Children's Referendum 10th November

Lawyer1

The extreme cases where the parents don't want, or can/will not fulfill their duties, should be dealt with individually weighing all the factors and seeking always what is best for the child, usually to be taken care by another family member or foster family. For that you don't need to change the existing law giving the State more power over ALL families.

mel1

Found this in my inbox today, can the more clever than I tell me if this is real or nonsence.

10 Reasons to vote No in the Children's Rights Referendum

1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.

2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary dec...
ision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)

5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.

6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights.

8/ The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9/ The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10/ The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote n

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mel1 wrote: »

Found this in my inbox today, can the more clever than I tell me if this is real or nonsence.

A lot of it is nonsense. For instance, EU law already takes precedence over all Irish law, including the Constitution. That's what voters agree to in all those referenda on the various EU treaties. So this adds nothing new.

Adoption is a red herring - on both the no and yes sides. Adoption by non-family members is a very rare event these days; that's nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with society changing. There's no longer a concept of hiding away the shameful family secret.

Now, maybe there is some wider agenda in wanting to puncture the family by providing for voluntary adoption of marital children. Because there's really too much talk about the adoption provision, given it is really an irrelevance.But I don't know that to be the case.

I don't think we can quite state as a fact that the Amendment will allow doctors to force medical treatment on children without any equivalent of the consent they must get from adults. What we can say is, at present, doctors must seek consent in respect of children, in a similar way to how they need to get consent in respect of adults. This proposed Amendment can only disturb this.

The reason for voting no, IMHO, is simply that the Constitution already provides for children's rights, and this new wording can only mess up existing reasonable provisions. Rather than relying on those polemical points, can I suggest you cast an eye over Judge Hardiman's Judgment in the Baby Ann case, to assure yourself that this Amendment just isn't needed.

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.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0...7?OpenDocument

ciarafem

Saw this article today in Metro Herald. Unlike others newspapers it takes a neutral stance and gives an advocate from each sid ean opportunity to state their case on page 4 - Fergus Finlay of Barnardos and Cllr Pat Kavanagh who is a social worker and foster parent

http://e-edition.metroherald.ie/2012/11/07/

Javan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The reason for voting no, IMHO, is simply that the Constitution already provides for children's rights, and this new wording can only mess up existing reasonable provisions.

Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make, though I'm unable to do it half as well as you just did.

Ciaran O Reilly

Quotes from GCU Flexible Demeanour:

"... EU law already takes precedence over all Irish law, including the Constitution. That's what voters agree to in all those referenda on the various EU treaties. So this adds nothing new."

"...the Constitution already provides for children's rights, and this new wording can only mess up existing reasonable provisions."

There's more I could select, but I have to say that these two are completely INCORRECT. Even the most basic of understanding of our legal system will tell you that the Constitution is the highest of the land and is NOT inferior to EU or any other law.

The wording will not 'mess up' existing rights. How could the State explicitly stating, recognising and obliging itself to protect and enforce such rights - for the first time - possibly 'mess up' existing rights (which are actually essentially non-existent).

http://childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/ShortGuideChildrenReferendum1012.pdf

Ciaran O Reilly

Please educate yourself about how our legal system works and what the existing situation is and what will change before spouting absolute nonsense. There's plenty of info available from the various Yes for Children charities, the Govt, the Ref Commission etc...

Try this and then think about some of your previous claims:
http://childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/ShortGuideChildrenReferendum1012.pdf

Lawyer1

carveone wrote: »

Because the existing situation is that a married mother can only place her baby for adoption if her baby is not her husband’s baby. (Staggering, isn't it.) An unmarried woman has no restrictions.



Yup, that's it in a nutshell..

So basically now both mothers can give their babys away for adoption, or having them taken from them. Yes, that's progress.

Ciaran O Reilly

In reply to mel1:

Absolute nonsense. Almost dunno where to start...

1. the new wording refers explicitly to 'exceptional circumstances' and in 'proportionate' means. In truth, this means that the State can help those few families which need help at the earliest chance, with an even better chance of keeping families together. As for the UNCRC, its spirit informs our understanding of best practice and interpretation of what rights children should have, which is a GOOD thing - the UNCRC is not some dirty word, it's an internationally-lauded instrument which lays out the kind of basic rights any child should have in any country.

2. Again nonsense - citizens will always have access to legal representation, the 'in camera' rule is being reviewed and most likely repealed and no child care decision is ever made by one person. Unbelievable lies...

3. There has been NO comment in relation to child benefit and vaccinations!

4. Of course the state can't kdinap children for abortions!?

5 & 6. Again, ridiculous! http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_order/legal_order_ire_en.htm

7. "Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights." ?!?!?! What about abusive and neglectful parents? If the State can truly decide anything even if the child disagrees (absolute horse****), then surely the explicit recognition of their rights as in the amendment is welcomed?!

8. The 'best interests' principle' developed from decades of legal consultation and best practice. Anything less is weaker, qualified and vague.

9. The UNCRC doesnt claim to fix poverty, violence and war!! Parents are often complicit in the exploitation and abuse of children, and we should thank ourselves lucky to live in a developed and democratic country which is seeking our approval to improve the lives of our children.

10. That is not a question being asked, at all. What is being asked, if whether you want to strengthen our highest law in order to impose greater obligations upon the state to protect and vindicate the rights of all children, and in particular those few who find themselves in situations which require exceptional assistance and support?

Javan

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Please educate yourself about how our legal system works and what the existing situation is and what will change before spouting absolute nonsense. There's plenty of info available from the various Yes for Children charities, the Govt, the Ref Commission etc...

Try this and then think about some of your previous claims:
http://childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/ShortGuideChildrenReferendum1012.pdf

I have read that, several times and in detail.

