What way should I vote, and why

oscarBravo

ciarafem wrote: »

There is an interesting collection of press articles and background links to the Baby Ann case and the Roscommon Abuse Case at https://www.facebook.com/childrens.referendum?ref=tn_tnmn

That's nice. What's the relevance to the post of mine that you quoted?

Annasopra

Uriel. wrote: »

The analysis prepared by the Children's Rights Alliance looks far superior and could be argued has more weight behind it given the breadth of organisations that make up the Alliance, however, it is unclear to me who the actual author is. Presumably, it was written in conjunction with a legal professional.

However, I cannot take either analysis as being particularly good or sound without knowing the qualifications behind the analysis. To be honest, I'd far sooner listen to members of the Judiciary on this, particularly those of the Supreme Court.

For transparency, for what it's worth, I am leaning towards a Yes vote, but am not 100% convinced, yet

Catherine McGuinness former supreme court judge has given some very good arguments in favour

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1009/1224325059406.html

There is also some excellent legal analysis here

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/10/30/the-childrens-referendum-explanation-and-analysis/#more-16688

ciarafem

mango salsa wrote: »

Catherine McGuinness former supreme court judge has given some very good arguments in favour

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1009/1224325059406.html

There is also some excellent legal analysis here

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/10/30/the-childrens-referendum-explanation-and-analysis/#more-16688

On the other hand you can look at:

Retired Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty views on the need for a referendum http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

Alternative excellent Legal Analysis can be found here http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

Excellent source of information on various aspects of the referendum https://www.facebook.com/childrens.referendum?ref=tn_tnmn

Annasopra

ciarafem wrote: »

On the other hand you can look at:

Retired Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty views on the need for a referendum http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

Alternative excellent Legal Analysis can be found here http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

Excellent source of information on various aspects of the referendum https://www.facebook.com/childrens.referendum?ref=tn_tnmn

I really can't take most of that seriously at all though.

The so called "legal analysis" is not a real legal analysis

The facebook page is made up of people like John Waters who are going through this campaign shouting, scare mongering, coming up with completely unverified information, making outlandish conspiracy theory claims - I have read almost nothing from the no side that is convincing, well researched or rational.

ciarafem

mango salsa wrote: »

I really can't take most of that seriously at all though.

The so called "legal analysis" is not a real legal analysis

The facebook page is made up of people like John Waters who are going through this campaign shouting, scare mongering, coming up with completely unverified information, making outlandish conspiracy theory claims - I have read almost nothing from the no side that is convincing, well researched or rational.

I suppose that you would be just as dismissive of Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman when he said, in passing, 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.

K-9

ciarafem wrote: »

On the other hand you can look at:

Retired Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty views on the need for a referendum http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

Alternative excellent Legal Analysis can be found here http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

Excellent source of information on various aspects of the referendum https://www.facebook.com/childrens.referendum?ref=tn_tnmn

That's an opinion of an ex-Supreme Court judge that had to resign in "controversial" circumstances, an anonymous blog type post and a link to a facebook campaign.

I'd respect Hardiman's opinion but that is all it is, his expert legal opinion which obviously other expert opinions disagree with.

ciarafem

K-9 wrote: »

That's an opinion of an ex-Supreme Court judge that had to resign in "controversial" circumstances, an anonymous blog type post and a link to a facebook campaign.

I'd respect Hardiman's opinion but that is all it is, his expert legal opinion which obviously other expert opinions disagree with.

And your comment on what Dr. Conor O'Mahony, Law lecturer at UCC, has to say would be?

A limitation of the current framework is that Article 42.5 only mentions children’s rights indirectly as something that the State must have due regard for when intervening to supply the place of parents who have failed in their duties towards their children. The existing framework is premised on the concept of State subsidiarity in family affairs, and places the State under no direct obligation to protect the rights of children as long as parents are adequately performing their functions. The obligation is a default one that arises only in exceptional cases.

The amendment, if passed, will shift the emphasis so that the State’s obligation to protect and vindicate children’s rights is a constant duty owed to children, and not a mere default duty. In part, this is intended to reinforce the fact that children have rights as individuals and not merely as a sub-set of the family unit.

