Children's Referendum 10th November

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

God bless your innocence! All Irish judges are political appointees...

...which isn't the same thing as what I said at all.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

http://jme.bmj.com/content/28/3/136.full

This article about the PKU case is an excellent analysis of what is wrong in Ireland with the constitution and why it needs to be changed.

The PKU case established a sensible balance; one of the reasons I'll bother to vote on this referendum is to prevent any chance of it being interfered with. Doctors normally can't force medical treatment on adults; it's right that they can't normallly force medical treatment on children, either.

And, as we know, the Constitution already protects children from gonzo decisions. Not only have our Courts decided that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot prevent blood transfusion being given to their children. Our Courts even decided that an adult Jehovah's Witness could not refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, as she would leave her child an orphan.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just like the existing article 41 according "inalienable and imprescriptible rights" to families without defining what those rights are has required judges to be activist?

Yup. The judiciary have commented in the past that too much has been left to them to effectively invent.

The difference is we've a reasonable idea of how the existing text is interpreted. What we don't know is what happens when you repeat this ambiguous phrase in a new article. Because it would be reasonable for the the Courts to reckon that we wanted to change something. Why would we pass a referendum just for the fun of it?

The people are being sold a pup on this.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The difference is we've a reasonable idea of how the existing text is interpreted. What we don't know is what happens when you repeat this ambiguous phrase in a new article. Because it would be reasonable for the the Courts to reckon that we wanted to change something.

It strikes me as even more reasonable for the Courts to reckon that it means the same thing they've already decided it means.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

It strikes me as even more reasonable for the Courts to reckon that it means the same thing they've already decided it means.

Yeah, but the Courts aren't going to ask you what you think is reasonable.

I've actually made the key point - you just managed to pass it by, despite quoting it. If we want it to mean the same thing, why are we having a referendum at all?

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yeah, but the Courts aren't going to ask you what you think is reasonable.

I guess as long as they ask one of us, that's the main thing.

I've actually made the key point - you just managed to pass it by, despite quoting it. If we want it to mean the same thing, why are we having a referendum at all?

And you actually accused me of being obtuse.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you actually accused me of being obtuse.

But you've a neck like a jockey's, I'll give you that.

K-9

Constitutional amendments are never precise, there'll always be a time judges will have to decide on a wording, you're looking for the impossible.

The X case was mentioned, the Abortion referenda was based on pro life wordings and still they didn't get what they wanted.

gizmo555

K-9 wrote: »

Constitutional amendments are never precise, there'll always be a time judges will have to decide on a wording, you're looking for the impossible.

The X case was mentioned, the Abortion referenda was based on pro life wordings and still they didn't get what they wanted.

Well exactly.

So what makes all the supporters of this extremely vaguely worded amendment so sure they'll get what they want? And so sure there will be none of the unintended consequences the rest of us fear?

K-9

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well exactly.

So what makes all the supporters of this extremely vaguely worded amendment so sure they'll get what they want? And so sure there will be none of the unintended consequences the rest of us fear?

Yeah, I fear change too. We should never, ever change our laws cause it might go wrong.

fisgon

Just heard John Waters on RTE radio fulminating against the Children´s Ref. If I had any doubt about which way I was voting, he's cleared it up for me anyway.

His main point was that there is a concerted attempt to undermine "the family". This is straight out of the rhetoric of American conservative Christians, claim that anything you don't like - gays, contraception, evolution - is attacking "the family". Waters stated that the State wanted to undermine the family as it was a competing institution to the State, that it competed with it for people's loyalty. He also hinted at some other forces that were complicit in this ideological attack on "the family". I can only assume that he meant the hated "Liberals".

To me, he came off as deluded, paranoid, rambling and incoherent. But then I was not well disposed to him before I listened. The bit about "the family" always annoys me, the implication from Waters, and those American Evangelists, is that either liberals don't have families, or else they hate them. There is also the suggestion that the family is a place where nothing bad happens, or if it does, where it can be solved easily. The family is the solution to every social ill. The typical argument from someone imprisoned by dogmatic religious worshipping of the institution of the Family.

He had no coherent argument against the referendum, beyond a conspiracy theory.

gizmo555

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, I fear change too. We should never, ever change our laws cause it might go wrong.

We should definitely never, ever change our constitution in the vague, ill-thought out and grotesquely uncertain way that is proposed here.

