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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?
Comments
-
No, we're simply pointing out that the appeal to authority invoked by "Yes" voters is invalid, as the issue is one about the need to contain authority.Boulevardier wrote: »I think that prejudice against social workers is being deliberately used by no-voters to turn this into a "parents vs social workers" referendum.
Should I claim equal impatience? I've yet to come across a "Yes" voter on these threads with the capacity to explain what problem they think this amendment solves.Boulevardier wrote: »I am getting a bit impatient with people who are in effect calling for the constitution to be kept as it is, in spite of the definite views of the overwhelming majority of those involved with the welfare of children, who support this amendment.
Whether you like it or not (and it seems that's a "not"), the reasons put forward by your "overwhelming majority" fall apart under scrutiny. That might make you feel impatient. It should actually make you worried enough to think again.0 -
Ozymandius2011 wrote: »The problem now is the lofty, aspirational and vague terminology in Paragraph 1 about the "imprescriptible rights" of "all children". I won't vote to insert vague language into the Constitution only for unelected judges to decide what it means. The remaining paragraphs are fairly detailed so I would vote for them but Paragraph 1 is unacceptable. It will be invoked in asylum-cases and to stop parents disciplining unruly, anti-social teenagers.
As opposed to the current
"In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."
?0 -
Different context. The existing wording frames it in the context of the removal of a child from their parents, whereas the new wording does not.Wexfordian wrote: »As opposed to the current
"In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."
?0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »I think that prejudice against social workers is being deliberately used by no-voters to turn this into a "parents vs social workers" referendum.
The vast majority of social workers are professional and committed. I have no problem with them being given the powers they have said they need to help children in distress.
I am getting a bit impatient with people who are in effect calling for the constitution to be kept as it is, in spite of the definite views of the overwhelming majority of those involved with the welfare of children, who support this amendment.
If the vast majority of social workers are professional and committed, why is the "YES" side relying on cases where the Social Workers failed in their duty, namely the Baby Ann case and the Roscommon Incest case?
If the vast majority of social workers are professional and committed, why can't we be given cases where they could not do their job specifically because of the Constitution?0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »No, we're simply pointing out that the appeal to authority invoked by "Yes" voters is invalid, as the issue is one about the need to contain authority.Should I claim equal impatience? I've yet to come across a "Yes" voter on these threads with the capacity to explain what problem they think this amendment solves.
Whether you like it or not (and it seems that's a "not"), the reasons put forward by your "overwhelming majority" fall apart under scrutiny. That might make you feel impatient. It should actually make you worried enough to think again.
The Yes side have based everything on appeals to authority - Barnardos are for it - and appeals to emotion - wayne dignam's adoption story.
No mention of Daniel McAnaspie http://www.campaignforchildren.ie/theissues/casestudies/daniel-mcanaspie-19932010/ or Tracey Fay http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0621/ireland/tracey-fay-concerns-ignored-198188.html .
In both of these cases where the State was 'parent' they died. Consequently they will never appear at the launch of a yes campaign for a political party.
Once again I would direct you to http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey . It contains the only discussion of what the amendment could entail, and convinced me to vote no.0 -
The Yes side have based everything on appeals to authority - Barnardos are for it - and appeals to emotion - wayne dignam's adoption story.
No mention of Daniel McAnaspie http://www.campaignforchildren.ie/theissues/casestudies/daniel-mcanaspie-19932010/ or Tracey Fay http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0621/ireland/tracey-fay-concerns-ignored-198188.html .
In both of these cases where the State was 'parent' they died. Consequently they will never appear at the launch of a yes campaign for a political party.
Once again I would direct you to http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey . It contains the only discussion of what the amendment could entail, and convinced me to vote no.
Well your letting the Irish cycle of doing nothing in the face of abuse continue based on a frankly weak arguement.0 -
Waving that aside as merely an appeal to authority is just a way of avoiding an in-depth discussion on the topic.The Yes side have based everything on appeals to authority - Barnardos are for it...
I've been told there is no reason to amend the constitution in this way. In response, I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required. That question was met with the online equivalent of a shrug and a "dunno", which doesn't exactly suggest an openness to understanding where the other side is coming from.
The only discussion?Once again I would direct you to http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey . It contains the only discussion of what the amendment could entail...
Seriously?!0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Well your letting the Irish cycle of doing nothing in the face of abuse continue based on a frankly weak arguement.
Both of these unfortunate children were in the 'care' of the HSE. Art. 42.5 gave the State the authority to intervene and take these children into care.