In response:
1: What 'support' is imagined here? There is no impediment to the state 'supporting' families right now except the economic situation. Childrens allowance, free schooling and a large portion of the social services are geared towards providing support for families that are not in crisis.
The only additional 'support' that is possible with the amendment is the support that comes from the state breaking up the family.

2: The impediment to adoption for the vast majority of those 2,000 children is not constitutional. Adoptions through the 1960's to the 1980's were about ten times what they are recently, and that was possible under the current definition of the family. Find and fix the real problem, then come back and argue a need for constitutional change.

3: There is no impediment to changing family law to ensure that the 'BIC' test is central. There seems to be an argument that the definition of the family in Art 42 puts the rights of the parents above those of the child, but at least one senior judge disagrees with that, per the quote from Judge Hardiman, above.

4: Judges can already listen to the opinion of affected children in family law cases. Currently this is as the discretion of the judge, but clearly the constitution does not forbid it. If the constitution does not forbid it then it can be written in to law.

5: Actions speak louder than words. We can show how we, as a country, view and value children by providing better healthcare and by improving the administration and resources available to the social services.

Lawyer1

Children's problems have nothing to do with the Constitution.
Therefore changing the Constitution is not going to solve children's problems.
Then the question is: Why change it and give more power to the state over ALL families?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Even the most basic of understanding of our legal system will tell you that the Constitution is the highest of the land and is NOT inferior to EU or any other law.

Nope, you’re wrong. We’ve amended the Constitution on several occasions to give primacy to the EU Treaties, and the Regulations and Directives made under those Treaties. The EU couldn’t work any other way. You couldn’t harmonise legislation across the whole of the Union if Member States said "Sorry, no can do because of our Constitution".

Article 29.4.10 of the Constitution makes this explicit.

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

The wording will not 'mess up' existing rights. How could the State explicitly stating, recognising and obliging itself to protect and enforce such rights - for the first time - possibly 'mess up' existing rights (which are actually essentially non-existent).

Well, clearly you are wrong to say there are no existing rights – I’ve just quoted the Judge Hardiman’s clear statement in his judgment that says so. In addition, everyone knows that children have all the same rights as the rest of us at present, plus a couple of extras like the right to free primary education. Every time you amend the Constitution you create a doubt over previous interpretations; that’s why, if there ain’t a problem (and there ain’t a problem with the Constitution), it’s best to leave the wording alone.

So, I’m afraid, you are the one who needs to gain an understanding of our legal system, and of the issues at stake in the current Referendum.

Ciaran O Reilly

Reply to Javan:

1. Additional supports already coming into force will be the new Children and Family Support Agency, as well as the effects of the Children First and National Vetting Bill, and the Childrens Bill (which address existing legislative gaps with regard to children). And obviously a constitutional amendment will not and cannot improve the economy or budget, but policies decisions in the future will have to be cognisant of children's rights and may be challenged in the courts with the proposed wording.

2. Incorrect. The wording of the constitution requires an interpretation which impedes adoption of children whose parents are married. Just because we might not like that, doesn't make it untrue.

3. "at least one senior judge"... what you mean is "just one senior judge" Hardly a ringing endorsement from the legal community for a No vote. In fact, the Law Society and Bar Council are both advocating a Yes vote.

4. Writing it into law makes it an obligation, not discretionary - what possible reason could you have against this?

5. Those things have nothing to do with this, and will continue to isses which require other remedies. But a state which is explicitly obligated by the Constitution to vindicate children's rights would certainly have to consider such rights in any such development more than they do now. And yes, actions do speaker louder than words - let's all go out and vote Yes.

Ciaran O Reilly

GCU Flexible Demeanour:


http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_order/legal_order_ire_en.htm
"
The Constitution is at the apex of Ireland’s legal system. Legislation, Governmental and administrative decisions and practice may be reviewed against the Constitution for compliance.
...
The Constitution provides however, that it will not invalidate any acts or measures which are necessitated by membership of the European Union or Communities. Thus Community law takes precedence over all national laws including the Constitution. Because Community law provides that the methods of implementation of Community law are to be determined by national procedural requirements Instruments implementing EU/EC law must still be in accordance with procedural Constitutional requirements.
...
The Courts have held that principles of customary international law form part of domestic law by virtue of Article 29.3, but only to the extent to which they do not conflict with the Constitution, legislation or common law. International Agreements may only be ratified if they are in accordance with the Constitution, otherwise a referendum will be required.
...
As mentioned above the Constitution as originally drafted was not compatible with the European Community Treaties. For example it provided that the Oireachtas was the sole legislating body in the State. For this reason a provision was inserted into the constitution providing that it does not invalidate any law, act or measure necessitated by membership of the European Union or of the Communities. However, it has been held that if the scope and objectives should change, for example, by way of a new Treaty, this must be put by way of referendum to the people and, if accepted by the people, a provision will be inserted confirming that the State may ratify such Treaty."

And yes, children have had their rights interpreted via the Constitution but I am correct in the lack of their explicit recognition in the Constitution. Further, this amendment, in addition to recognising those rights, is about those exceptional circumstances whereby until now the rights and status of the family has rode roughshod over the welfare of children and left them in situations against their best interests and wishes, because of this lacking acknowledgement of their rights. So again, you are incorrect.

You keep quoting one judge, the most conservative judge in the country and one who is standing alone against the entire legal community on this issue... And by the way, just saying 'everyone knows that children have all the same rights as the rest of us' is not quite the kind of tangible and reliable legal statute upon which this country functions.

Ciaran O Reilly

Originally posted by Mango Salsa:

I haven't seen any substantial or rational arguments against this referendum at all.