It's yet another classic from the "we must do something, this is something, we must do this" school of public policy making, with no coherent justification for why it's needed, nor any clear explanation of what the results of passing it will be - because as drafted, none is possible.

Ozymandius2011

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, I fear change too. We should never, ever change our laws cause it might go wrong.

Changing the Constititution is a much bigger deal than changing common-or-garden legislstion though. It's impact is more longterm and will constrain future legislation which must be in keeping with it for good or ill.

ciarafem

fisgon wrote: »

Just heard John Waters on RTE radio fulminating against the Children´s Ref. If I had any doubt about which way I was voting, he's cleared it up for me anyway.

His main point was that there is a concerted attempt to undermine "the family". This is straight out of the rhetoric of American conservative Christians, claim that anything you don't like - gays, contraception, evolution - is attacking "the family". Waters stated that the State wanted to undermine the family as it was a competing institution to the State, that it competed with it for people's loyalty. He also hinted at some other forces that were complicit in this ideological attack on "the family". I can only assume that he meant the hated "Liberals".

To me, he came off as deluded, paranoid, rambling and incoherent. But then I was not well disposed to him before I listened. The bit about "the family" always annoys me, the implication from Waters, and those American Evangelists, is that either liberals don't have families, or else they hate them. There is also the suggestion that the family is a place where nothing bad happens, or if it does, where it can be solved easily. The family is the solution to every social ill. The typical argument from someone imprisoned by dogmatic religious worshipping of the institution of the Family.

He had no coherent argument against the referendum, beyond a conspiracy theory.

JW was referring to the biological family - he did not say the constitutional family. I have listened to the programme again. The biological family included married parents, co-habitees, civil partnerships, single parents.

Of course bad things can happen in families - but these occurances are the exception rather than the norm, and Art. 42.5 is in the Constitution to allow the State intervene in these cases.

A liberal is someone who looks at each issue on its merits.

mustbejoking

You would have to be insane to let the state have more power over you especially in the area of taking your children away from you.

As has already been stated there are a few red flags (to say the least).

1. This has come out of nowhere. There was no problem and now here we are with a supposed very vague solution to a non-existent problem giving the state the power to take away your children at their discretion. (need I go on?)

2. All the political parties agree with this change and are anything but unbiased. Whenever all the political parties agree on something like this, it implies to me that it has been initiated by powers above them. It has me very worried.

3. The state's record on managing people's affairs are shady at best. Everyone gives out about the politicians and how they make a balls of everything from the economy to health to transport etc. but we are supposed to trust them to look after our children for us? Possibly the most sacred thing to any one person's life.

4. Ireland has had a rampant history of institutionalized child abuse from their state/religious authorities which has not only been documented, but also had films made about it. Has everyone forgotten all the rampant pedophilia from the Church which was only disclosed a few years ago? What short memories we have.

5. Let's look at other child protection agencies with these powers and see how they do. Let's look at America and the UK.

This abuse has been going on for a long time. Here's one from 1995.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-01-29/news/9501300297_1_abuse-slide-child-protection


Unfortunately in America it is far worse than this. Here is Senator Nancy Shaefer talking about very serious abuse in foster homes and the courts didn't do anything about it. Just like the Guarda and the courts did nothing to stop the institutionalized violent and sexual abuse and murder of children in Ireland in the 60s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkt5zeYQ7-A


This is just the tip of the Iceberg so huge that most people will avoid the issue completely. Nancy Shaefer died in 2010 of a murder/suicide with her husband. I'm sure that was just a coincidence. Just use google and you'll be appalled at what is going on, such as this: http://voices.yahoo.com/money-child-protective-services-greed-641016.html or this: http://forefugees.com/category/issues/children/child-protective-services/

The horror stories are everywhere on the net. http://www.lukesarmy.com/content/adoption-and-foster-care-horror-stories-and-successes

Or here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8ea1kMN74


Victims of the CPS in the UK have needed this lawyer to try and protect them from the child stealing. Some having to run away to Northern Cyprus (and a few to Ireland).

http://www.forced-adoption.com

If you vote yes to this treaty, a few hundred Irish families will need this man's help. I suggest you bookmark his website anyway in the instance of a yes vote.

As a side note I always see the state selling something nasty with a fake veneer of good intention. I see through this one though, but I imagine the Irish will be duped.

Oh well, I guess the state will continue where the Catholic Church left off.