The new amendment would not have brought about a different situation in these 2 cases - state intervention.
The problem that children like these 2 face today is not any constitution imperdiment - it is a state that engages in rhetoric but does do anything to provide adequate care for children who need it.
Just as with the Industrial schools the State today takes the unfortunate children and hands them over to the HSE, which has taken over the role of the religious institution when it comes to abuse such as that suffered by Daniel and Tracey.
All the referendum will do is increase the number of unfortunate children who are ordered into state care by the courts.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Waving that aside as merely an appeal to authority is just a way of avoiding an in-depth discussion on the topic.
I've been told there is no reason to amend the constitution in this way. In response, I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required. That question was met with the online equivalent of a shrug and a "dunno", which doesn't exactly suggest an openness to understanding where the other side is coming from. The only discussion?
Seriously?!
Yes the only serious discussion of the possible unintended consequences of the wording.
Barnardos have a conflict of interest in this matter. Currently 65% of its funding comes from the state - a good proportion of it from is guardian ad litem work. This revenue will increase if the amendment is passed.
As the document http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal points out proposed Art 42A.1 changes everything. Up to this Art. 42.5 allowed the state to intervene, but only following a failure by the parents in their duty of care for 'physical or moral reasons. If A then B.
With a new 42A.1 there is no if A then B. There is only B when it comes to 42A.1 - so the State can then get involved in families that are intact and not dysfunctional (i.e not exceptional cases) by becoming the arbitrator between parents and children in family disputes in in camera courts.0 -
With a new 42A.1 there is no if A then B. There is only B when it comes to 42A.1 - so the State can then get involved in families that are intact and not dysfunctional (i.e not exceptional cases)...
This would appear to directly contradict your assertion.42A 2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »This would appear to directly contradict your assertion.
You need to look at 42A.1 and Articles 12 to 17 of the UN Convention on Children's Rights.
Better still read the Legal Analysis and you will understand the point - if there is a conflict between parents and (teenage) children then this may end up being adjudicated upon by a judge in an in camera court.
This is the fundamental problem - it will no longer be 'exceptional' cases. It will be 'best interests of the child' conflict cases in intact and functioning families. That is why people should be very concerned.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal0 -
That's a restatement of the sentiment already expressed in the existing Article 42.5. There's nothing radical or new there.You need to look at 42A.1...
OK, let's look at those:...and Articles 12 to 17 of the UN Convention on Children's Rights.
12: A child gets to have an input into legal proceedings concerning him or her.
13: A child has freedom of expression.
14: A child has freedom of conscience.
15: A child has freedom of association.
16: A child has a right to privacy.
17: A child has a right to freely access information.
I'm not getting how these are such dreadful things that our children need to be protected from them.
You can keep repeating that, but that won't remove the language from the proposed amendment that explicitly states that only in exceptional cases will the state intervene.This is the fundamental problem - it will no longer be 'exceptional' cases.
Basically what you're saying is that there's a possible interpretation of 42A.1 that could possibly mean that the state will routinely interfere in families, and that the explicit statement to the contrary in 42A.2.1 somehow doesn't carry any weight.
I'm not finding that a convincing argument, I'm afraid.0 -
Nope, just requiring that the proposal be related to the solution of some problem. A perfectly reasonable position.steddyeddy wrote: »Well your letting the Irish cycle of doing nothing in the face of abuse continue based on a frankly weak arguement.
Nope, it is an accurate description of what it is.oscarBravo wrote: »Waving that aside as merely an appeal to authority is just a way of avoiding an in-depth discussion on the topic.
This is a distortion of the situation; what you’ve been invited to do is to display some understanding of what the alleged problem is that this amendment solves. The arguments advanced by this coalition of groups have already been exposed as meaningless, earlier on this thread.oscarBravo wrote: »I've been told there is no reason to amend the constitution in this way. In response, I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required. That question was met with the online equivalent of a shrug and a "dunno", which doesn't exactly suggest an openness to understanding where the other side is coming from.
Sort of illustrates the problem of accepting the demands for a group of service providers to be exempted from liability for their mistakes.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »http://www.yesforchildren.ie/getinformed/voteyes.html
1. It will provide the highest level of legal protection to vulnerable children and their families.
This point is frequently justified by claiming the constitution requires that it be proven that married parents have "failed" before the State can intervene. But, actually, the Courts do overrule Jehovah's Witnesses to allow transfusions for their children, while accepting that the same parents are diligent and are not failing.