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/10/23/legal-analysis-of-the-childrens-referendum-article-42a-1/

Annasopra

ciarafem wrote: »

And your comment on what Dr. Conor O'Mahony, Law lecturer at UCC, has to say would be?

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/10/23/legal-analysis-of-the-childrens-referendum-article-42a-1/

I know you didn't ask me that question but I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you have bolded. I think what you have put in bold is a good thing in fact.

K-9

ciarafem wrote: »

And your comment on what Dr. Conor O'Mahony, Law lecturer at UCC, has to say would be?

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/10/23/legal-analysis-of-the-childrens-referendum-article-42a-1/

My comment on opinions would cover that too! I'd respect his opinion but I wouldn't give it anymore weight than Catherine McGuinness and others on the yes side. That's probably because I haven't made my mind up on it yet.

ciarafem

mango salsa wrote: »

I know you didn't ask me that question but I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you have bolded. I think what you have put in bold is a good thing in fact.

All the evidence is strongly suggestive that the intact biological parents family unit is superior to all others with respect to achieving the best outcomes for children. In addition, the state has a far worse record as a parent (surrogate) than biological parents - e.g. the industrial schools scandal and the recent HSE 'Deaths in Care' scandal.

oscarBravo

ciarafem wrote: »

All the evidence is strongly suggestive that the intact biological parents family unit is superior to all others with respect to achieving the best outcomes for children.

Except when it isn't.

ciarafem

oscarBravo wrote: »

Except when it isn't.

That's why Art 42.5 is there - to deal with that situation as Supreme Court Judges Hugh O'Flaherty (retired) and Adrian Hardiman have pointed out.

The state in the Kilkenny and Roscommon incest cases and the Kelly Fitzgerald case did not intervene to protect the children involved, even though it was required to by Art 42.5 of the Constitution.

diabeticmum

ciarafem wrote: »

That's why Art 42.5 is there - to deal with that situation as Supreme Court Judges Hugh O'Flaherty (retired) and Adrian Hardiman have pointed out.

The state in the Kilkenny and Roscommon incest cases and the Kelly Fitzgerald case did not intervene to protect the children involved, even though it was required to by Art 42.5 of the Constitution.

Which is why we dont need a referendum and I'll be voting NO.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

K-9 wrote: »

I'd respect Hardiman's opinion but that is all it is, his expert legal opinion which obviously other expert opinions disagree with.

He's not just providing an expert opinion. The quotes from him on these threads are taken from his judgment in the Baby Ann case. So what you're actually reading is the reasoning employed when he participated in a pivotal case - as part of the Court charged with authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. So, strictly speaking, it's not just another view that other experts can disagree with.

mango salsa wrote: »

Catherine McGuinness former supreme court judge has given some very good arguments in favour

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1009/1224325059406.html

Not really - she repeats all the irrelevant stuff about adoption, as if it was a live concern. Adoption as a practice is dying out for reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution.

fisgon

ciarafem wrote: »

All the evidence is strongly suggestive that the intact biological parents family unit is superior to all others with respect to achieving the best outcomes for children.

That might be relevant if the proposal was to take all children from their parents and put them into state care. This is not the proposal at all, of course. It's about those particular minority of situations where the biological parents are either unwilling or unable to care for their children.
The above point was made by Catholic Social Services in Sligo during the McColgan case, who saw it as their duty to do everything in their power to "maintain the family unit", as the highest priority. All the while the father was raping and torturing his children and wife. This misguided delusion that "family" is somehow perfect and ideal and sacred, and always the best option for children, has been behind some of the great travesties in this country.

ciarafem

fisgon wrote: »

That might be relevant if the proposal was to take all children from their parents and put them into state care. This is not the proposal at all, of course. It's about those particular minority of situations where the biological parents are either unwilling or unable to care for their children.
The above point was made by Catholic Social Services in Sligo during the McColgan case, who saw it as their duty to do everything in their power to "maintain the family unit", as the highest priority. All the while the father was raping and torturing his children and wife. This misguided delusion that "family" is somehow perfect and ideal and sacred, and always the best option for children, has been behind some of the great travesties in this country.

You do not seem to be aware of what out Constitution contains. Art. 42.5 in there to deal with these exceptional cases

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.

As Supreme Court Justic Adrain Hardiman clearly stated:

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.

What this as a background what were you trying to say in your post?