"No" supporters of the Children's Referendum

AngryLips

Could the results of this referendum turn out to be the one that is most overwhelmingly in favour of the yes side in the history of the state? And where are the "no" voices? I haven't seen any so far. I thought I'd start this thread so people can contribute examples of the so-far-absent No campaign.

FloatingVoter

There will be a No vote element - mainly a protest vote because all the government / opposition parties are campaigning for a Yes vote.
This is mainly a matter of voters voting - not assuming its a foregone conclusion.
BTW I'm a yes.

Kurz

Former MEP Kathy Sinnott is advocating a no vote because she believes that the "proposed amendment will put the State ahead of the parents in deciding on what is in a child's best interests".

The only one I've seen so far although it's early days yet. I expect there to be a few Declan Ganley types appearing on the scene to make a name for themselves.

Manach

I'd be voting no. One reason would be how this would impact the "Baby Ann" type cases. AFAIR from Jim Nestor's family law book, even though the adoption process was not finalised, the State still attempted to give the final go-ahead to the adoption, against the mother's wishes when she changed her mind prior to the final 3rd stage of the adoption.
One of the arguments for the State, was that the best interests of the child were best suited to the adopted family which it had been placed with and delayed handing back to the mother.
This amendment will lead to a lessening of the family rights in these type cases, for inspite of the inclusion of words saying the state will continue to respect the family, the actions of the State were different in the Baby Ann case and there is no reason to suppose will be different in the future.

ciarafem

Kurz wrote: »

Former MEP Kathy Sinnott is advocating a no vote because she believes that the "proposed amendment will put the State ahead of the parents in deciding on what is in a child's best interests".

The only one I've seen so far although it's early days yet. I expect there to be a few Declan Ganley types appearing on the scene to make a name for themselves.

I'm voting No because I read this http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

oscarBravo

ciarafem wrote: »

I'm voting No because I read this http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

Who wrote it?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who wrote it?

It was uploaded by Gerry Fahey, an occupational psychologist who is opposed to the amendment. He was on TV back in August discussing it - you can see him here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUTDXd14TfD9Z0jUNkx1RucCKWWV5wY5m

As to opposition - the Iona Institute, and these guys: http://www.facebook.com/AllianceOfParentsAgainstTheState

cordially,
Scofflaw

gizmo555

Manach wrote: »

One of the arguments for the State, was that the best interests of the child were best suited to the adopted family which it had been placed with and delayed handing back to the mother.

In fact, not only did the Adoption Board deliberately stall the process, they then used the delay they themselves had caused as one of their main arguments for not returning the child to the natural parents.

When you see the "care" the state has taken of children in its custody as described in the Inspector of Prisons report on St Patrick's Institution published today, you'd have to be off your chuck to give it more power to interfere.

The human rights of children and young adults at St Patrick's Institution are being ignored or violated, a scathing report has found.

Some inmates at the young offenders institute had their clothes removed by force, while others had family visits prohibited as a form of punishment, it emerged.

The Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly, also revealed investigations in the majority of prisoner complaints, including alleged assaults or serious inappropriate actions by prison officers, were flawed and incomplete.

"To say that there is a culture in St Patrick's where the human rights of some prisoners are either ignored or violated is a serious statement," said Judge Reilly.

He added that the removal of clothing by force "can only be described as degrading and a form of punishment, intimidation and abuse".

Ozymandius2011

I'm leaning to a "no" because it will undermine the rights and responsibilities of the parent to discipline unruly children, leaing to an increase in anti-social behaviour. I had to put up with unruly children/adolescents at all hours of the morning turning up on my estate to vandalise property a couple of yrs ago. I wondered where the parents were. Probably at the pub/club getting drunk. I am concerned that the first paragraph may be interpreted by the courts as outlawing corporal punishment, ue to the reference to "imprescriptible rights of all children", - language which separately could also have implications for asylum cases.

If Paragraph 1 were removed I would vote Yes as I support the remaining provisions. One thing I cannot abide is vague language that effectively the unelected judiciary will determine the meaning of - something I regard as anti-democratic.

I expect the referendum to be passed but then again, everyone expected that in the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum too with polls showing 70%+ majorities in favour and it was defeated, proving there is something called the "Silent Majority" and how unrepresentative our so-called political representatives can be.