2. It will allow the almost 2000 [edit:marital] children trapped in long term state care to be adopted and given a second chance at having a loving stable family.
Adoption of non-family members is quite rare nowadays, so this reason is a complete red herring - the overwelming majority of non-marital children are not adopted either. I'd expect the Children's Rights Alliance would be composed of people who jolly well know this, making this argument particularly cynical and manipulative.
3. This referendum is a statement of intent - it says who we are as a country and how we value children - for too long children have been seen and not heard and their welfare ignored.
Firstly, the Constitution is not an advertising hoarding and should not be used as such. Secondly, the historical problem had nothing to do with Constitutional failings blocking State intervention. The wide-scale abuse of children in State-funded institutions was, lets recall, about the abuse of children already in State care.
4. This referendum will ensure the best interest of children is the primary concern in judicial decisions.
The cases normally cited on this point (I don't know if the CRA use them - but others certainly have) are the PKU case and the Baby Ann case. The PKU case requires doctors to obtain consent from rational parents when administering routine medical treatment to children. That strikes me as a necessary check in the system. Doctors cannot just force whatever treatment they like on adults; there has to be some equivalent for children, and the parents (if rational, as they are in the overwhelming majority of cases) seem an obvious choice. As per Jehovah's Witness, it's already clear that even rational, caring parents can be overruled if they make gonzo decisions.
Baby Ann required the return of a two year old child, put up for adoption, to her natural parents. It would strike me as grotesque if the State refused the return of a child to her natural parents; picture yourself explaining to that same child, twenty years later, that she could have been raised by her real parents.0 -
The real problem as I see it, is that this referendum is not about the rights of a child, it's about the rights of the state and how much control it is entitled to wrest from parents.
There is in my opinion no requirement for the referendum, it's never been legal to physically, sexually or through neglect abuse a child.
We have a plethora of laws on the statute books that we typically never bother enforcing and if we actually enforced them and were determined fund propper care systems for children (the HSE and it's 9-5 Monday to Friday care services are a joke), 99% of the problems faced by children would dissapear overnight.
I'm pretty sure that if the referendum is passed that not a jot will change on the ground for vunerable at risk children, but, you know, a bunch of self satisfied Laborites will get to feel good about themselves.
Nail on the head for me. Agree 100% So much legislation is just politicians trying to look like they're doing something. Meanwhile we don't enforce half the laws that are actually there.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
2. It will allow the almost 2000 [edit:marital] children trapped in long term state care to be adopted and given a second chance at having a loving stable family.
There are 6000 children in care - 2000 with married parents, so therefore 4000 with unmarried parents.
According to Adoption Board figures 16 were adopted out of long term foster care - unmarried parents
(6/20)*16 is equal to 5 that could possible be adopted from married parents.
Big difference between the 2000 claim and the reality of 5. Childern's Rights can not be believed.
Parents who adopt want young babies. 90% of children in care are over 12 years old.0 -
And that's just a repetition of the waving away. I get that it's easier to pretend that there are no arguments in favour of a proposal that you oppose than to engage those arguments, but I don't find that pretence convincing.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Nope, it is an accurate description of what it is.
Well, no. Some of the arguments put forward have been exposed as ones you disagree with, and I (for one) have disagreed with much of the basis on which you've disagreed with them.This is a distortion of the situation; what you’ve been invited to do is to display some understanding of what the alleged problem is that this amendment solves. The arguments advanced by this coalition of groups have already been exposed as meaningless, earlier on this thread.
If you want to conflate "I disagree with this" and "this is meaningless", feel free, but don't expect me to join in.0 -
This is quite a strange comment. I have engaged with the CRA arguments, and shown how they are deficient. The deficiencies are not just matters of opinion. In the case of their second proposition, the deficiency is even quantifiable - as ciarafem has done for us.oscarBravo wrote: »And that's just a repetition of the waving away. I get that it's easier to pretend that there are no arguments in favour of a proposal that you oppose than to engage those arguments, but I don't find that pretence convincing.
You are actually the one who refuses to engage with the substance of the matter; you are actually the one "waving away", as you put it, through your refusal to engage with any issues. All you say is that you are sure that folk like Barnardos must have some point.
And that's just not good enough.
Not waving but drowning.oscarBravo wrote: »If you want to conflate "I disagree with this" and "this is meaningless", feel free, but don't expect me to join in.0 -
Actually, I used what could be (and has been) described as an argument from authority to point out that it's not a convincing argument to claim that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to amend the constitution when a hundred-odd organisations who are involved, to a greater or lesser extent, with the welfare of children say that there is.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »All you say is that you are sure that folk like Barnardos must have some point.
