months before the assurances were even released, so how can he have said what you believe him to have said?

Not only that but I cant find a quote of him saying what you associate with him.

Zuiderzee

Its all in the blog - citizensimon.blogspot.com

McDermott on assurances when they were 'leaked'- June 15 2009
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0615/qanda_av.html?2563057,null,230

Also worth seeing McDermott on a second referendum - November 17 2008
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1117/qanda_av.html?2450381,null,230

Hope those links work for you - Realtime I'm afraid

Now can we get back to the point - i.e. equal time for opinions regarding our constitution, if that matters any more???

gnxx

At this point, I would be surprised if the government even bother putting a "NO" option on the ballot papers.

Zuiderzee

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You brought him, and his opinions into this discussion.

I'm disinclined to search out the programme for myself, but I suspect that I would agree with his analysis of the 'worthlessness' of the guarantee's, it's the reason why they are worthless that's important.

Perhaps you shouldn't parrot positions you don't understand, and aren't prepared to discuss, in future.

Well the searching is done for you - and I'm disinclined to be pulled further off topic.
But seriously, Your not from Ardrahan by any chance are you?

BlitzKrieg

Zuiderzee wrote: »

McDermott on assurances when they were 'leaked'- June 15 2009
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0615/qanda_av.html?2563057,null,230

thank you, sorry if it seemd anal, but far too often quotes are thrown around without being backed up.

He was not listed being on that epsiode, hence the RTE search didnt link to it.

again thank you.

Zuiderzee

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

He was not listed being on that epsiode, hence the RTE search didnt link to it.

Interesting RTE omission that one

K-9

gnxx wrote: »

At this point, I would be surprised if the government even bother putting a "NO" option on the ballot papers.

Maybe, but the Govt. can't do that!

There are plenty willing to vote No just on this one single point and it is allowed! LOL

PopeBuckfastXVI

OK, his point can be distilled as follows, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting:

He says the guarantees are meaningless because they are effectively 'back of the envelope' scribblings with no legal bearing, along with claiming that abortion is a non issue when compared to jobs and the economy.

To be fair to him, he is talking about the leaked draft, before the legal framework of the guarantees had been nailed down. Since then it has come to light that the guarantees will take the form of separate, but equally legally binding, international agreements to the Lisbon treaty. They will have as much legal force as the Belfast Agreement, which I think we can agree is enforceable, even if it's not rewritten into the Lisbon treaty?

I had incorrectly assumed he would be talking about the guarantees as 'worthless' as they are merely guaranteeing things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty, aren't in the Lisbon treaty, which I would agree with.

His analysis is out of date, and incorrect in light of more recent information.

Also, apologies for being less than polite earlier.

worldrepublic

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well the searching is done for you - and I'm disinclined to be pulled further off topic

Well in fairness I watched it as well and he did put a number of strong arguments forward as to the worthlessness of the guarantees.

However, I think we should concentrate on the Lisbon Treaty itself and not these so called guarantees. The fact is it is a good treaty and we need to start thinking like Europeans, with a wider perspective, and moving forward with all the issues.

Zuiderzee

Although I disagree that his comments are out of date, I think this is a separate issue and we should get back on thread - the BCI decision to over-ride protocall and give airtime on party as opposed to issue basis.

i.e. should a Doctor of Constitutional Law be given equal time as a Social Worker who happened to be a TD's daughter to discuss the Lisbon treaty itself

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's my opinion that the balance of any broadcast factual discussion should (but not be legally obliged to) reflect the balance of expert opinion in the area under discussion.

Obviously this opinion disagrees with the requirement to give 50/50 coverage on all issues.

worldrepublic

"the guarantees as 'worthless' as they are merely guaranteeing things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty"

The above statement, or comments to the same effect, appears repeatedly in the various threads. It might be worth isolating it into a single thread for future discussion. Needless to say, it (the quoted point) is misleading insofar as, when it is injected into a discussion without some expansion on the issue, the suggestion is that it is a "cut and dry" matter. The argument also exists that the guarantees have no legal value, which complicates the issue. It the various parties claim that a)the guarantees are irrelevant to the Treaty or b)that they are worthless anyway then why not just leave them out of the wider debate? It seems to be a separate and distinct debate, used by both sides to muddy the waters.