AlekSmart

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm leaning to a "no" because it will undermine the rights and responsibilities of the parent to discipline unruly children, leaing to an increase in anti-social behaviour. I had to put up with unruly children/adolescents at all hours of the morning turning up on my estate to vandalise property a couple of yrs ago. I wondered where the parents were. Probably at the pub/club getting drunk. I am concerned that the first paragraph may be interpreted by the courts as outlawing corporal punishment, ue to the reference to "imprescriptible rights of all children", - language which separately could also have implications for asylum cases.

If Paragraph 1 were removed I would vote Yes as I support the remaining provisions. One thing I cannot abide is vague language that effectively the unelected judiciary will determine the meaning of - something I regard as anti-democratic.

I expect the referendum to be passed but then again, everyone expected that in the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum too with polls showing 70%+ majorities in favour and it was defeated, proving there is something called the "Silent Majority" and how unrepresentative our so-called political representatives can be.

Well said that poster !!

Reading through the various high-pressure arguements on threads here,I am acutely concerned at the manner in which "spin",particularly from the Yes "Alliance" grouping,has assumed a position of dominance.

Ozymandius2011 is the first poster I have seen to introduce an element of reality to the greater issue of what this referendum is really all about.

From my perspective,it seems that,not for the first time,an Irish Government is being quite forcefully "guided" along a particular path by a large and essentially self-serving grouping of Professional Bodies,each with something to gain from being given even more responsibility within their own area of operations.

With the changes in Irish social patterns over the past 3 decades we need to be acutely aware of the scope of what the term "Child" covers.

I too have been up close and personal with those "Unruly Children/Adolescents" described by Ozymandius2011 and it remains one of the most terrifying periods of my Adult life,in terms of the savagery and violence I witnessed and encountered.

Perhaps what was most worrying was the almost total inability of the Gardai to address significant public order issues simply because the perpretators were mainly under 16,with many of the "Children" being in the 12-14 bracket.

From my own experience I found the Gardai had largely given up on trying to enforce any laws on these groups in many areas,something which the "Children" themselves were fully aware of.

What was equally sad to witness was the incredible ability of the "Children" to fully utilize the "Social Worker" system when required.

This effectively frustrated any and all immediacy in the legal system,leading to long and frustrating delays before any justice could be seen to operate,from an injured party's perspective.

I am uncomfortable with this amendment,as I see it as largely layering more "stuff" on top of a raft of very worthwhile pre-existing leglislation which cannot/will-not be enforced.

There are many issues relating to Children which require attention,but I'm afraid tinkering with the Constitution in the manner being proposed does not do it for me.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I expect the referendum to be passed but then again, everyone expected that in the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum too with polls showing 70%+ majorities in favour and it was defeated, proving there is something called the "Silent Majority" and how unrepresentative our so-called political representatives can be.

I would say that the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum produced a No because serious questions were raised over the extent of the powers being granted, and the government failed to deal adequately with them, resorting to spluttering that they knew best and didn't people understand they clearly needed those powers. The clincher was probably the fact that the amendment made the Oireachtas - and thereby the government, which completely dominates the Oireachtas - the sole arbiter of what rights were available to those called in front of it. Challenged on that, the government basically said "but we're lovely", which isn't an answer.

Any referendum can be defeated if it can be shown that there are serious issues the government has made major assumptions on.

Whether there are really such questions in this referendum I don't know. I don't see them - I wouldn't consider the idea that the courts are there to tease out what is intended in relatively aspirational legislation, for example, as a problem in itself, because that is their constitutional role. Although I accept that it's nice to be relatively clear on what you're voting on, legislation is not program code, and I prefer the courts as interpreters to the government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GoldenLight

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well said that poster !!

Reading through the various high-pressure arguements on threads here,I am acutely concerned at the manner in which "spin",particularly from the Yes "Alliance" grouping,has assumed a position of dominance.

Ozymandius2011 is the first poster I have seen to introduce an element of reality to the greater issue of what this referendum is really all about.

From my perspective,it seems that,not for the first time,an Irish Government is being quite forcefully "guided" along a particular path by a large and essentially self-serving grouping of Professional Bodies,each with something to gain from being given even more responsibility within their own area of operations.

With the changes in Irish social patterns over the past 3 decades we need to be acutely aware of the scope of what the term "Child" covers.