That's because there aren't any. The No side is wildly misinformed, narrow-minded, fearful, irrational, selfish, backward-thinking, and ultimately anti-children.

Javan

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

That's because there aren't any. The No side is wildly misinformed, narrow-minded, fearful, irrational, selfish, backward-thinking, and ultimately anti-children.

WOW!

And here I thought we were trying to have a reasoned debate with a frank exchange of views. I think with comments like that you are as helpful to the yes campaign as John Waters is to the no campaign (by which I mean: not at all helpful).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_order/legal_order_ire_en.htm
.... Thus Community law takes precedence over all national laws including the Constitution. ...

I'm not sure that you comprehend that the material you posted supports my statement, and refutes yours.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

I am correct in the lack of their explicit recognition in the Constitution.

Nope, you are wrong again. At present, Article 42 specifically acknowledges the "natural and imprescriptible rights of the child".

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

And by the way, just saying 'everyone knows that children have all the same rights as the rest of us' is not quite the kind of tangible and reliable legal statute upon which this country functions.

Is anyone contesting this? The document that you linked as a source to this thread says

[FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold]Do children currently have rights under the Constitution?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Yes, children do have rights under the Constitution. Where appropriate, children are entitled to the same fundamental rights (under Articles 40 to 44) as are granted to individuals living in the State.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Javan wrote: »

WOW!

And here I thought we were trying to have a reasoned debate with a frank exchange of views. I think with comments like that you are as helpful to the yes campaign as John Waters is to the no campaign (by which I mean: not at all helpful).

I actually doubt he's for real.

Lawyer1

Wrong conclusion=no solution.
If you really want to help children, you need to find out the cause of their problems which is NOT the Constitution.
The yes voters are letting themselves being manipulated in a big way.

Ciaran O Reilly

With all due respect Javan, when you read some of the claims by those campaigning for a No vote (you'd notice I said the No side, not mentioned you or anyone else specifically), you'd agree with me too. I mean, there are claims about the state kidnapping children for abortions, forced adoptions, links to child benefit, forced vaccinations, the UN/EU can command/take away children, etc etc... These claims are truly appalling, and really nothing short of an insult to those fighting everyday for the rights of children and the passing of this amendment. So yes, I am for real and yes I see such claims and the intent behind as very much guided by ignorance, selfishness and a way of thinking which is fearful, anti-child and irrational.

GCU Flexible Demeanour
This could apparently go on all day, but I'll try again...

First quote: taking one line out of context, while I basically included the whole passage so that it could be read properly and understood. But in case you didn't, it explains that ultimately any new developments must be passed by the people through our democratic process - remember Nice, Lisbon etc? Show me one example of an EU law being imposed and implemented in Ireland which was against the majority will of the Irish people?

Third quote, again picking out words and not reading them in their due context (which is necessary when understanding law). The referencing of these rights is phrased in an incidental way, within a provision related to the failure of parents and under an article related to education - to date this has failed to stand up in equal measure against the explicit recognition and protection of family/parent rights in Article 41.1. This won't change until the wording changes. As I said before, no one is disputing that children's rights have been vindicated through interpretation of the existing wording, but the problem arises in situations which also involve the rights and interests of parents.

http://www.youtube.com/user/cradub?feature=watch

Lawyer1

Parents have rights over their children. Children's rights are linked to those of their parents. There is no conflict between the two. It is in the children best interests to protect the rights of their parents. If parents are breaking the law, by not providing for their children, mistreating them, etc. they are committing a crime and there are already provisions to deal with that in the current Constitution. People that vote yes are being manipulated, they should ask themselves why.

Ciaran O Reilly

Lawyer1, are you actually a lawyer?

"Parents have rights over their children. Children's rights are linked to those of their parents."

I don't even know where to start with a comment like that. But to be clear, the whole point of this referendum is to explicitly recognise children as human beings with natural and imprescriptible rights of their own, beyond and separate from their relationship with parents. Am I to understand that you disagree with this? Am I to understand you agree with the current imbalance within the Constitution between children of married and unmarried parents? Am I to understand that you think orphans and children with only one parent have less rights?...

It is in the children best interests to protect the rights of their parents.

What are you actually talking about?

If parents are breaking the law, by not providing for their children, mistreating them, etc. they are committing a crime and there are already provisions to deal with that in the current Constitution

Of course there are laws to penalise abusive or violent people. The problem is the existing impediments within our Constitution which allow only a level of intervention by the State at a point when such violence and abuse has become very bad. This amendment is about child care/welfare early intervention and family support, children's rights, best interests and voice, adoption and cases of guardianship, access and custody...

Lawyer1

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Lawyer1, are you actually a lawyer?



I don't even know where to start with a comment like that. But to be clear, the whole point of this referendum is to explicitly recognise children as human beings with natural and imprescriptible rights of their own, beyond and separate from their relationship with parents. Am I to understand that you disagree with this? Am I to understand you agree with the current imbalance within the Constitution between children of married and unmarried parents? Am I to understand that you think orphans and children with only one parent have less rights?...



What are you actually talking about?



Of course there are laws to penalise abusive or violent people. The problem is the existing impediments within our Constitution which allow only a level of intervention by the State at a point when such violence and abuse has become very bad. This amendment is about child care/welfare early intervention and family support, children's rights, best interests and voice, adoption and cases of guardianship, access and custody...

The one that doesn't seem to have a clue about human rights is you. I wasn't aware that children were not recognised as human beings, as for me they always were. If children of married couples are more protected than those of unmarried couples, the solution is not to take away the rights of the children of married couples. If the violence and abuse become so bad, the state has the tools to intervene. A lot of the abuses have been committed to children at the care of the state, and this is something that needs to be addressed and dealt with before giving the state more power over ALL families.

Ciaran O Reilly

Sigh...