K-9

gizmo555 wrote: »

We should definitely never, ever change our constitution in the vague, ill-thought out and grotesquely uncertain way that is proposed here.

It's yet another classic from the "we must do something, this is something, we must do this" school of public policy making, with no coherent justification for why it's needed, nor any clear explanation of what the results of passing it will be - because as drafted, none is possible.

Tbh my concern would be it's just change fpr changes sake and not that much will change at all, unless the will is there. Nothing from the No side has me too worried so far.

Ozymandius2011

Mods can we have a poll on the referendum?

queen of Umaill

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh my concern would be it's just change fpr changes sake and not that much will change at all, unless the will is there. Nothing from the No side has me too worried so far.

My worry would be who has the power over what happens to children and what happens to them in state care if put there and who has access to them.

fisgon

mustbejoking wrote: »

You would have to be insane to let the state have more power over you especially in the area of taking your children away from you.

As has already been stated there are a few red flags (to say the least).

1. This has come out of nowhere. There was no problem and now here we are with a supposed very vague solution to a non-existent problem giving the state the power to take away your children at their discretion. (need I go on?)

2. All the political parties agree with this change and are anything but unbiased. Whenever all the political parties agree on something like this, it implies to me that it has been initiated by powers above them. It has me very worried.

3. The state's record on managing people's affairs are shady at best. Everyone gives out about the politicians and how they make a balls of everything from the economy to health to transport etc. but we are supposed to trust them to look after our children for us? Possibly the most sacred thing to any one person's life.

4. Ireland has had a rampant history of institutionalized child abuse from their state/religious authorities which has not only been documented, but also had films made about it. Has everyone forgotten all the rampant pedophilia from the Church which was only disclosed a few years ago? What short memories we have.

5. Let's look at other child protection agencies with these powers and see how they do. Let's look at America and the UK.

Again, paranoid scaremongering. We are not living in Stalinist Russia, where the State actively conspired against its citizens. You show quite a paranoid fear of the State, as if it exists just to screw over the people of the country. This is hyperbole.

You seem to suggest that the State is just waiting in the wings for more powers to take people's children off them, as if that was in the State's interest. Believe it or not, in a democracy, we - you, I, Mrs O'Reilly next door - are the state. We vote our politicians in, we vote on changes to the constitution, we get the state we deserve. It is far from perfect, but it is not some monstrous institution just waiting to steal people's children from them.

And of course there have been abuses. These are disgraceful and unforgiveable. But the solution is to improve services, to better the care that children are given in state care. The logical conclusion to what you are arguing is that the state never intervenes in cases of neglect or abuse of children by their parents. Is that what you want? Do you want fathers who sexually abuse their children being left in charge of them, because the State can't be trusted to take better care of them?

Paranoid, hyperbolic, exaggerated arguments such as the one above do no-one any favours in this debate. There may be arguments for a No vote, but the above post does not contain any.

fisgon

mustbejoking wrote: »

As a side note I always see the state selling something nasty with a fake veneer of good intention. I see through this one though, but I imagine the Irish will be duped.

Classic sign of a conspiracy theorist. - "There is a secret plot against the people. No-one else sees through it, but I do. Everyone else will be fooled, but I am smart enough and special enough to see the truth."
Maybe you can now tell us about the Bildaberg Group?

Annasopra

mustbejoking wrote: »

You would have to be insane to let the state have more power over you especially in the area of taking your children away from you.

As has already been stated there are a few red flags (to say the least).

1. This has come out of nowhere. There was no problem and now here we are with a supposed very vague solution to a non-existent problem giving the state the power to take away your children at their discretion. (need I go on?)

No. Please don't. Your first paragraph is enough nonsense.

Childrens rights advocates, judges, human rights advocates and campaigners, international organisations have been calling for this for many many many years.
In 1989 the ISPCC called for something like this
Ireland signed the UN convention on the rights of the child in 1990 and ratified it in 1992
In 1993 Justice Catherine McGuinness of the supreme court reccomended that the constitution should reflect the rights of the child in the kilkenny incest report

There has been so many cases, reports, families in tatters since 1990 that I call
b u l l s h i t on your assertion that this come from nowhere!

rolly1

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh my concern would be it's just change fpr changes sake and not that much will change at all, unless the will is there. Nothing from the No side has me too worried so far.

When clear,rational and reasoned argument are ignored; as per the discussion surrounding the uncertainty of how judicial activism will play out with the wording, it's easy not to be worried I guess.

