What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

Ozymandius2011

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.

passarellaie

Ozymandius2011 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.

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 Nazis

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

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: »

There generally needs to be a pretty convincing argument to go against an overwhelming consensus.

You're not a Hunter S. Thompson fan, obviously.

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.

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?)

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.

oscarBravo

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.

You can suggest that to your heart's content, but you'd be wrong.

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.

The point being pursued is what reason they (or you) advance as the grounds for their assertion of support.

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?

You're not a Hunter S. Thompson fan, obviously.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

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: »

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?

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: »

as opposed to cherry-picking some soundbites and dismissing them with some hand-waving.

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?

Seriously, it is very hard to make sense of what you think you are achieving by reposting your evasive responses.

oscarBravo

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.

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.

Your comment is surreal. I've actually linked the post where I refute the headline issues that the CRA choose to put forward.

And I linked the post where you said you had no idea what their motivation is. So, which is it?

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?

You've argued unconvincingly with some soundbites, which you seem to mistake for dismantling their entire argument.

Seriously, it is very hard to make sense of what you think you are achieving by reposting your evasive responses.

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.

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.

James Jones

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 HERE

The 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.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

I apologise profusely for assuming the content of your posts bore some relationship to your views.

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.

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.

gizmo555

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.

forex

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?

Ozymandius2011

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.

ciarafem

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-Proposal

Then, 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.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I apologise profusely for assuming the content of your posts bore some relationship to your views.

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.

Accepting the possibility that your pre-conceived ideas could ever be wrong doesn't seem to be something that occurs to you.

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.

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.

oscarBravo

forex wrote: »

This is not a law...

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.

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.

If you've got a suggestion for a different judiciary we should empower, I'm all ears.

Ozymandius2011

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.

I don't want to increase their power at all.

Cavehill Red

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.)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

Gosh, there is an Oozlum bird.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, you've said one thing that's true. It's not a law; it's a proposed constitutional amendment.

Once again, we benefit from your considerable legal expertise

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]

johnnyskeleton

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.html

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Once again, we benefit from your considerable legal expertise

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

oscarBravo wrote: »

Once again, you found a semantic quibble. Well done.

Erm, what I actually found was you making very positive assertions based on a misconception of the situation.

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.

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.

gizmo555 wrote: »

"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.

AlekSmart

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.

RandomName2

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!

gizmo555

RandomName2 wrote: »

Also you can't complain about pedanticism when someone's being pedantic about your pedanticism!

"Pedanticism"? Pedantry, surely . . .

fluffluffluf

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?

steddyeddy

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.

Manach

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.

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.

oscarBravo

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.

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.

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.

They.. do have arguments.. don't they?

If only there was some way to find out.

ciarafem

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 case

There 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.

Morag

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.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.”

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".


I'm still pessimistic. But, hopefully, other groups will take courage and stop backing a pointless amendment.