Lawyer1: The one that doesn't seem to have a clue about human rights is you. I wasn't aware that children were not recognised as human beings, as for me they always were. If children of married couples are more protected than those of unmarried couples, the solution is not to take away the rights of the children of married couples. If the violence and abuse become so bad, the state has the tools to intervene. A lot of the abuses have been committed to children at the care of the state, and this is something that needs to be addressed and dealt with before giving the state more power over ALL families.

Actually I do know quite a bit, and if you did too, you'd know that children of unmarried parents are actually the better protected ones because given their circumstances, their rights are derived from their own individuality rather than as being members of the family - which is determined as the married family in Article 41.3.1 - and so aren't faced with their rights being determined as inferior to those of the parents, as is the case with children of married parents, because of the prevailing judicial interpretation of the current wording, which leaves little room for any other.

Lots of abuse has been done by the State, true. But a) the vast majority in State care now are in foster care, not in state institutions and b) the fact remains that the majority of child abuse and neglect happens in the home.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

... ultimately any new developments must be passed by the people through our democratic process - remember Nice, Lisbon etc?

New treaties generally require a referendum. But the point is we've agreed to accept all EU Regulations and Directives made on foot of the Treaties we've already agreed to. Plus, if any conflict is subsequently found between our Constitution and EU law, EU law takes precedence. So the situation is exactly as I've stated.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Show me one example of an EU law being imposed and implemented in Ireland which was against the majority will of the Irish people?

Just Google "European Commission v Ireland", and you'll find cases where infringement proceeding are being taken against Ireland for non-compliance.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

The referencing of these rights is phrased in an incidental way

Your specific statement was there was no explicit reference. Once again, you are proven to be wrong.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

As I said before, no one is disputing that children's rights have been vindicated through interpretation of the existing wording, but the problem arises in situations which also involve the rights and interests of parents.

There is no such problem.

Lawyer1

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Sigh...



Actually I do know quite a bit, and if you did too, you'd know that children of unmarried parents are actually the better protected ones because given their circumstances, their rights are derived from their own individuality rather than as being members of the family - which is determined as the married family in Article 41.3.1 - and so aren't faced with their rights being determined as inferior to those of the parents, as is the case with children of married parents, because of the prevailing judicial interpretation of the current wording, which leaves little room for any other.

Lots of abuse has been done by the State, true. But a) the vast majority in State care now are in foster care, not in state institutions and b) the fact remains that the majority of child abuse and neglect happens in the home.

There are 509 children missing from state care and only 58 accounted for since the year 2000. Likely cause: human trafficking. What steps have been taken to deal with this? Actually children in foster care have more chances to be abused (exactly double, and tripple if they have a disability) than the ones with their families according to a report from Holland. So foster care is not ideal either but just a last resort. Supporting and helping the parents is the best way to care for children's human rights.

ciarafem

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

........ As I said before, no one is disputing that children's rights have been vindicated through interpretation of the existing wording, but the problem arises in situations which also involve the rights and interests of parents.

If you make the effort to check the facts you may convince yourself that that is not the case

1. Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman (2006 Baby Ann case)

There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children.

5. 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.

6. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child.

7. 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.

2. Retired SC Judge Hugh O'Flaherty agrees with J Hardiman

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

3. Well reasoned argument by a solicitor in last Sunday's Independent http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/instead-of-lip-service-lets-act-on-failings-3281709.html

4. There is a good Facebook page with links to various source documents of the Baby Ann case, the Roscommon incest case facts, etc. http://www.facebook.com/childrens.referendum?ref=tn_tnmn

5. An excellent legal critique of the wording of the proposed amendment http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

Ciaran O Reilly

ciarafem

O'Flaherty and Hardiman... repeatedly quoting two judges, famous for their conservative judgments, is not a strong position to take, especially in the face of overwhelming disagreement with their position from the rest of the legal community. I too could quote just a couple of them myself, like Katherine McGuinness or Geoffrey Shannon, but they have spoken often enough for themselves and don't require repeating. I'd rather think and speak for myself.

And by the way that Facebook page, which I'm very familiar with, is a breeding ground of disinformation and fear-mongering. The profile pic is a 'No' symbol - hardly a reliable source of unbiased information.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

To be honest, this debate has gone way off track - I don't even know why we're discussing EU law. It's completely irrelevant to this amendment.

Yes I concede Ireland may be challenged for compliance, as is necessary due to our membership. But that has never arisen with regard to children, despite the wording existing as it does since our membership began, so how is it relevant at this point? Also, the UNCRC committee has called for us to change our laws in relation to children but ultimately it cannot force us to do so either.

There is no such problem? Have you blindly ignored/forgotten every publication and statement made in the last weeks by parents organisations, fostering groups, childrens charities, etc which explicitly lay out the problems?

Read this: http://childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/ShortGuideChildrenReferendum1012.pdf

Lawyer1
Human trafficking certainly exists in Ireland and no doubt some of those missing children have been trafficked. However, there is no reason to suggest that the 'likely cause' is human trafficking for all of those still mssing. A great deal are simply undocumented and with family members.

I'd love to see that report from Holland - just because one report says something, doesn't mean one should accept its findings without analysing their methods, fundings, sources, conclusions, the level of peer-review etc. I think we all know we could find a report to support any claim, however outlandish.

Finally, I absolutely agree that parents should be supported and helped whenever possible, which benefits children and their rights, however it is not necessarily speaking the 'best way' to do so, and more importantly I wish you and others understood that the proposed wording will actually help to keep families together by allowing proportionate early intervention in those exceptional circumstances when it is needed - keeping more families together, so there is nothing to fear and everything to be hopeful for.

ciarafem

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

ciarafem

O'Flaherty and Hardiman... repeatedly quoting two judges, famous for their conservative judgments, is not a strong position to take, especially in the face of overwhelming disagreement with their position from the rest of the legal community. I too could quote just a couple of them myself, like Katherine McGuinness or Geoffrey Shannon, but they have spoken often enough for themselves and don't require repeating. I'd rather think and speak for myself.