There generally needs to be a pretty convincing argument to go against an overwhelming consensus. Your argument is, in essence, that another consensus was wrong and therefore no consensus can ever be trusted again, and as such the reason why there's such a strong consensus in this case doesn't even bear considering.0 -
16: A child has a right to privacy.
I guess the point is that if you have many kids and not every kid has own room you, as a parent violate his right and your child can be taken from you as soon as social worker will find out about it ...17: A child has a right to freely access information.
If you don't let your child to watch adult movies - you violate his rights and so on ...oscarBravo wrote: »That's a restatement of the sentiment already expressed in the existing Article 42.5. There's nothing radical or new there. OK, let's look at those:
12: A child gets to have an input into legal proceedings concerning him or her.
13: A child has freedom of expression.
14: A child has freedom of conscience.
15: A child has freedom of association.
16: A child has a right to privacy.
17: A child has a right to freely access information.
I'm not getting how these are such dreadful things that our children need to be protected from them. ......................0 -
Advertisement
-
Really?I guess the point is that if you have many kids and not every kid has own room you, as a parent violate his right and your child can be taken from you as soon as social worker will find out about it ...
You think the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wants every child who shares a bedroom to be taken into state care?
...and while in state care, they will be fed a steady diet of hardcore porn.If you don't let your child to watch adult movies - you violate his rights and so on ...
Are we running a competition for the craziest possible interpretation of the CRC, or what?0 -
A new campaign-group of secular humanists (Two Rights First) has called for a no vote, arguing the increased powers for the State are excessive. They also argue that the State cannot be trusted with more powers given their failure to separate religion from the education system or provide free education.0
-
Its not often im on the same side as the Humanists but how could anyone vote for the Irish state to protect children.The Irish state is completely incapable of doing anything.Surely people must see that by entrusting vulnerable children to a state body is akin to the Jews trusting NazisOzymandius2011 wrote: »A new campaign-group of secular humanists (Two Rights First) has called for a no vote, arguing the increased powers for the State are excessive. They also argue that the State cannot be trusted with more powers given their failure to separate religion from the education system or provide free education.0 -
Now you're just being silly. Can I suggest that the fact of a hundred-odd organisations asserting support for a Yes vote is meaningless in isolation. The point being pursued is what reason they (or you) advance as the grounds for their assertion of support.oscarBravo wrote: »Actually, I used what could be (and has been) described as an argument from authority to point out that it's not a convincing argument to claim that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to amend the constitution when a hundred-odd organisations who are involved, to a greater or lesser extent, with the welfare of children say that there is.
You're not a Hunter S. Thompson fan, obviously.oscarBravo wrote: »There generally needs to be a pretty convincing argument to go against an overwhelming consensus.
I hate to go all David Hume on your ass, but it is absolutely the case that if we know that a consensus can be wrong - if we even know that a consensus can actually create a false sense of confidence in a wrong position - then, certainly, simply asserting "there's a consensus" is meaningless in isolation. We have to ask "consensus about what", and remind ourselves of the near consensus over the bank guarantee, to say nothing of the consensus over the financial stability of our banks (back when Morgan Kelly was just some oddball ranting about a property bubble, whatever that is. Did no-one ever tell him that rent is dead money?)oscarBravo wrote: »Your argument is, in essence, that another consensus was wrong and therefore no consensus can ever be trusted again, and as such the reason why there's such a strong consensus in this case doesn't even bear considering.
But, bear in mind, I'm such a helpful soul that I've set out what's wrong with the CRA's soundbite argument for a Yes vote. However, you are still asserting this "consensus" to have some currency, despite their soundbites being pure bunk.0 -
You can suggest that to your heart's content, but you'd be wrong.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Can I suggest that the fact of a hundred-odd organisations asserting support for a Yes vote is meaningless in isolation.
Nobody has suggested that the existence of such a consensus is a reason in and of itself to vote in favour of the amendment. That doesn't make the consensus meaningless; it still means that all those organisations are agreed on the need to amend the constitution. That means, in turn, that every single one of those organisations is either right about there being good reason to amend the constitution, or they are all wrong about that.
I'll reiterate the point, even though it really ought to be self-evident: you have repeatedly claimed that there are absolutely no reasons whatsoever that could possibly justify voting in favour of this amendment. It has been suggested that a consensus of over a hundred organisations actively involved in this field ought to at the very least give pause to anyone making such a claim. I'll give you this: your convictions are admirable, because you continue to claim that pretty much every organisation involved in child welfare in this country is wrong, and that you're right, and that's the end of the argument.