For the rest of us this referendum is probably the the worst thing to happen this state since the bank guarantee, with long term negative ramifications that will affect generations to come.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

rolly1 wrote: »

When clear,rational and reasoned argument are ignored; as per the discussion surrounding the uncertainty of how judicial activism will play out with the wording, it's easy not to be worried I guess.

For the rest of us this referendum is probably the the worst thing to happen this state since the bank guarantee, with long term negative ramifications that will affect generations to come.

If fact, you can practically predict how it will turn out; we'll have the Government and its hangers-on solemnly intoning how the people voted for change, when we know the people hadn't a clue what they were voting for.

Which, of course, is why people who don't understand this amendment should vote No.

oscarBravo

rolly1 wrote: »

...the uncertainty of how judicial activism will play out with the wording...

Again with the judicial activism. I'm not familiar with Ireland having a significant problem with judicial activism in the past or the present; why is this proposed amendment suddenly going to bring out the worst in our judiciary?

fisgon

rolly1 wrote: »

.

For the rest of us this referendum is probably the the worst thing to happen this state since the bank guarantee, with long term negative ramifications that will affect generations to come.

"The worst thing to happen"? Seriously? Why is it that opponents of this referendum have to resort to such hyperbole, such exaggeration, such paranoia? Why do you have to predict catastrophes, the sky falling in, to try to score points in the debate?
Resorting to this kind of hysteria is a sign of a very weak argument.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again with the judicial activism. I'm not familiar with Ireland having a significant problem with judicial activism in the past or the present; why is this proposed amendment suddenly going to bring out the worst in our judiciary?

If we vote for the change, it's reasonable for the Courts to expect that we wanted them to do things differently. However, it's actually not at all clear what difference we want. Do we want the Courts to change the approach in the PKU case, and decide instead that doctors can force medical treatment on children without any equivalent for the consent they would need to obtain from an adult? Do we feel that Baby Ann should not have been returned to her natural parents, in a situation where there was no good reason for proceeding with an adoption?

I don't particularly see it in terms of "judicial activism". It's simply that some matters have been left to the Courts to determine, with quite a wide field of reference. It's one thing to have a Constitution that invokes the Holy Trinity as the ultimate source of authority and uses vague phrases about natural rights. It's another to add yet more vague wording to the picture, in a situation where the Courts have made reasonable interpretations of what's there, so that the rights and duties of the State, parents and children are understood and balanced.

At least the electorate that voted knew, more or less, that "natural rights" meant stuff that a Christian god might have created. I don't think that many, today, have a clue what they mean by the term.

Way to set out the document that's meant to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. Not.

dunphy3

seamus wrote: »

Full text of the proposed new article 42A:
http://www.childrensreferendum.ie/thirty-first-amendment-of-the-constitution

Something I was initially suspect about when it was first mooted about 8 years back by FF. I expected that the rights of children would be put above the rights of adults, but this doesn't appear to have happened.

The text seems very straightforward. A new article with four subsections:

- The first asserts universal rights for all children (regardless of the marital status of their parents, according to the Minister) and the duty of the state to protect those rights

- The second provides the state more power to intervene and take control in exceptional cases where the safety and welfare of a child is at risk, including the power to have a child forcibly adopted out if the parents have failed to care for them for a significant length of time.

- The third basically allows the state to make adoption laws (I'm not sure why this is there?)

- The last states that in any court proceedings concerning the child's welfare or custody, the welfare of the child shall be given the most weight and depending on the age of the child, the childs own views will have weight in the courtroom.

The first and last items appear to be the normal practice, enshrined into the constitution.

The second item will no doubt be the major debate point, as various groups argue about the primacy of the family unit above all else, and so forth.

Personally I see nothing disagreeable in there and the second item is long overdue, but I'm sure that others will be able to point out where the knock-on effects of this change would be.

I have to read up on the third section to find out exactly why it's there.

[Edit: It would appear the main point of the third section is to allow for universal voluntary adoption regardless of the marital status of the parents. But I'll keep reading.

hi i acually agree however i have just clicked on to thispage to be greeted by my thanks????????????????? how did someone read my mind????????

Annasopra

rolly1 wrote: »

When clear,rational and reasoned argument are ignored; as per the discussion surrounding the uncertainty of how judicial activism will play out with the wording, it's easy not to be worried I guess.