And by the way that Facebook page, which I'm very familiar with, is a breeding ground of disinformation and fear-mongering. The profile pic is a 'No' symbol - hardly a reliable source of unbiased information.

And your dismissive comment on this opinion from an SC in today's Irish Times would be?

Sir, – This referendum is unnecessary. Our children are fully protected under the Constitution as it stands.
The much-quoted Kilkenny incest and Roscommon cases, as well as others. were not caused by any defect in the law but rather by the failure of those charged with the responsibility of giving effect to that law. None of the deaths of the children in care, nor damage caused by clerical abuse arose as a result of deficiencies in the law. The same State responsible for these atrocities is now trumped as the saviour of our children.
The proposed adoption provision is no more than a smokescreen. Children of married parents may be adopted under the present Constitution. Nowhere is this set out in the information circulated to the public. There is no need for this new provision. Legislation would resolve any difficulties and new legislation will be required to give effect to any changed provision in the Constitution.
The proposal that children must be heard in court proceedings is nonsense as well as being prohibitive in cost. At present in court cases of care proceedings the system of guardians ad litem operates and in criminal proceedings children are represented. The introduction of obligatory representation for children in family law proceedings is without merit.
Disputes between parents are stressful enough for children without compelling them to appear before a judge to preserve their paramount interest. Who will decide what “paramount” means – one or other of the parents, a legal representative of either parent or of the children in question, the judge? On what basis? Who will set the criteria?
The delays in hearing those family law proceedings will be extensive as these children will have no income and will have to apply for civil legal aid where the waiting list is nine months or longer.
The people of this country are being fooled by the pious platitudes of politicians as is evident from the fact that the same politicians cannot decide on the title of the referendum – children or children’s. – Yours, etc,
ANNE DUNNE SC,
Palmerston Park,
Dublin 6.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

Catherine McGuinness has misled the public on the Kilkenny incest case - it had nothing to do with the Constitution. It was because the state agents didn't act as they should have done in accordance with Art 42.5

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.

I know of nobody who argues that the Kilkenny case was not an exceptional one.

fisgon

Listened to Dana today on the News, inevitably offering her hap-hazard, ill-informed opinion on the referendum.

From my perspective she embarrassed herself. One of her main points was that the amendment would allow EU and UN charters on the rights of the child to impose themselves on the Irish constitution. Of course this is simply untrue, I have read the proposal we are voting on and of course the UN and EU are not even mentioned. The other pannelists were as baffled as I was.

As usual with Dana, and with the theocratic agenda she supports (which also includes Waters, Youth Defence, Iona, etc), her point was that there are things going on under the surface, that the Irish people are being tricked by some grand conspiracy that will threaten the future of families, and society itself. This conspiracy often - as now - involves the EU and the UN, of course it couldn't be just Irish people coming up with this stuff for themselves.

It is redolent of a small-minded way of thinking that sees everything from the outside as a threat. This has long been the way with those who advocate for theocracy. Dana seemed to think that the idea that the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child would be adopted here in this country - which of course has nothing to do with the referendum - would be an unquestionably evil thing, and seemed to expect everyone else to share in her terror. Oh no, not The UN Charter on the Rights of the Child, anything but that!

Hotblack Desiato

fisgon wrote: »

As usual with Dana, and with the theocratic agenda she supports (which also includes Waters, Youth Defence, Iona, etc), her point was that there are things going on under the surface, that the Irish people are being tricked by some grand conspiracy that will threaten the future of families, and society itself.

Deep deep irony, these are the same people who are the cheerleaders for the church which imposed its will on the Irish state for decades, tricked us into believing that they were above reproach when many of them were abusing kids and many others covering it up, and to this day the full truth is still withheld. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious, sad, and sickening.

Annasopra

ciarafem wrote: »

And your dismissive comment on this opinion from an SC in today's Irish Times would be?

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

Catherine McGuinness has misled the public on the Kilkenny incest case - it had nothing to do with the Constitution. It was because the state agents didn't act as they should have done in accordance with Art 42.5

I know of nobody who argues that the Kilkenny case was not an exceptional one.

I actually think I trust the voices of a lot of these people (some of whom have been working with children for thousands of years between them) - more than that SC who I'd never heard of (although I did find an article about the farce of an inquiry she chaired)

Sir, – We support a Yes vote in the children’s referendum on November 10th. This is a historic opportunity to put children at the heart of the Constitution. We encourage everyone to make time on Saturday to vote Yes for children. – Yours, etc,