Zuiderzee

I did state earlier the assurances were a different issue.

But with the recent split from protocall by the BCI whats fair then, 40/60 - 30/70 - 20/80 ?????

Who do we listen to, or give more time to - unelected experts like McDermott or elected amatuers like Coughlan - or unelected amatuers like O Donahue or Richard Waghorn?

We have Judges telling us it is the very same treaty we rejected.

‘Since the referendum on the treaty in June of last year, the treaty itself has not changed’. Judge Frank Clarke, Chairman of the Referendum Commission in Irish Times. July 30th.

We have assurances - of debated legal value - some subject to accession treaties that may be rejected - for example in the event of Turkey attempting to join.

This is a very complex decision, a very very complex body of law.

The constitution, the contract between the elected and the electorate, and referenda on that contract are the cornerstone of our democracy.

Just because the result is not to your liking, or the Governments liking does not give anyone the right to suppress debate and dissent.
Reduction or restriction on airtime by the states broadcaster is supresson of debate.

Never in the history of the state has an attempted change on - according to legal experts - has the same question been pushed through in such a short time.

Never in the history of the state has opposition to a referendum issue being stifled.

I dont like many of our laws on abortion, gay marriage, blasphemy, the trinity being called upon in the constitution etc. but I accept the collective decision. The Government does not.

We either have a free, fair, open and equal debate about this question and democracy or we dont. In my opinion its that simple.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We have assurances - of debated legal value - some subject to accession treaties that may be rejected - for example in the event of Turkey attempting to join.

Out of curiosity, which of the guarantees worries you the most, if it turned out they weren't legally binding? Abortion? Conscription?

FutureTaoiseach

The guarantees are as reassuring as "Peace in our Time". :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The guarantees are as reassuring as "Peace in our Time". :rolleyes:

OK, which one are you the most worried about?

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

OK, which one are you the most worried about?

The taxation guarantee makes no mention of CCCTB/Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is Commissioner Laslo Kovacs pet project, for which he claimed the support of 2-thirds of member states. He has stated publicly he intends using Enhanced Cooperation to try to get around our veto. CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions. The workers' rights guarantee is not legally-binding, and this has been acknowledged even by the IIEA on their website.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The taxation guarantee makes no mention of CCCTB/Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is Commissioner Laslo Kovacs pet project, for which he claimed the support of 2-thirds of member states. He has stated publicly he intends using Enhanced Cooperation to try to get around our veto. CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions. The workers' rights guarantee is not legally-binding, and this has been acknowledged even by the IIEA on their website.

If the guarantee is not legally binding, why do you care what it says or doesn't say about CCCTB?

I'll ask again, if it turned out that the guarantees, which are claimed to be legally binding, in fact, aren't, which one worries you the most?

You have an admirable ability to answer questions that weren't asked, by the way.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If the guarantee is not legally binding, why do you care what it says or doesn't say about CCCTB?

I'll ask again, if it turned out that the guarantees, which are claimed to be legally binding, in fact, aren't, which one worries you the most?

The taxation guarantee is in the Council decision, so it may be legally-binding unless the ECJ rules it violates the Treaties in which case it would be annulled. Tbh, my reasons for voting no largely revolve around the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I believe will increase ECJ interference in our affairs.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions.

Could, or will?

The moon could fall out of the sky, I guess...

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The taxation guarantee is in the Council decision, so it may be legally-binding unless the ECJ rules it violates the Treaties in which case it would be annulled. Tbh, my reasons for voting no largely revolve around the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I believe will increase ECJ interference in our affairs.

So why do you mention the legal status of the guarantees, is it merely, as I suspect, to muddy the waters, and sow fear and uncertainty?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The taxation guarantee makes no mention of CCCTB/Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is Commissioner Laslo Kovacs pet project, for which he claimed the support of 2-thirds of member states. He has stated publicly he intends using Enhanced Cooperation to try to get around our veto. CCCTB could mean the Irish tax rates remain the same, but the taxes get paid to the destination countries of sale, costing the Exchequer billions. The workers' rights guarantee is not legally-binding, and this has been acknowledged even by the IIEA on their website.