For the rest of us this referendum is probably the the worst thing to happen this state since the bank guarantee, with long term negative ramifications that will affect generations to come.

But the no side have been making unclear, vague and massively irrational arguments.

ciarafem

mango salsa wrote: »

But the no side have been making unclear, vague and massively irrational arguments.

I presume you regard Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman as unclear, vague and irrational when he said in his opinion and judgment in the Baby Ann 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.

Annasopra

ciarafem wrote: »

I presume you regard Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman as unclear, vague and irrational when he said in his opinion and judgment in the Baby Ann case:

Justice Adrian Hardiman isn't on the no side - I am talking about the proponents for a no vote.

rolly1

fisgon wrote: »

"The worst thing to happen"? Seriously? Why is it that opponents of this referendum have to resort to such hyperbole, such exaggeration, such paranoia? Why do you have to predict catastrophes, the sky falling in, to try to score points in the debate?
Resorting to this kind of hysteria is a sign of a very weak argument.

Between 1936 and 1970 170,000 children were consigned to the 50 or so industrial schools in this country. These children were taken from their families by the State (aided and abetted by the ISPCC). They were abused in State-funded institutions over a period of 35 years, even though the Constitution had not been amended, proving that the threshold for interfering in the family is not as high as it is made out to be. All that was needed back then to claim that children had been failed was that the family was poor. But of course it's hysterical to be questioning giving more power to the self same state which did this...

It's also probably hysterical to have expected the children of the Roscommon house of horrors to be rescued by the state over the course of their eleven year involvement with them; rather than having the children resort to rescuing themselves.

It's funny how the state can move like lightening and dubiously intervene when it comes to taking children off individuals who publicly criticise the state:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-forced-into-respite-care-267607.html

A FAMILY with four autistic boys were last night forced to put their children into respite care for the weekend after the local Health Service Executive (HSE) threatened to take the boys into care. Mary and Padraig O'Hara from Kells, Co Meath, had to drive their five children to Navan last night to hand them over to the HSE for the weekend.
Last night they claimed they were being "punished" for speaking to the media about their plight.

And I guess it's even more hysterical to suggest that giving ever greater powers to a state which has proven itself to be a pretty horrifically abusive deadbeat state might not exactly be the right focus.

Of course; you are so bang it's completely paranoid to want to put pressure on the state to actually do the job that it's both legally empowered and legally obliged to do.
It's completely paranoid to suggest that the default position of children's rights should be vested in their parents, when the parents are fully functioning in their duties; rather than in a proven incompetent & abusive super parent state.

Of course... vote yes for puppies, ice cream and a wonderful nanny of a nanny state!

Annasopra

I will vote yes. Because to be honest a nanny state is absolutely essential in some cases where children are at risk in their families.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

I will vote yes. Because to be honest a nanny state is absolutely essential in some cases where children are at risk in their families.

Well, we'd sort of figured you were going to vote yes despite the merits of the case.

However, it's quite clear that the Constitution already allows the State to intervene where children at risk.

I know people will be amazed that I'm voting No. Thankfully, this decision doesn't require me to invent a problem that doesn't exist.

fisgon

rolly1 wrote: »

. But of course it's hysterical to be questioning giving more power to the self same state which did this...
!

..."From 1935 to 1970..."
It's not the self same state. Is there one person in government or in the state apparatus now, that was there during the times you quoted? No, of course not, not one minister, not one social worker, not one TD. And you do betray a hysterical fear of the State, it can be seen in the quote above, as you seem to think that "The State" is somehow an independent entity, evil at its core and incapable of taking care of anyone, like some great monster. This is hysteria, and it is paranoia, and it is delusion.

The State we have is far from perfect, but the venom and delusion and unfocused hatred against The State that is shown in many replies here is absolutely hysterical. And my original suggestion of Hysteria was against someone who claimed that a Yes vote would be the worst thing to happen to this country since the Bank guarantee (which bankrupted The State that you seem to fear so much). And I repeat, such an opinion is hysterical, paranoid scaremongering.

M three

Sorry if this has been answered already but as I'm out of the country on saturday is there any way of voting early?

Thanks

Annasopra

M three wrote: »

Sorry if this has been answered already but as I'm out of the country on saturday is there any way of voting early?

Thanks

No

Javan

mango salsa wrote: »

I will vote yes. Because to be honest a nanny state is absolutely essential in some cases where children are at risk in their families.

Why do you think this nanny state that may be required in some cases cannot be put in place without constitutional change?