ANNE FAY, INTO; DAVID NOLAN SC, Bar Council of Ireland; FERGUS FINLAY, Barnardos; MICHAEL BARRON, BeLong To LGBT Youth Services; Dr THOMAS QUIGLEY, Bessborough Centre; DENISE MC CORMILLA, Border Counties Childhood Network; MARY FLAHERTY, Cari (The Children at Risk in Ireland Foundation); BART STORAN, Campaign for Children; CARMEL CORRIGAN, Independent Research and Evaluation Consultant; CATHERINE GHENT, Solicitor; EDDIE D’ARCY, Catholic Youth Care; PATRICIA MURRAY, Childminding Ireland; MARY O’CONNOR, Children in Hospital Ireland; TANYA WARD, Children’s Rights Alliance; MARTIN O’CONNOR, COPE Galway; JOHN DOLAN, Disability Federation of Ireland; KAREN Mc HUGH, Doras Luimní; Dr DAIRE KEOGH, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra; Dr DYMPNA DEVINE, UCD; Dr GEOFFREY SHANNON; ELLEN O’MALLEY DUNLOP, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre; JOHN HOLLHAN, Educate Together; JENNIFER GARGAN, Empowering People in Care; ETHEL BUCKLEY, Siptu; CLAIRE DINEEN, Family Resource Centre National Forum; JOYCE LOUGHNAN, Focus Ireland; CLÍONA FROST, Príomhoifigeach, Forbairt Naíonraí Teo; SEAN CAMPBELL, Foróige; Fr PETER MCVERRY; KIERAN ROSE, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network; PAUL MARTIN, Home-Start National Office, Ireland; DENISE CHARLTON, Immigrant Council of Ireland; PADDY CONNOLLY, Inclusion Ireland; ELAINE GERAGHTY, Inspire Ireland Foundation; DAVID JOYCE, Irish Congress of Trade Unions; MARK KELLY, Irish Council for Civil Liberties; LIZ WALL, Irish Countrywomen’s Association; SEAN O’GORMAN, Irish Foster Care Association; LIAM HERRICK, Irish Penal Reform Trust; DYLAN GRACE, President of Irish Second-Level Students’ Union; ASHLEY BALBIRNIE, Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; NIALL MCLOUGHLIN, Irish Youth Foundation; JONATHAN IRWIN, Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation; JACKIE O’CALLAGHAN; CATHERINE McGUINNESS; ORLA KENNY, Kids’ Own Publishing Partnership; CATHLEEN O’NEILL, Kilbarrack Youth Project; JAMES MCCOURT, Law Society of Ireland; ORLA TUOHY, Lifestart Foundation; KIERAN O’DOWD, Macra na Feirme; MAURICE PRATT, Barretstown; CHRISTINA HUGHES, Miss Carr’s Children’s Services; MONINNE GRIFFITH, Marriage Equality; JACKIE ARMSTRONG, Mothers’ Union of Ireland; KRYSTIAN FIKERT, MyMind; AINE LYNCH, National Parents Council (Primary); ORLA O’CONNOR, National Women’s Council of Ireland; MARY CUNNINGHAM, National Youth Council of Ireland; CAROLE GOULDING, No Name Club; PATRICIA CONBOY, Older and Bolder; OLIVIA O’LEARY; MAEVE LEWIS, One in Four; KAREN KIERNAN, One Family; FRANCES BYRNE, OPEN; Patricia Lee, Parentstop; Pat Clarke,* Down Syndrome Ireland; SANDRA BYRNE, Violence Against Women Programme, Pavee Point; PETER Mac DONALD, The Body Shop Ireland; PÓL Ó MÚRCHÚ, Solicitor; Prof NÓIRÍN HAYES, Centre for Social and Educational Research, DIT; Prof URSULA KILKELLY, UCC; FIONA NEARY, Rape Crisis Network Ireland; ALLISON GRAHAM, Saoirse Women’s Refuge; GARY BRODERICK, Saol Project Ltd; JOHN LAWLOR, Scouting Ireland; JOE O’TOOLE; Senator JILLIAN VAN TURNHOUT; SHANE DOWNER, Arc Adoption; SHEILA NUNAN, INTO; DENISE LYONS, President of Social Care Ireland; ANNE McKEOWN, Sonas Housing Association; ADAM HARRIS, Spunout Youth Leadership Panel; Sr STANISLAUS KENNEDY; MARIE THERESE MULHOLLAND, St Patrick’s University Hospital; TOBY WOLFE, Start Strong; KILLIAN FORDE, The Integration Centre; DES ALLEN, Tennis Ireland; INEKE DURVILLE, Irish Association of Social Workers; MARGARET DROMEY, Treoir; Prof PAT DOLAN, Unesco Child and Family Research Centre; PETER POWER, Unicef Ireland; WAYNE DIGNAM, Irish Foster Care Association; VICKY RATTIGAN, Young Christian Workers; MIKE KELLY, Young Irish Film Makers; ELEANOR McCLOREY, Youngballymun; SIOBHÁN O’DWYER, Youth Advocate Programmes Ireland; Dr PATRICK J BURKE, Youth Work Ireland PAUL GILLIGAN, C/o Molesworth Street, Dublin 2.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fisgon wrote: »

Listened to Dana <...> One of her main points was that the amendment would allow EU and UN charters on the rights of the child to impose themselves on the Irish constitution. Of course this is simply untrue,

Absolutely. As I pointed out earlier, EU law already takes precidence over our Constitution. That's not changed one way or another by this.

fisgon wrote: »

Dana seemed to think that the idea that the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child would be adopted here in this country - which of course has nothing to do with the referendum

In fairness to Dana, who might not be the sharpest tool in the box, I've a recollection that it's actually people on the Yes side like the CRA who have been confusing things, by suggesting that the phrase "natural and imprescriptible rights" meant this UN Rights of the Child thing. We've even had some confused posters here thinking that we had to have this Referendum because they were under the impression that, in some way, we were failing to meet some international obligation with respect to the Charter. Which is, of course, complete hogwash.

Dana's a nice singer, but she's more than a little naiive. She may have assumed that Yes campaigners actually knew what they were talking about. Hence, I suspect, her confusion. Because, as we know, the reason the term "natural and impresciptible rights" appears in the Irish Constitition is the same reason that the Constitution invokes the Holy Trinity as the source of its authority; it's because of the dominant Roman Catholic ethos in 1930s Ireland. Nothing for Dana to be worried about, at all.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

I don't even know why we're discussing EU law.