Have you bothered to try to find out what those reasons are? or are you still content to have no idea what their motivation is?The point being pursued is what reason they (or you) advance as the grounds for their assertion of support.
Iconoclasm is fine as far as it goes, but if I find myself opposed to a consensus (and I frequently do) I tend to thoroughly evaluate the position of that consensus to try to understand why it differs from my own views - as opposed to cherry-picking some soundbites and dismissing them with some hand-waving.You're not a Hunter S. Thompson fan, obviously.
You forgot "...and why?" But you've made up your mind that over a hundred organisations are wrong without troubling yourself to find out how they arrived at their conclusions, so I guess that's not so important to you.I hate to go all David Hume on your ass, but it is absolutely the case that if we know that a consensus can be wrong - if we even know that a consensus can actually create a false sense of confidence in a wrong position - then, certainly, simply asserting "there's a consensus" is meaningless in isolation. We have to ask "consensus about what"...
You've made some arguments (that I haven't found particularly convincing, and have said as much already) against a handful of soundbites. On that basis, and that basis alone, you dismiss the consensus of over 100 organisations as "bunk" and devoid of currency, and continue to claim that nobody has advanced a single valid reason to vote in favour of the amendment.But, bear in mind, I'm such a helpful soul that I've set out what's wrong with the CRA's soundbite argument for a Yes vote. However, you are still asserting this "consensus" to have some currency, despite their soundbites being pure bunk.0 -
Well, yes, you have and you've done exactly that again. You have not made any comment whatsoever with respect to what problem(s) this amendment solves. Your entire argument is simply that one hundred organisations cannot be wrong.oscarBravo wrote: »Nobody has suggested that the existence of such a consensus is a reason in and of itself to vote in favour of the amendment.
Your comment is surreal. I've actually linked the post where I refute the headline issues that the CRA choose to put forward.oscarBravo wrote: »Have you bothered to try to find out what those reasons are? or are you still content to have no idea what their motivation is?
Erm, I've specifically refuted the points that the CRA have chosen - are you under the impression that I provided the content for their website?oscarBravo wrote: »as opposed to cherry-picking some soundbites and dismissing them with some hand-waving.
Seriously, it is very hard to make sense of what you think you are achieving by reposting your evasive responses.0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven't made that argument. Not once. You've decided that that's what I mean, and with characteristic humility it hasn't occurred to you that you could be wrong about it.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Well, yes, you have and you've done exactly that again. You have not made any comment whatsoever with respect to what problem(s) this amendment solves. Your entire argument is simply that one hundred organisations cannot be wrong.
And I linked the post where you said you had no idea what their motivation is. So, which is it?Your comment is surreal. I've actually linked the post where I refute the headline issues that the CRA choose to put forward.
You've argued unconvincingly with some soundbites, which you seem to mistake for dismantling their entire argument.Erm, I've specifically refuted the points that the CRA have chosen - are you under the impression that I provided the content for their website?
That's probably because you've decided that I'm arguing in favour of this referendum and you've mentally framed all my replies to fit in with that pre-conceived idea.Seriously, it is very hard to make sense of what you think you are achieving by reposting your evasive responses.
That's the problem with being so utterly certain of something: you lose perspective, and you fail to consider any possibilities other than those of which you've already convinced yourself.0 -
I have been against this Constitutional Amendment for quite some time now, partly because of my own personal experiences in the Family Law Courts and I have been posting over the last few days on two Facebook pages, Barnardos and Yes for Children
However, I have now been banned twice from both pages and my comments removed. I think it might be down to my referral to the question What are BARNARDOS trying to hide?.
I also put them under a bit of pressure to define the "Best Interest" principle, referring to the comments by the Freedom of Information Commissioner who said in her decision NMCK and the HSE that "I note that the term "best interests" is not defined or clarified in FOI or other legislation".
Basically, the best interests of the child will depend on the personal opinion of the expert witness who writes the report for the Court. The inconsistency this will lead to is unquantifiable. I think John Waters puts it better HEREThe mainspring of the new wording in this connection is the concept of “the best interests of the child” (BIC), which appears twice in the proposed new Article 42A. Article 42A.2.2 provides for the use of what practitioners call the “BIC test” in the adoption of children whose parents are deemed to have “failed” in their parental duties. Article 42A.4.1 provides for the use of this test in childcare proceedings brought by the State or in civil family law proceedings. This section provides also that the best interests of the child should be “the paramount consideration”, which suggests that the “BIC test” will override all existing constitutional provisions and jurisprudence.