The 'best interest of the child' test, the right for children to be heard, the improvements to adoption laws ... all these things can be brought in with legislation, resources and administration. There is no need for this change to the constitution in order to achieve the goals the yes side desire.

FWIW: I agree with everything the referendum supporters want to achieve, but I'll vote no because we don't need to change the constitution to achieve any of it.

TheSpecialOne

Sorry for the randomness of this comment but any help would be appreciated,
I have never registered fully to vote but this year i put my name on The supplement to the Register of Electors for the Fiscal treaty vote earlier this year. Others in my family have recieved polling cards but i haven't..should i just go to the polling station Saturday or am i not registered?!

rolly1

fisgon wrote: »

..."From 1935 to 1970..."
It's not the self same state. Is there one person in government or in the state apparatus now, that was there during the times you quoted? No, of course not, not one minister, not one social worker, not one TD. And you do betray a hysterical fear of the State, it can be seen in the quote above, as you seem to think that "The State" is somehow an independent entity, evil at its core and incapable of taking care of anyone, like some great monster. This is hysteria, and it is paranoia, and it is delusion.

The State we have is far from perfect, but the venom and delusion and unfocused hatred against The State that is shown in many replies here is absolutely hysterical. And my original suggestion of Hysteria was against someone who claimed that a Yes vote would be the worst thing to happen to this country since the Bank guarantee (which bankrupted The State that you seem to fear so much). And I repeat, such an opinion is hysterical, paranoid scaremongering.

In case you missed black and white english I'll emphasise the point for you as your selective quoting choses to ignore it:

They were abused in State-funded institutions over a period of 35 years, even though the Constitution had not been amended, proving that the threshold for interfering in the family is not as high as it is made out to be.

The State has already demolished tens of thousands of famillies and children under the present wording of the constitution, despite the claims by the yes side that the family has too much power in the constitution. You can dismiss 170,000 children as much as you like and claim the past is a different country but you cannot claim we had a different constitution.

But of course it's far easier for you to go off on one rather than having to deal with the actual argument; so very typical of the yes side in this whole referendum.

Annasopra

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

Sorry for the randomness of this comment but any help would be appreciated,
I have never registered fully to vote but this year i put my name on The supplement to the Register of Electors for the Fiscal treaty vote earlier this year. Others in my family have recieved polling cards but i haven't..should i just go to the polling station Saturday or am i not registered?!

Have you looked www.checktheregister.ie to see if you are registered.

I am nearly sure that voters on the supplementary register just don't get polling cards but can vote with valid id.

If you can't find your name on checktheregister.ie then ring your county council and ask them

Hotblack Desiato

Javan wrote: »

FWIW: I agree with everything the referendum supporters want to achieve, but I'll vote no because we don't need to change the constitution to achieve any of it.

For me the most important thing this referendum will do is finally remove the concept of illegitimacy from our laws. The current Constitutional protections on 'the family', along with the 'guard with special care the instutution of marriage' etc, have been interpreted by the courts as providing particular protections to families which are based upon marriage, but not to non-marital families. It also makes the voluntary adoption of marital children impossible at present, and the involuntary adoption of marital children almost impossible (the court has to agree that the parental abandonment is total and will continue until age 18)

A child does not deserve to be treated differently before the law because his or her parents are married or unmarried.

fisgon

rolly1 wrote: »

I

The State has already demolished tens of thousands of famillies and children under the present wording of the constitution, despite the claims by the yes side that the family has too much power in the constitution

More hyperbole. "demolished"? The State has "demolished" tens of thousands of families? Emotive, hysterical language from an emotive, hysterical argument.

The truth is that you are not facing up to my point, which I made quite clearly. You have this bizarre, twisted, frightened attitude to "The State", as if it was some monster, existing only to destroy families and its citizens. Do you even know what you mean when you say The State? I repeat, it's not some independent entity, we are The State, me, you, ministers, nurses, policemen, the courts, voters, bus drivers, children, families. It doesn't exist outside of the people that make it up. There is no great monstrous "State" out there just waiting to "demolish" families, though this is the idea you would get with many of the conspiracy theorists on the No side.

Your fanatical distrust of The State is akin to that of some Montana backwoodsman who only sees evil in any kind of government. And I haven't even a very strong desire to vote Yes, particularly, but the hysterical, frightened, paranoid, irrational, nonsensical arguments from the No side are deeply unimpressive.