It's because you didn't know that EU law takes precidence over Irish law so, rather comically, you tried contradicting me on this point.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

There is no such problem? Have you blindly ignored/forgotten every publication and statement made in the last weeks by parents organisations, fostering groups, childrens charities, etc which explicitly lay out the problems?

Read this: http://childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/ShortGuideChildrenReferendum1012.pdf

I've already read the CRA stuff; it raises no substantial issue such that requires us to change the Constitution. I've contributed to several threads at this stage, inviting Yes supporters to raise a substantial issue that requires this change. Not one has been raised.

ciarafem

mango salsa wrote: »

I actually think I trust the voices of a lot of these people (some of whom have been working with children for thousands of years between them) - more than that SC who I'd never heard of (although I did find an article about the farce of an inquiry she chaired)

....................

Extracts from President of the District Court’s (Judge Eileen Kennedy) Committee Report into the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, conducted from 1967 to 1970

1.10 The Committee would like to express its gratitude to the Managers and Staff of Schools and Homes, to the children interviewed, to the various Government Departments and Local Authorities, to the Authorities abroad, and to the many voluntary groups and individuals at home who gave so freely of their knowledge, advice and co-opeation in a manner which facilitated the preparation of this report.

……………….
4.1 In listing the limitations of the present child care system insofar as it concerns Reformatory and Industrial Schools, it may seem that we are criticising those responsible for running the schools. This is not the intention of this Committee; indeed, we are very much aware that if it were not for the dedicated work of many of our religious bodies the position would be a great deal worse than it is now.

Your comments and the letter’s listing of the ‘many voluntary groups and individuals’ are on a par with the comments of Kennedy’s report.

Treora

Article 41 appears to be the problem. It reduces the rights of single parents, controls divorce and controls adoption indirectly.

Repeal article 41 and introduce legislation to replace it and let judges decide on adoption.

http://www.allout.org/invisibleparents

Ozymandius2011

Marc Coleman on Newstalk just now is talking about the referendum and warning of what happened in children with forced sterilisation of children.

Ciaran O Reilly

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The reason why EU law is irrelevant in this conversation is because... it is. You know, I did google European Commission v Ireland, and found one quite interesting instance, for example, of how the ECJ upheld a complaint against Ireland for not properly protecting/investigating an environmental protection issue. However, I'd love to know just how you see EU being involved in the Children's Referendum, given that it's been developed for a decade by successive governments and now put forward, without an ounce of EU involvement? Also, are you suggesting that Ireland has ever suffered from having an avenue available to its citizens by which to hold its government to account on various issues, such as the environmental example given above? Fundamental to our membership to the EU is to abide by community law, but as already explained, when such changes require a change of our Constitution, it must be done by referendum. However, this referendum has not come about because of such a situation.

As for issues which require this change:
The inability for children of married parents to be adopted is not an issue? The imbalance of rights between the children of married and unmarried parents is not an issue? The inability of married parents to voluntarily give up thier children for adoption is not an issue? The inability of the courts to intervene at earlier times in situations of child abuse and neglect because of the overbearing and inequal status of family rights in the Constitution is not an issue? The lack of legal obligation upon courts to hear a child's voice in both public and private cases related to welfare, adoption, custody, access and guradianship is not an issue? The lack of legal obligation to adhere to a child's best interests in these same situations is not an issue? The lack of an explicit recognition of children's rights within our Constitution, allowing future leglislation and policy to be guided and inspired by such a recognition is not an issue?

Seriously, get real. You're reading the documents and yet refusing to see anything but what serves your own pre-determined arguments.

ciarafem

Did you really just compare the united voices of all those organisations to the 40-year-old comments of one individual committee president?

tankbarry

Im only looking into this today which is the best way to vote yes or no.... I have no idea

Boulevardier

"Marc Coleman on Newstalk just now is talking about the referendum and warning of what happened in children with forced sterilisation of children."

Be honest. Do you really think this amendment will permit the forced sterilisation of children?

Marc Coleman is wrong about pretty much every issue. He is a man of the far right. That should be a warning in itself of the sort of people who make up the No side.

Walt Jabsco

The Supreme Court has just ruled on this. Guess what... The Government Lied and used funding to push the Yes side..
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-overturns-referendum-campaign-challenge-573452.html

snubbleste

Walt Jabsco wrote: »

The Supreme Court has just ruled on this. Guess what... The Government Lied and used funding to push the Yes side..
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-overturns-referendum-campaign-challenge-573452.html

Imagine that!

Ciaran O Reilly

'Lied' is a serious misrepresentation of that! If you consider it lying, then you are presumably calling everyone who is explicitly advocating a Yes vote has been lying extensively throughout, at which I would take offence.

ciarafem

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

...... ciarafem

Did you really just compare the united voices of all those organisations to the 40-year-old comments of one individual committee president?

It was a quote from the report produced by a committee.

Are you suggesting that I ignore the Constitution because it was put together in 1937?

Even more interestingly should the US Supreme Court ignore the US Constitution because it was framed in the late 18th century?

seamus

Walt Jabsco wrote: »

The Supreme Court has just ruled on this. Guess what... The Government Lied and used funding to push the Yes side.

Where's the lie?
They believed they didn't represent a "yes" agenda. The courts disagree. That doesn't mean they lied. It does however mean that someone in the Dept. of children is a blinkin idiot. Even just looking at the front cover of their booklet and it's clear that it's advocating a "Yes".

gizmo555

seamus wrote: »

Where's the lie?
They believed they didn't represent a "yes" agenda. The courts disagree. That doesn't mean they lied. It does however mean that someone in the Dept. of children is a blinkin idiot. Even just looking at the front cover of their booklet and it's clear that it's advocating a "Yes".