It's not an issue that is relevant to Lisbon:

SECTION B: TAXATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

From the guarantees - and it means that your scenario above is ruled out. What is possible in respect of taxation after Lisbon is exactly the same as before Lisbon.

correctively,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Can we do the assurances thing on a different thread ?

gnxx

It is probably safe to assume that the BCI revised their guidelines under pressure from the govt.

This could blow-up in the governments face. If the BCI decision is subject to a court action, a general view will be that the government are attempting to censor the no camp and "have something to hide".

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Can we do the assurances thing on a different thread ?

I've started a thread on the guarantees, but I don't see any reason not to point out where the guarantees directly refute arguments being put forward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

gnxx wrote: »

It is probably safe to assume that the BCI revised their guidelines under pressure from the govt.

This could blow-up in the governments face. If the BCI decision is subject to a court action, a general view will be that the government are attempting to censor the no camp and "have something to hide".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? To assume the Govt put pressure on BCI (maybe using an bord snip) is not something the public should accept.

The BCI are meant to be an independent statutory organisation responsible for a number of key areas of activity with regard to television and radio services in Ireland.

I understand a legal challenge to the decisio will not be accepted, certainly not by October 2nd.

To say that both sides will get fair and proportional airtime is very subjective.
Basing airtime on, for example, political party numbers means the Government will always have the upperhand.

Equal airtime is the only means of fair balance in debate.

It seems that debate is certainly being curtailed if not supressed.

Censorship by stealth of political debate seems is the way to go about it.

Reminds me of a Russian cartoonist - I am afraid I cannot recall the name, but he may have worked for Krokodill.
It was an interesting interview.
Under the Soviet system, censorship was constant.
Once he was asked to draw a cartoon critical of Gorbachov - not for publication, but so the Soviets could show the US they alowed dissent in the new Russia.
Then came Yeltsin, and for a few years he had freedom.
After that was what he called the regulator censor.
A cartoon critical of Putin et al was followed by a visit from Health and Safety, the Firewarden, the Taxman, the Building inspector - magazines and papers were shut down for weeks on end.
Critiscism soon stopped, not through force, but through various state aparatus enforcing Government regulations, such as cutbacks perhaps.

koHd

On the original topic; both sides should always get equal airtime on rte (publicly funded station) in any kind of national vote.

Or in the case of this treaty, as mentioned in an earlier post, educational programmes on the treaty should be aired with the straight forward information on the treaty. Not debates with personal opinions and interpretations of the treaty.

Surely we can be given enough credit to break down the treaty's implications ourselves' when provided with the full unbiased document.

I'm not fully clued up myself on the whole thing. And would appreciate such an informative program without personal interpretations and opinions involved.

Because reading this thread it seems there are a lot of interpretations that are being put out as fact and are in some cases being taken as fact by the general public.

I'm neither a yes or no at this stage. So I'm aiming that at no particular side, as both sides seem to have done it.

oscarBravo

koHd wrote: »

On the original topic; both sides should always get equal airtime on rte (publicly funded station) in any kind of national vote.

Always?

What about the referendum on children's rights, should that ever happen. Should those opposed to children having rights be given equal airtime?

Zuiderzee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Always?

What about the referendum on children's rights, should that ever happen. Should those opposed to children having rights be given equal airtime?

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers'
Why not other potential issues, such as the removal of the Trinity and God or blasphemy references in the Constitution.
An emotive subject will always ellicit an emotional response.

I suppose some will say that those who oppose all aspects of a childrens rights referendum are all child abusers, but what do you mean by childrens rights?

Parents are custodians and caretakers as well, and they have certain duties.
Those duties include the exercise of control for a childs benefit and development.

Look at it this way, we already have debated a right to life for unborn children, that was debated in several abortion referenda.

Should children have a right to travel under any circumstances, despite their parents wishes? A good example is teenage year old girls or boys being picked up on the internet and running away to meet the "love of their life" Children can be naive and immature, and sadly there are those who would take advantage of this, parents exercise control to protect them from this.

We have laws in place for assault, should a smack on the bum from a parent qualify as abuse? Should parents have the right to exercise reasonable chastisment? I think yes.
Banning this will not stop child abusers and beaters.

Should children have a right to privacy or should reasonable parents keep an eye on what they download from the internet - never mind porn and the objectification of sex, children do not have much life experience and many are impressionable, so racist, sectarian or extremist websites are not in their best interest, or societies for that matter.
Should kids because of a right to privacy be able to access websites promoting anorexia or scuicide?