Javan

ninja900 wrote: »

For me the most important thing this referendum will do is finally remove the concept of illegitimacy from our laws. The current Constitutional protections on 'the family', along with the 'guard with special care the instutution of marriage' etc, have been interpreted by the courts as providing particular protections to families which are based upon marriage, but not to non-marital families. It also makes the voluntary adoption of marital children impossible at present, and the involuntary adoption of marital children almost impossible (the court has to agree that the parental abandonment is total and will continue until age 18)

A child does not deserve to be treated differently before the law because his or her parents are married or unmarried.

I don't see that in the text of the change.

I can see that the new section 42A, paragraph 2 does make it clear that, in the context of the state acting to intervene to protect the welfare of the child, the marital status of the parents is irrelevant.
That is a very narrow context, and I think it falls far short of removing any concept or social stigma of illegitimacy.

As to the argument that it is almost impossible to have the children of married parents adopted. I'm convinced that can be changed by legislation, without the need for a change to the constitution. The constitution does put a premium on the rights of the family. The courts have interpreted that as putting the rights and wishes of the married parents above those of the child. I believe that can be changed by legislation so the same section of the constitution can interpreted as putting the best interest of the family above the best interest of any one member. See what I did there? With that interpretation the court can decide that the rights and wishes of the parents are not more important than the rights of their children, and that the family as a whole could be better served by moving the children to another family.

Or, if you want to make some effective change in that area, just change the definition of the family. Changing the rights of children in one specific context seems a roundabout and ineffective way of removing the concept of illegitimacy when there is the option of changing the definition of the family.

In any case, all of that is so much semantic twaddle unless and until the resources and administration are put in place to use the powers already available to the state to protect children.

Hotblack Desiato

Javan wrote: »

I believe that can be changed by legislation so the same section of the constitution can interpreted as putting the best interest of the family above the best interest of any one member.

Your belief would be wrong. If you want to change how the courts interpret the constitution you need to change the wording of the constitution.

Javan

ninja900 wrote: »

Your belief would be wrong. If you want to change how the courts interpret the constitution you need to change the wording of the constitution.

OK. That is a blind assertion without any backing, but even accepting it at face value:
If the goal is to remove the concept of illegitimacy then this amendment fails. At best it is a change in one specific circumstance.
If the goal is to improve the conditions for adoption of children of married parents then it is certainly not sufficient. I'd like to see more than your blind assertion that it is necessary.

Annasopra

I believe that can be changed by legislation so the same section of the constitution can interpreted as putting the best interest of the family above the best interest of any one member. See what I did there?

Yes I do. You made something up based on your own beliefs and disregarded how law really works.

Hotblack Desiato

Javan wrote: »

OK. That is a blind assertion without any backing, but even accepting it at face value

No, you've made a blind assertion that laws can change the constitution or how courts interpret the constitution. This is completely incorrect.

Annasopra

Javan wrote: »

OK. That is a blind assertion without any backing

I see what you did there.

You made a blind assertion without any backing. When you were challenged on it you accused the other person of doing what you had just done

*claps*

Javan

mango salsa wrote: »

I see what you did there.

You made a blind assertion without any backing. When you were challenged on it you accused the other person of doing what you had just done

*claps*

Actually what I did was express a belief which people are now telling me is wrong.

Great. I'm open to being educated.

So why am I wrong? Words change their meaning all the time. Courts interpret words all the time. Each new law is interpreted the first time it gets to court. (I hope those are all assertions we can accept; I can provide detailed backing if required).

Annasopra

Javan wrote: »

Actually what I did was express a belief which people are now telling me is wrong.

Great. I'm open to being educated.

So why am I wrong? Words change their meaning all the time. Courts interpret words all the time. Each new law is interpreted the first time it gets to court. (I hope those are all assertions we can accept; I can provide detailed backing if required).

You can't make a law that changes the constitution

Lawyer1

The change they are trying to enforce is an attack on ALL families. It opens the door to potential future abuse. If the state decides so, ALL children will be susceptible of being adopted even if they already have a family. It is up to you if you want to give your government so much power over your family, and in view of the record it has in taking care for the children already in its care, you should think twice about it. If they really wanted to help children, they should improve a lot of other things before changing the law for everyone. The best way to help and respect children's rights is to help their parents in the responsibility they have towards them. The first human right of a child is to be raised and educated by their own parents, not by strangers.