I don't believe it's unduly cynical to think it's much more likely that they decided to chance it, knowing they were in breach of the McKenna judgment. They probably made the correct assumption that even if they were challenged, the court's decision would come too late to make any practical difference.

Well done and fair play to Mark McCrystal anyway!

Ciaran O Reilly

ciarafem

Are you suggesting that I ignore the Constitution because it was put together in 1937?

Even more interestingly should the US Supreme Court ignore the US Constitution because it was framed in the late 18th century?

No one said anything about ignoring the Constitution... we're amending it. We've amended our Constitution 26 times already, you know. That's because yes, shockingly, times do change since 1937 and when it was originally written it did not properly recognise and vindicate the rights of children. Unless you'd like to keep it as it waa? Then we could have serious criminal offenders out on bail, a voting age of 21, no divorce, the death penalty etc... Genius idea, that.

And the US has amended their constitution 27 times, by the way.

ciarafem

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

ciarafem



No one said anything about ignoring the Constitution... we're amending it. We've amended our Constitution 26 times already, you know. That's because yes, shockingly, times do change since 1937 and when it was originally written it did not properly recognise and vindicate the rights of children. Unless you'd like to keep it as it waa? Then we could have serious criminal offenders out on bail, a voting age of 21, no divorce, the death penalty etc... Genius idea, that.

And the US has amended their constitution 27 times, by the way.

The Constitution contains this Article:

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights
Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

Children are citizens.

Are you going to advocate for special articles for the elderly, the disabled, the travelling community, the children of immigrants, citizens who were not born in Ireland and who don't speak perfect English, those whose home county has never won an All Ireland, etc.?

Ciaran O Reilly

ciarafem

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, no one is denying that children have had rights recognised through judicial interpretation of the constitution over the years. However, what is lacking is an explicit recognition of these rights, which presents problems when making decisions which also involve the rights and interests of parents (which currently enjoy greatly superior recognition in the Constitution).

Are you simply continuing to argue because you just want to defend your original position at all costs, and are unable to accept the validity/truth of another argument because it would mean admitting you were wrong?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

I'd love to know just how you see EU being involved in the Children's Referendum, given that it's been developed for a decade by successive governments and now put forward, without an ounce of EU involvement?

Go back to where this exchange started. My original point was, exactly, that the EU angle is irrelevant as EU law already takes precidence over all Irish law, including the Constitution. Your mistake was to allege that the Constitution takes precidence over EU law - which is simply wrong.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

As for issues which require this change:
The inability for children of married parents to be adopted is not an issue? The imbalance of rights between the children of married and unmarried parents is not an issue? The inability of married parents to voluntarily give up thier children for adoption is not an issue? The inability of the courts to intervene at earlier times in situations of child abuse and neglect because of the overbearing and inequal status of family rights in the Constitution is not an issue? The lack of legal obligation upon courts to hear a child's voice in both public and private cases related to welfare, adoption, custody, access and guradianship is not an issue? The lack of legal obligation to adhere to a child's best interests in these same situations is not an issue? The lack of an explicit recognition of children's rights within our Constitution, allowing future leglislation and policy to be guided and inspired by such a recognition is not an issue?

There are no legal impediments to intervention in cases of abuse, and no impediments to hearing a child's voice in Court. Adoption is an irrelevance, as I've exhaustively pointed out at this stage. There are hardly any adoptions by non-family members, for reason that have nothing to do with the Constitution.

And, in particular, the concept of married parents volunteering their children for adoption is just weird. It's as if we take the reasonable proposition that all children should be treated equitably, and turn it into farce.
The Constitution already provides adequately for all of these matters. There is no need for change.

seamus wrote: »

Where's the lie?

The Judgment doesn't say, unfortunately. It only says

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/6b4d1de136ecb72d80257ab000419d78?OpenDocument

The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

I'd be very interested in knowing the misstatement; I'd be less interested if the reasonable concerns of No voters weren't being so lightly dismissed.

We've told you the Government and Yes campaign are misleading you on points of fact. The Supreme Court agrees with us, at least in principle on one point. I'd love to know the point; I don't know why the Court didn't state it, so we'd know in time for the vote.
　
　
　

Ciaran O Reilly

GCU Flexible Demeanour

There are no legal impediments to intervention in cases of abuse, and no impediments to hearing a child's voice in Court. Adoption is an irrelevance, as I've exhaustively pointed out at this stage. There are hardly any adoptions by non-family members, for reason that have nothing to do with the Constitution.

And, in particular, the concept of married parents volunteering their children for adoption is just weird. It's as if we take the reasonable proposition that all children should be treated equitably, and turn it into farce.
The Constitution already provides adequately for all of these matters. There is no need for change.

No impediments to child abuse? There have been countless statements from those work with children and judgments from the courts on a daily basis which explain that the strong recognition of the rights and status of the family combined with a severely lacking acknowledgment of children's rights has resulted in the courts having no recourse (because the Constitution is the most supreme instrument of our law) but to let children continue to reside with their parents, despite levels of abuse and neglect. Additional to this, the physical and moral failing clause requires the courts to look at how and why the parents have failed, rather than the actual effect on the child. This is a considerably difficult task given that aforementioned central status of the family within the Constitution... understand now?!

No impediments to hearing a child's voice in court, but the fact remains that because it is discretionary and is therefore only heard in 40% of cases. Why would you not want that to be 100%?

Adoption is an irrelevance? Hard to respect someone with an opinion like that. So what if the majority of adoptions are by family members? The point is about the marital status of the biological parents.

Married parents giving up their children for adoption is 'weird'... again, not the most mature or sensible statement in the world. Despite you thinking such a situation may a bit icky or totally, like, wtf, it does happen that married people are incapable or unwilling to take care of their children and wish them to have a chance to be adopted and have another chance at a real and stable childhood.