childrens Referendum **poll added**

Fuinseog

what the deal with this new referendum? why do we actually need to spend millions of money we do not have on something the vast majority care little about? just change whatever needs to changed. no referendum required. most other countries do it that way. i mean who is going to dare to vote against it?
its these kind of things that make us need Eu supervisors to make sure we do not continue spending unwisely.

if a poll were to be taken how many of ye would actually vote in the referendum. I won't be voting. the whole thing has zero relevance to our daily lives.

jester77

Fuinseog wrote: »

what the deal with this new referendum? why do we actually need to spend millions of money we do not have on something the vast majority care little about? just change whatever needs to changed. no referendum required. most other countries do it that way. i mean who is going to dare to vote against it?
its these kind of things that make us need Eu supervisors to make sure we do not continue spending unwisely.

if a poll were to be taken how many of ye would actually vote in the referendum. I won't be voting. the whole thing has zero relevance to our daily lives.

I don't think it's a good idea allowing children to vote in a referendum. Children tend to be easily influenced by their parents and would probably vote just as their parents would vote. At least that doesn't happen with adults!

say_who_now?

Fuinseog wrote: »

what the deal with this new referendum? why do we actually need to spend millions of money we do not have on something the vast majority...

I stopped reading here. I hate sweeping generalisatons.

As for what's a referendum for? Well we live in a democracy, the government cannot make changes to the constitution without first offering the people a say in the matter.

Or would you rather live in China?

LeinsterDub

Can't wait for the Won't someone please think of the Children poster and the No side posters should be fun

flutterflye

It's in our constitution that a referendum needs to be held for any changes made.
That would be why they are having one.

uck51js9zml2yt

flutterflye wrote: »

It's in our constitution that a referendum needs to be held for any changes made.
That would be why they are having one.

We have a constitution=-O

gobnaitolunacy

jester77 wrote: »

I don't think it's a good idea allowing children to vote in a referendum. Children tend to be easily influenced by their parents and would probably vote just as their parents would vote. At least that doesn't happen with adults!

Will they have crayons/colouring pencils in the polling booths?

crazy cabbage

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Will they have crayons/colouring pencils in the polling booths?

yes

:pac:

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

9959

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Will they have crayons/colouring pencils in the polling booths?

Don't be silly.
Children are computer literate these days, they can vote while they're playing Minecraft.

I know it's about children, but I also have no idea what it's about. To give children more rights? Can't imagine there'd be any posters in opposition to it..?

The Snipe

I photographed an event last year in Dublin at the National Youth Service, as there was a form for youths going on about this referendum. And it was one of the most interesting and informative shoots I've ever been too. Defiantly worth looking into. I didn't even know about it before I went there.

starbelgrade

Phoenix wrote: »

What is it all about?

You can read about it here: http://www.childrensreferendum.ie/what-will-change-if-the-referendum-is-passed

Despite what the OP says, I think it's an important issue which many people will care about. His whole "it means nothing to me, so it means nothing to anyone else" stance is a bit ridiculous.

Boombastic

This thread needs a poll

9959

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's about children, but I also have no idea what it's about. To give children more rights? Can't imagine there'd be any posters in opposition to it..?

Hopefully some of the posters here will have read John Waters in The Irish Times, he actually brought God into it a fortnight ago, to support voting No, of course.
I wasn't sure how I would vote, but having ploughed through his torturous verbiage for three weeks on the spin, I'm definitely voting yes.

Mr Benevolent

Fuinseog wrote: »

what the deal with this new referendum? why do we actually need to spend millions of money we do not have on something the vast majority care little about? just change whatever needs to changed. no referendum required. most other countries do it that way. i mean who is going to dare to vote against it?
its these kind of things that make us need Eu supervisors to make sure we do not continue spending unwisely.

if a poll were to be taken how many of ye would actually vote in the referendum. I won't be voting. the whole thing has zero relevance to our daily lives.

So you're saying you don't give a shit about improving children's rights. Glad that's sorted out.

I will be voting Yes.

Fuinseog

flutterflye wrote: »

It's in our constitution that a referendum needs to be held for any changes made.
That would be why they are having one.

does the state have money for such things at the moment? could they not wait until we have a pot to piiiss in?

Fuinseog

Fuinseog wrote: »

does the state have money for such things at the moment? could they not wait until we have a pot to piiiss in?

We didn't have a referendum for children's rights when we were fat and wealthy.

gobnaitolunacy

Serious case of slamming the stable door when the horse has well and truly bolted, given our children's rights record with both state and church.