I too have been up close and personal with those "Unruly Children/Adolescents" described by Ozymandius2011 and it remains one of the most terrifying periods of my Adult life,in terms of the savagery and violence I witnessed and encountered.

Perhaps what was most worrying was the almost total inability of the Gardai to address significant public order issues simply because the perpretators were mainly under 16,with many of the "Children" being in the 12-14 bracket.

From my own experience I found the Gardai had largely given up on trying to enforce any laws on these groups in many areas,something which the "Children" themselves were fully aware of.

What was equally sad to witness was the incredible ability of the "Children" to fully utilize the "Social Worker" system when required.

This effectively frustrated any and all immediacy in the legal system,leading to long and frustrating delays before any justice could be seen to operate,from an injured party's perspective.

I am uncomfortable with this amendment,as I see it as largely layering more "stuff" on top of a raft of very worthwhile pre-existing leglislation which cannot/will-not be enforced.

There are many issues relating to Children which require attention,but I'm afraid tinkering with the Constitution in the manner being proposed does not do it for me.

I'm taking that is a yes vote then

What
Ozymandius2011 is talking about an minority, not all teenagers are Denis the menance grown up to 15 years of age, not all teenagers are that full of angst, infact you are actually seeing a generalisation and fable unfold at the same time.

Most teenagers are terrified to make the wrong descision, the believe Mammy and Daddy were always right, or wrong as a teenager I was like that, I believed adults had more experience than me, I thought when I was 18 I would automatically know everything, I didn't and I still don't (but I'm comfortable in the knowledge I don't now)

Teenagers (thankfully most have) need guidance, if the small minority stated in your and Ozymandius2011 posts need guidance it is what is suggested by the Referendum to be passed, more than most children/teenagers won't actually need it.

Thank you your post just swung me to the "YES" vote;)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

At last, some sign of the issues being put on the agenda:

Mr Spicer <..> criticised Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald, who he said phrased the referendum in terms of “these poor children who are being burnt - vote Yes to save the burnt children”.


“The fact of the matter is the State already can intervene if there is abuse of children so why is she peddling this over the top nonsense?” he asked.


He said the issues should have been discussed at the promised convention on the Constitution.<...>

Unfortunately, it may be too late

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1020/1224325504907.html


THERE IS overwhelming public support for the referendum on children’s rights due to take place on November 10th, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI opinion poll. An understated political campaign and the absence of controversy has, however, resulted in a dearth of public knowledge of the issues involved and three out of five potential voters admit they don’t know or are only vaguely aware of what the referendum is about. In spite of that, the question may be carried by a margin of 14 to one.

It's an interesting example of how a complete chimera can take hold of the public consciousness. Or, more correctly, the public unconsciousness.



Maybe that's the way to see it. A victory for the Id.

GoldenLight wrote: »

Teenagers (thankfully most have) need guidance, if the small minority stated in your and Ozymandius2011 posts need guidance it is what is suggested by the Referendum to be passed, more than most children/teenagers won't actually need it.

I'm afraid I don't follow the point you are making.


I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I just don't understand what the point is.

gizmo555

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

At last, some sign of the issues being put on the agenda:Unfortunately, it may be too lateIt's an interesting example of how a complete chimera can take hold of the public consciousness. Or, more correctly, the public unconsciousness.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

GoldenLight

[QUOTE=GCU



I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I just don't understand what the point is.[/QUOTE]

That alright, I wasn't explain myself well,:D

I was suggesting the "yes" vote would be more in favour of the two posters who gave out about teenagers.

Why for two reasons

1. Antisocial action on another person, shouldn't be tolerated. therefore said abusers should be taken in to care.

2. Most teenagers aren't like the teenagers they described, it was a very rough generalisation based on the 10 teenagers that, has created an impact on their (the two posters) minds isn't every teenager, and they shouldn't be classified as such (or pigeon hold as such)

And Definitely it shouldn't be a reason to vote "no" in the referendum

AngryLips

Manach wrote: »

I'd be voting no. One reason would be how this would impact the "Baby Ann" type cases. AFAIR from Jim Nestor's family law book, even though the adoption process was not finalised, the State still attempted to give the final go-ahead to the adoption, against the mother's wishes when she changed her mind prior to the final 3rd stage of the adoption.