The test is already in widespread use in family law, but nobody knows what its values are. It makes of parenting a pseudo-science, by the opaque principles of which dubiously qualified “experts” are permitted to put parents on trial in secret courts. To have any chance of defending themselves, parents must respond in the language and logic of the “experts”, whose interest in and concern for children is deemed by the system to be greater than any mere parent can aspire to.
Occasional published judgments reveal no consistent interpretation, suggesting that the test is a matter for the judge on the day. In the UK, for example, the “BIC test” is used to justify the forced adoption of children in a fashion that, as things stand, most Irish people would consider unthinkable and barbaric.
By virtue of being elevated to the “paramount consideration”, the “BIC test” opens a door in the Constitution to a potential for arbitrariness that should frighten any sensible, sentient human being.
He can also be heard explaining the Best Interest principle HERE.0 -
I apologise profusely for assuming the content of your posts bore some relationship to your views.oscarBravo wrote: »I haven't made that argument. Not once. You've decided that that's what I mean, and with characteristic humility it hasn't occurred to you that you could be wrong about it.
Oh, if you're voting against it, that's grand. Just another couple of million more voters to work through, and we'll have it sunk.oscarBravo wrote: »That's probably because you've decided that I'm arguing in favour of this referendum and you've mentally framed all my replies to fit in with that pre-conceived idea.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required.
Firstly, as has already been pointed out, some of the organisations you mention are either not disinterested or hopelessly compromised. Barnardos with its guardian ad litem service stands to see its revenue greatly increased by the amendment. The ISPCC has not been and shows no signs of being willing to acknowledge properly its historical role in having large numbers of children committed to industrial schools on spurious grounds. If we won't accept our past mistakes, how can we learn from them?
Secondly, I'd query how representative many of these statements of support are. For example, the National Executive of Scouting Ireland has issued a statement supporting the amendment. I'm a scout leader. I'm not aware of any effort on the part of the executive to consult local scout leaders, still less scouts themselves, before issuing this statement. They certainly don't speak for me.0 -
That is the point ... the one who has power (or social worker who has only basic education) will interpreter the law as they want ... otherwise they would clarify each point in the law ... If I track my child location with GPS, I am violate his/her privacy ? Or am I just love the child too much? This law is complete madness !!! This is not a law - this is the way to blackmail us, parents, because every one of us will violate this law (depending on how to interpret it).
You will lose your child in the same day for violation any of the law points ...
You are discussing this law not even knowing what do they hide behind well known words ...oscarBravo wrote: »Really?
You think the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wants every child who shares a bedroom to be taken into state care? ...and while in state care, they will be fed a steady diet of hardcore porn.
Are we running a competition for the craziest possible interpretation of the CRC, or what?0 -
Advertisement
-
We are being asked to empower the very judiciary that gave us that ruling this week letting a rapist off prison if he pays €15,000 to his child victim.0
-
Ozymandius2011 wrote: »We are being asked to empower the very judiciary that gave us that ruling this week letting a rapist off prison if he pays €15,000 to his child victim.
Quite right - see pages 3 and 4 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-ProposalThen, faced with these two sets of opposing testimonies by experts who are not the parents of the child, the judge, who is neither a parent nor an expert in childcare would make the final call.0 -
They do. Your sarcasm betrays the fact that you are still clinging to your pre-conceived idea, even after I've pointed out the possibility that it might be wrong.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I apologise profusely for assuming the content of your posts bore some relationship to your views.
Accepting the possibility that your pre-conceived ideas could ever be wrong doesn't seem to be something that occurs to you.
I didn't say I was voting against it. I also didn't say I was voting for it; nor - despite your wild leap to a conclusion, to which you will now tenaciously cling - have I advocated in favour of such a vote.Oh, if you're voting against it, that's grand. Just another couple of million more voters to work through, and we'll have it sunk.0 -
Well, you've said one thing that's true. It's not a law; it's a proposed constitutional amendment. It sets the framework within which laws are made.This is not a law...
If you've got a suggestion for a different judiciary we should empower, I'm all ears.Ozymandius2011 wrote: »We are being asked to empower the very judiciary that gave us that ruling this week letting a rapist off prison if he pays €15,000 to his child victim.0 -
I don't want to increase their power at all.oscarBravo wrote: »Well, you've said one thing that's true. It's not a law; it's a proposed constitutional amendment. It sets the framework within which laws are made.