Get Real

Fuinseog wrote: »

what the deal with this new referendum? why do we actually need to spend millions of money we do not have on something the vast majority care little about? just change whatever needs to changed. no referendum required. most other countries do it that way. i mean who is going to dare to vote against it?
its these kind of things that make us need Eu supervisors to make sure we do not continue spending unwisely.

if a poll were to be taken how many of ye would actually vote in the referendum. I won't be voting. the whole thing has zero relevance to our daily lives.

Firstly, currently a serious crisis has to emerge before a child is put into care (years of deprivation, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse etc), with this new constitutional change, intervention will be able to occur earlier to protect the child.

Secondly, under the constitution, a child born outside marriage has less rights. for example, an unmarried father does not have as many legal rights over his own child. Imagine a child who is abused by their mother, and is put into state care needlessly because the father has less rights. Also, for a child of married parents, they cannot be adopted because it has to be proven that their parents will not pick them up from state care and look after them. So the child is in state care until 18 whereas under the new referendum, a child can be adopted into a loving family instead of waiting until 18 and trying to manage alone.

Thirdly, we cant just "change whatever needs to be changed". You should feel proud that you have a constitutional right to vote on every single change to our constitution. Are you saying the government should just go ahead and change it? They can't, and would you apply this logic to the referenda on abortion, divorce, joining the EU? Should the government just go ahead and change it with regard to those past/ current issues.

In short its about trying to give children the right to a good chance in life, a good family. It would stop children commiting suicide/ being abused in state care. If you don't want to vote on it don't, but obviously if you were a child in state care/ a couple wanting to adopt you'd care. I'm neither of those but of course I can understand. And with regard to questioning why we're even "bothering" to vote on our own constitution...wtf? Its our right, and changes to our constitution affect all our laws. Otherwise governments would make whatever laws they wanted, but i guess you'd be complaining if they did do as you suggested too.

Fuinseog

Thirdly, we cant just "change whatever needs to be changed". You should feel proud that you have a constitutional right to vote on every single change to our constitution. Are you saying the government should just go ahead and change it? They can't, and would you apply this logic to the referenda on abortion, divorce, joining the EU? Should the government just go ahead and change it with regard to those past/ current issues.

In short its about trying to give children the right to a good chance in life, a good family. It would stop children commiting suicide/ being abused in state care. If you don't want to vote on it don't, but obviously if you were a child in state care/ a couple wanting to adopt you'd care. I'm neither of those but of course I can understand. And with regard to questioning why we're even "bothering" to vote on our own constitution...wtf? Its our right, and changes to our constitution affect all our laws. Otherwise governments would make whatever laws they wanted, but i guess you'd be complaining if they did do as you suggested too.[/QUOTE]


the whole thing is an expensive luxury we can ill afford at this time.
people would be peeved if the government changed the constitution on a big issue such as abortion. people feel strongly about abortion on both sides. but who feels strongly against this particular amendment? turnout for referendae tends to be low and waste of money. other EU countries are equally democratic, yet do not feel the need to have a referendum on every little thing.

Fuinseog

Confab wrote: »

So you're saying you don't give a shit about improving children's rights. Glad that's sorted out.

I will be voting Yes.

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

9959

Fuinseog wrote: »

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

As stated in an earlier post, journalist John Waters.

Get Real

Fuinseog wrote: »

the whole thing is an expensive luxury we can ill afford at this time.
people would be peeved if the government changed the constitution on a big issue such as abortion. people feel strongly about abortion on both sides. but who feels strongly against this particular amendment? turnout for referendae tends to be low and waste of money. other EU countries are equally democratic, yet do not feel the need to have a referendum on every little thing.

so you agree it'd be wrong of the government to just go changing the constitution on abortion. Well the same applies to childrens' rights. You can't have any exceptions. I mean if its changing the constitution, its changing the constitution and a referendum needs to be held. Even if everyone was going to vote yes, it doesnt matter, if there's one person out there who wants to vote no, its their constitutional right to vote no. And yes, other countries bypass referenda. But you cant say I want a referendum on abortion but I don't want one on this. What if the government bypassed a referendum on abortion? That'd be a serious issue for you (and me and many many millions) but this childs referendum might be just as important as that to some people, and even if its not to you, you have to respect their rights to vote on it. Its just the law that we the people get a say if our constitution is going to be re worded. And that applies to all constitutional changes, whether you think they're important or not, they may be to others.

If an issue arose that you thought of particular importance, no one has the right to say "eh no actually, we're gonna go ahead and change it anyway", so you must respect issues of importance to others. As the constitution does, as the state does, as the government does.

Paz-CCFC

Fuinseog wrote: »

does the state have money for such things at the moment? could they not wait until we have a pot to piiiss in?

Giving children basic rights that they deserve far outweighs the cost of holding a referendum.

ilovesleep

Get Real wrote: »

Firstly, currently a serious crisis has to emerge before a child is put into care (years of deprivation, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse etc), with this new constitutional change, intervention will be able to occur earlier to protect the child.