Should children have a right to association or freedom of religion, Scientology could sue parents for trying to stop their kids attending their centres.

All of these are reasonable valid points that would need to be addressed in a future debate on childrens rights.

Debate in our public broadcasting system would not be a charter for child abusers. We have laws to fight the abuse of children, these would be the basis of any bill of rights for children.

Like it or not, win or lose, debate is a neccessary part of our system.

ei.sdraob

Zuiderzee wrote: »

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers'
Why not other potential issues, such as the removal of the Trinity and God or blasphemy references in the Constitution.
An emotive subject will always ellicit an emotional response.

I suppose some will say that those who oppose all aspects of a childrens rights referendum are all child abusers, but what do you mean by childrens rights?

Parents are custodians and caretakers as well, and they have certain duties.
Those duties include the exercise of control for a childs benefit and development.

Look at it this way, we already have debated a right to life for unborn children, that was debated in several abortion referenda.

Should children have a right to travel under any circumstances, despite their parents wishes? A good example is teenage year old girls or boys being picked up on the internet and running away to meet the "love of their life" Children can be naive and immature, and sadly there are those who would take advantage of this, parents exercise control to protect them from this.

We have laws in place for assault, should a smack on the bum from a parent qualify as abuse? Should parents have the right to exercise reasonable chastisment? I think yes.
Banning this will not stop child abusers and beaters.

Should children have a right to privacy or should reasonable parents keep an eye on what they download from the internet - never mind porn and the objectification of sex, children do not have much life experience and many are impressionable, so racist, sectarian or extremist websites are not in their best interest, or societies for that matter.
Should kids because of a right to privacy be able to access websites promoting anorexia or scuicide?

Should children have a right to association or freedom of religion, Scientology could sue parents for trying to stop their kids attending their centres.

All of these are reasonable valid points that would need to be addressed in a future debate on childrens rights.

Debate in our public broadcasting system would not be a charter for child abusers. We have laws to fight the abuse of children, these would be the basis of any bill of rights for children.

Like it or not, win or lose, debate is a neccessary part of our system.

Zz

are they being prevented from going on air?

no?! hence no ones freedom of speech is being infringed on

so whats the problem :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers'
Why not other potential issues, such as the removal of the Trinity and God or blasphemy references in the Constitution.
An emotive subject will always ellicit an emotional response.

I suppose some will say that those who oppose all aspects of a childrens rights referendum are all child abusers, but what do you mean by childrens rights?

Parents are custodians and caretakers as well, and they have certain duties.
Those duties include the exercise of control for a childs benefit and development.

Look at it this way, we already have debated a right to life for unborn children, that was debated in several abortion referenda.

Should children have a right to travel under any circumstances, despite their parents wishes? A good example is teenage year old girls or boys being picked up on the internet and running away to meet the "love of their life" Children can be naive and immature, and sadly there are those who would take advantage of this, parents exercise control to protect them from this.

We have laws in place for assault, should a smack on the bum from a parent qualify as abuse? Should parents have the right to exercise reasonable chastisment? I think yes.
Banning this will not stop child abusers and beaters.

Should children have a right to privacy or should reasonable parents keep an eye on what they download from the internet - never mind porn and the objectification of sex, children do not have much life experience and many are impressionable, so racist, sectarian or extremist websites are not in their best interest, or societies for that matter.
Should kids because of a right to privacy be able to access websites promoting anorexia or scuicide?

Should children have a right to association or freedom of religion, Scientology could sue parents for trying to stop their kids attending their centres.

All of these are reasonable valid points that would need to be addressed in a future debate on childrens rights.

Debate in our public broadcasting system would not be a charter for child abusers. We have laws to fight the abuse of children, these would be the basis of any bill of rights for children.

Like it or not, win or lose, debate is a neccessary part of our system.

Well, there was a complete evasion!

amused,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

'Ah, jasus, tink of de childers' ...

You might want to read the text of the proposed amendment, and come back to me with a more constructive reply.

worldrepublic

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, there was a complete evasion!

amused,
Scofflaw

I don't consider the matter of child-abuse to be in any way "amusing".