If you've got a suggestion for a different judiciary we should empower, I'm all ears.0 -
OK, 10 or 11 pages in, and I've not read one single argument explaining why this constitutional amendment is actually required.
That alone is enough to vote no.
The fact that it would empower the second most incompetent and dangerous civil servants in the state (after Dept of Finance experts), ie social workers, is an extremely good reason to vote no in a positive manner.
The campaign for yes seems to be a classic 'Vote yes for love and fluffy bunnies' campaign, in which some downright disturbing legislation is deliberately and cynically conflated with pretty images of smiling kids.
So, after reading this thread with great interest, and learning quite a bit, I now have three reasons to vote no, and none to vote yes, specifically:
1. A dishonest Yes campaign. (Negative reason to vote No - referendum is related to dishonesty.)
2. The fact that it would give greater powers to social workers (very positive reason to vote No - amendment would have serious negative effects for society.)
3. The fact that no Yes proponent has been able to present a scenario in which this amendment would previously have been required in order for the state to intervene. (Neutral reason to vote No - ie referendum is not required.)0 -
Gosh, there is an Oozlum bird.oscarBravo wrote: »I didn't say I was voting against it. I also didn't say I was voting for it; nor - despite your wild leap to a conclusion, to which you will now tenaciously cling - have I advocated in favour of such a vote.
Once again, we benefit from your considerable legal expertiseoscarBravo wrote: »Well, you've said one thing that's true. It's not a law; it's a proposed constitutional amendment.http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_introduction.html
The Irish language title for the Constitution is 'Bunreacht na hEireann', which means, 'Basic Law of Ireland'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
The law of the Republic of Ireland consists of constitutional, statute and common law. The highest law in the Republic is the Constitution of Ireland, from which all other law derives its authority.http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/D5F78352A387D74480257315005A419E?opendocument&l=en
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The Constitution of Ireland is the basic law of the State.[/FONT]0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
I think it's very badly worded.
Subarticle 1 is simply a restatement that children have constitutional rights - they have the same rights as anyone else so this subarticle is legally meaningless.
Subarticle 2 part 1 allows the parents to intervene where there has been a failure by the parents in their duty. This is slightly but significantly different to the law as it stands. While the current law is based on parents who are failing [present tense] in their duty one interpretation of this subarticle is that once there has been any failure the state can intervene. So the concept of temporary care until the parents are fit to look after the children again could become a thing of the past. I would hope that the SC would not interpret it as so and instinctively I suspect they won't, but it is not clear and it seems to me that it could and ought to be easily clarified.
Subarticle 2 part 2, subarticle 3 and subarticle 4 are about adoption out of a marital family and the best interests of the child in family law proceedings. There is caselaw from the SC to support the view that adoption out of marriage could be brought in by statute and it might pass constitutional muster. There is already law in place in family law concerning the best interests of the child. So before we change our constitution, why can't we try to bring this in by means of normal legislation?
In any event, Subarticle 2 part 2, subarticle 3 and subarticle 4 do not provide substantive rights to the things they talk about, they merely require the government to make provision in law for these things. So they don't actually change the constitutional status of such things, they merely compell the government to do what I believe they could do now anyway.
So, because it is so poorly drafted, I think I will vote no. That is not to say that I don't believe in children's rights, I just believe that the proper way to vindicate those rights is to amend article 41 (the family) to include provisions stating that in all family law matters the welfare of the child will be paramount, having due regard to the presumption that the best interests of the child are served within the family unit (together with other changes such as broadening the concept of family to more than just one based on marriage, removing the mother's place in the home provision etc).
As an aside, I despair of the irish people that 58% will vote yes but only 10% claim to have a good understanding of what they are voting on and 61% are either only vaguely aware or don't know at all what they are voting on:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1020/1224325506163.html0 -
Once again, you found a semantic quibble. Well done. If the amendment is accepted by the people, you can comfort yourself with just how hard you tried to persuade them otherwise with silly word games.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Once again, we benefit from your considerable legal expertise0 -
Erm, what I actually found was you making very positive assertions based on a misconception of the situation.oscarBravo wrote: »Once again, you found a semantic quibble. Well done.