Secondly, under the constitution, a child born outside marriage has less rights. for example, an unmarried father does not have as many legal rights over his own child. Imagine a child who is abused by their mother, and is put into state care needlessly because the father has less rights. Also, for a child of married parents, they cannot be adopted because it has to be proven that their parents will not pick them up from state care and look after them. So the child is in state care until 18 whereas under the new referendum, a child can be adopted into a loving family instead of waiting until 18 and trying to manage alone.

Thirdly, we cant just "change whatever needs to be changed". You should feel proud that you have a constitutional right to vote on every single change to our constitution. Are you saying the government should just go ahead and change it? They can't, and would you apply this logic to the referenda on abortion, divorce, joining the EU? Should the government just go ahead and change it with regard to those past/ current issues.

In short its about trying to give children the right to a good chance in life, a good family. It would stop children commiting suicide/ being abused in state care. If you don't want to vote on it don't, but obviously if you were a child in state care/ a couple wanting to adopt you'd care. I'm neither of those but of course I can understand. And with regard to questioning why we're even "bothering" to vote on our own constitution...wtf? Its our right, and changes to our constitution affect all our laws. Otherwise governments would make whatever laws they wanted, but i guess you'd be complaining if they did do as you suggested too.

I don't know anything about this referendum but it appears to be a good thing going by this. Will look it up sometime soon and see what it's all about but I find forums where people are debating, giving their opinion and highlighting issues is a good, useful.tool for learning.

ilovesleep

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Serious case of slamming the stable door when the horse has well and truly bolted, given our children's rights record with both state and church.

Thats it. This country went through decades of abusing children domestically and also at a state level.

Fuinseog

Deleted User wrote: »

We didn't have a referendum for children's rights when we were fat and wealthy.

why not?

Morag

Ireland signed up to the UN convention of the Rights of the child in 1990 and as a result we needed to change the constitution and successive governments 'forgot' about it.
So it's finally happening now, it will make all kids equal in terms of adoption and will be the starting point for long need changes, like children having input to cases before the family courts.

GalwayGuy2

the whole thing is an expensive luxury we can ill afford at this time.
people would be peeved if the government changed the constitution on a big issue such as abortion. people feel strongly about abortion on both sides. but who feels strongly against this particular amendment? turnout for referendae tends to be low and waste of money. other EU countries are equally democratic, yet do not feel the need to have a referendum on every little thing.

I think Switzerland have a vote on where to put bus stops...could be wrong though.

Corkfeen

Fuinseog wrote: »

does the state have money for such things at the moment? could they not wait until we have a pot to piiiss in?

You can't put social issues to the wayside, just because the country is in a ****e economic state. It's not a waste of money like plenty of others things in the past were.

wp_rathead

9959 wrote: »

Fuinseog wrote:

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

As stated in an earlier post, journalist John Waters.

If there was ever an incentive to vote YES so..

twinytwo

say_who_now? wrote: »

I stopped reading here. I hate sweeping generalisatons.

As for what's a referendum for? Well we live in a democracy, the government cannot make changes to the constitution without first offering the people a say in the matter.

Or would you rather live in China?

LoL... we live in a percieved democracy, very different from a true democracy

Fuinseog

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I think Switzerland have a vote on where to put bus stops...could be wrong though.

the swiss have money, probably because they know ho to save.

steddyeddy

Fuinseog wrote: »

the swiss have money, probably because they know ho to save.

I really dont think how well a country can save is an arguement against giving kids more rights.

Annasopra

Phoenix wrote: »

What is it all about?

Childrens rights

Fuinseog

mango salsa wrote: »

Childrens rights

do children not already have enough rights? maybe they should include responsibilities as well.
I worked with juvenile delinquents and even they were amazed at how much they could get away with and not get a custodial sentence.

Annasopra

Fuinseog wrote: »

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

I haven't seen serious campaigners against it


http://www.aps.ie/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrvRkUZ6tY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.freethinkingvoice.org/index.php/irelands-childrens-rights-referendum-campaign

http://www.campaignforconscience.org/the-childrens-referendum-resources-to-help-you-vote/


http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/09/we-are-being-told-to-vote-yes-in-the-childrens-rights-referendum-is-it-really-a-good-thing-for-children-2469654.html

http://tnsradio.ning.com/m/group?id=5354208:Group:146230

http://europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.ie/2012/09/irelands-childrens-rights-referendum.html?m=1

https://facebook.com/referendumvov10

Annasopra

Fuinseog wrote: »

do children not already have enough rights?

No.