I'd say it's more a case of when it's accepted. The story of this referendum has been aptly caught by a poster on another thread.oscarBravo wrote: »If the amendment is accepted by the people, you can comfort yourself with just how hard you tried to persuade them otherwise with silly word games."Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.0 -
Advertisement
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »
As an aside, I despair of the irish people that 58% will vote yes but only 10% claim to have a good understanding of what they are voting on and 61% are either only vaguely aware or don't know at all what they are voting on:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1020/1224325506163.html
This is the continuing problem we,culturally,present at every major decision such as this referendum.
There is a significant amount of our electorate who almost take pride in maintaining a level of ignorance.
This has become so much of a bye-word that our leglislators now regularly serve up poorly worded,ambiguous and downright sloppy amendments to a Constitution which supposedly enshrines everything that is the Irish Nation.
In this particular referendum,I have neither read or heard enough to convince me of the need or wisdom of altering the present constitutional situation.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Once again, you found a semantic quibble. Well done. If the amendment is accepted by the people, you can comfort yourself with just how hard you tried to persuade them otherwise with silly word games.
Jaysus, could you give it a rest.
If you waving the banner for the legion of organisations rallying in support of the amendment - or quoting their existence as a reason for reconsidering one's opposition to the bill if one is that way inclined - you could at least give a couple of their arguments. They.. do have arguments.. don't they? Those posters I've seen... they don't count. Because quite honestly I'm not that pushed to chase up people who have an axe to grind to see whether they can formulate a coherent logical argument.Electorate advocate tax-cuts
Also you can't complain about pedanticism when someone's being pedantic about your pedanticism!0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Also you can't complain about pedanticism when someone's being pedantic about your pedanticism!
"Pedanticism"? Pedantry, surely . . .0 -
why do people argue about this when it'll pass anyway?
- but hypothetically speaking if it were rejected could it be argued that the people wanted stronger protection for children's rights outlined in the constitution rather than the relatively weak rehashing of art 42.5?0 -
How many people here actually had dealings with social workers? They impression I get is that some people think they break up families fisrt and foremost.0
-
From the academic articles, the vast majority of them seem to be conscious workers trying to do their best for all concern - it is the small minority that through various reasons inspire a sense of dread among lower socioeconomic class parents or blindly insist on their own belief in the superiority of the State over parental wishes that I'd have an issue with.steddyeddy wrote: »How many people here actually had dealings with social workers? They impression I get is that some people think they break up families fisrt and foremost.0 -
If I ever decide to wave a banner for them, or to quote their existence as a reason for reconsidering one's opposition to the proposed amendment, then I will, indeed, cite their arguments.RandomName2 wrote: »If you waving the banner for the legion of organisations rallying in support of the amendment - or quoting their existence as a reason for reconsidering one's opposition to the bill if one is that way inclined - you could at least give a couple of their arguments.
In the meantime, since I haven't actually advocated for a vote in either direction, or cited the existence of a fairly massive consensus in favour of the proposal as anything other a counter-argument to the flat assertion that there are no reasons whatsoever to vote for it, I'll leave it to anyone who's actually interested in weighing up the arguments on both sides to find out what those arguments are.
If only there was some way to find out.They.. do have arguments.. don't they?0 -
fluffluffluf wrote: »why do people argue about this when it'll pass anyway?
- but hypothetically speaking if it were rejected could it be argued that the people wanted stronger protection for children's rights outlined in the constitution rather than the relatively weak rehashing of art 42.5?
According to Judge Adrian Hardiman the constitution provides adequate protection for children. He said this in a recent Supreme Court caseThere are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »How many people here actually had dealings with social workers? They impression I get is that some people think they break up families fisrt and foremost.
They don't, that is the very last action they can take and before that there are numerous family supports put in place for the family, varying from home helps to parent classes to counseling.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's great to see this monolithic consensus breaking down, for any reason. The reaction from the Minister and others is what you'd expect; arrogant dismissal of the views of fathers' rights campaigners, with an undercurrent of "what would they know about it, anyway".http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1025/1224325680536.html
<...>Ray Kelly of Unmarried and Separated Families of Ireland (USFI) confirmed the referendum had prompted his group to resign from the coalition of more than 100 organisations that make up the Children’s Rights Alliance.
“The proposed amendment doesn’t go far enough. It’s a golden opportunity wasted to give children an equal right to have a father. It’s an erosion of parental rights and it’s actually putting the State in the position where it’s more powerful than the parent,” Mr Kelly said. “We don’t feel that the referendum is actually about children’s rights. Looking at the wording we don’t see anywhere it’s actually giving more rights. It’s actually an adoption referendum.”
I'm still pessimistic. But, hopefully, other groups will take courage and stop backing a pointless amendment.0
Advertisement