As we saw in the Roscommon case, the PKU case, the kilkenny incest case, the baby Ann case.

steddyeddy

Fuinseog wrote: »

do children not already have enough rights? maybe they should include responsibilities as well.
I worked with juvenile delinquents and even they were amazed at how much they could get away with and not get a custodial sentence.

On the other hand in this country we had children given criminal atatus because they were orphans.

Benny_Cake

Fuinseog wrote: »

do children not already have enough rights? maybe they should include responsibilities as well.
I worked with juvenile delinquents and even they were amazed at how much they could get away with and not get a custodial sentence.

What responsibilities do you propose should be imposed on children and what penalties would you put in place to make sure they lived up to them?

My only problem with this referendum is that it should have been held years ago.

Fuinseog

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What responsibilities do you propose should be imposed on children and what penalties would you put in place to make sure they lived up to them?

My only problem with this referendum is that it should have been held years ago.

if a teenager goes out and steals a car and destroys it, he should be sent to borstal, but in my experience the judge will give them another chance and another. you need about a 100 convictions before you get a custodial sentence.

their guardians should be held accountable for any crimes committed by their children.

LittleBook

Fuinseog wrote: »

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

9959 wrote: »

As stated in an earlier post, journalist John Waters.

I'd a hard time imagining that anyone could launch a "no" campaign for this referendum, Waters aside.

But there it is.

"We are opposed to removing the right of children to have their rights vindicated by their parents".

Which worked out really well for these kids.

Would any of the "rights" that will apparently be created if this referendum passes be something that couldn't be done by statute? I saw a poster the other day about a kid trafficked for prostitution and apparently this referendum addresses such cases. Surely just making it illegal to pimp out a child would have as good an effect in such a case?

TwoShedsJackson

wprathead wrote: »

If there was ever an incentive to vote YES so..

It's not just him, there's also the Christian Solidarity Party, the wingnuts from Youth Defence, and the guy who edits Alive!, the extremist Catholic rag.

UCDVet

Like 99% of everything; it comes down to money and power.

Someone wants more money and more power and they campaign to get it. Traditionally, it's easy to get money and power from the public by playing to their emotions. Anything about crime, safety, health, and children tend to do very well.

'VOTE for X because of THE CHILDREN'
'VOTE for Y because of SAFETY'

The people at the top spear-heading the campaign will benefit directly. Once enacted, it will take an act of God to 'undo' the funds dedicated to X or Y. And, historically, the program will prove to be ineffective.

See the TSA in the United States.

We're broke. As far as I'm concerned we have no business increasing programs or spending. The problem with public sector funding is that it's relatively easy to INCREASE spending; but next to impossible to DECREASE it. You can have 10 years of record increases to X; but if you try to decrease X by 3% you'll have strikes and all sorts of political backlash.

Programs get passed to 'help the children' and what ends up is you get a 'Director of Children's Welfare' who makes 20x the median salary for doing god only knows what, a department with a huge budget that spends it recklessly, etc, etc.

R0ot

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

Mint Sauce

I have no issue with the referendum its self, and understand the reasons for. But what I do have issue with, or a concern that as there is hardly going to be any 'No campaign' against this, most people are probably going to vote Yes anyway. The current government, departments, and the opposition is going to be wasting money on a 'Yes campaign' that is unlikely to be needed, money that could probably actually be spent on what they are trying to bring in, protecting vulnerable children.

Mint Sauce

R0ot wrote: »

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

In addition to my previous post, I would only be concerned of our nanny state, having more nannying. Where children are taken away unessesarly, where some other intervention could have been used or tried.

franktheplank

R0ot wrote: »

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

I have concerns about this referendum, I certainly won't be voting yes on the basis that's the government is pushing it and it's seen as a referendum that gives more rights for children.

I will have to do my research but i have concerns (as I'm sure any right minded person would) that the power to place a child into care can be abused. The most obvious one is who is going to make this decision? A social worker straight out of college, the police, the ISPCA who? That's something im gonna have to check before i vote.

The other area of concern I have is that if we see an expansion of residential homes for children will there be more privatization of this sector? Will the appropriate resources be there to ensure these homes are run properly, inspected, staff vetted etc.

I worked for a time in disability homes and some of the places were shocking. I know homes for children taken into care are inspected and regulated (unlike those for the disabled) but will this continue to be the case.

The potential for harm to children in care is huge if homes are not properly inspected and regulated (as we all know) and we could possibly be putting children in this places on the whim of a social worker, gaurd, ISPCA who?

Should traveller children from loving families be put into care because they live in caravans? Or what if a parent has a mental illness or unconventional lifestyle choice and the person or people deciding have a prejudice?

admiralofthefleet

is it true that a yes vote being carried will mean children can be given injections in school with the parents knowledge or consent?