I'm not convinced by this point. It remains to be seen if and how this amendment, had it been in force at the time of the Baby Ann case, would have changed the judgement there. It still would have been incumbent on the state to convince the judiciary that the child would have been in danger by remaining in the care the birth parents.

ciarafem

AngryLips wrote: »

I'm not convinced by this point. It remains to be seen if and how this amendment, had it been enforced at the time of the Baby Ann case, would have changed the judgement there. It still would have been incumbent on the state to convince the judiciary that the child would have been in danger by remaining in the care the birth parents.

Because according to http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal under the new art. 42A.1 it could have been arguable that the BIC required the baby to remain with the adoptive parents regardless of art. 41.1

lmaopml

I've think I'm veering towards voting 'No' on this. To be honest they could already legislate using the existing Constitution if the will was there through the ordinary legislative process. So why didn't they? Why don't they? Why have a referendum?

It seems the reason why, as far as I can make out, is to tell the State that they 'must' legislate now and no more sitting about because the Constitution says so...lol.....

Apart from the idea that there does seem to be a subtle shifting in the wording of the Constitution in favour of the State over the Family, and it IS fairly ambiguous - and of course this will influence the legislation there after.....

I don't see that there is a need to change the Constitution in order to protect children. There IS however a need for them to actually get up off the bum cheeks to use the one we have in the first place...and the ordinary legislative process.

MrTsSnickers

But, but, is it not the case if anyone votes no or suggests this piece of legislation is in any way negative, they hate children? That seems to be the climate at the moment. I'm not sure why but it really feels like the timing is suspicious (that could well be just me)? I think the government needs to clean up its own house regarding child protection before introducing new legislation (again, that could be just me).

AngryLips

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

But, but, is it not the case if anyone votes no or suggests this piece of legislation is in any way negative, they hate children? That seems to be the climate at the moment. I'm not sure why but it really feels like the timing is suspicious

When is it ever a good time to hate children? :pac:

nacimroc

As with the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum, when the people don't understand, the people vote no.

AlekSmart

GoldenLight wrote: »

I'm taking that is a yes vote then

What
Ozymandius2011 is talking about an minority, not all teenagers are Denis the menance grown up to 15 years of age, not all teenagers are that full of angst, infact you are actually seeing a generalisation and fable unfold at the same time.

Most teenagers are terrified to make the wrong descision, the believe Mammy and Daddy were always right, or wrong as a teenager I was like that, I believed adults had more experience than me, I thought when I was 18 I would automatically know everything, I didn't and I still don't (but I'm comfortable in the knowledge I don't now)

Teenagers (thankfully most have) need guidance, if the small minority stated in your and Ozymandius2011 posts need guidance it is what is suggested by the Referendum to be passed, more than most children/teenagers won't actually need it.

Thank you your post just swung me to the "YES" vote;)

Oddly enough GoldenLight,I have no interest in swaying your voting decision one way or the other.

I'm only giving my own perspective on the rather more basic (to me) elements which are influencing my voting decision.

I'm not particularly taken by well funded spin,from whatever quarter,be it yea or nay as I tend to follow my own conscience on things.

I tend to shy away from making statements as to the thought processess of "most" teenagers as I place more weight on what I experience in my own little world on a daily basis.

What you may consider a "small minority" is to me a significant number of young people,not all of whom are even teenagers as of now.

I remain of the opinion that the current menu of State Protection is adequate for most,if not all situations of threat to Children.

What IS open to serious challenge and debate are the all too apparent administrative shortcomings in how these protections are activated,applied and reviewed.

I struggle to find any reassurance that the New (Irish) World Order,after the passing of this referendum,will be any improvement,save for some bolstering of professional egos and associated layers of yet more administration.

That said,the democratic process is there for all,and I,for one would not attempt to denigrate your decision to vote YES.

I don't actually seek or require any plaudits for my decision to vote NO,it's my personal choice and there it ends I hope.

Scofflaw

AngryLips wrote: »

When is it ever a good time to hate children? :pac:

Around 2am, if they still won't go asleep. It passes though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

suzanne88

Hi All.....
I'm not sure if you realise that the proposed section with regards to adoption is in relation to young people living in the care of the state only.
if this referendum is passed it will allow for the legal adoption of young people who are living in the care of the state on a Long Term basis i.e. with no actual opportunity to return home to their birth parents.

Essentially this will not effect all children living in the care of the state but only young people who are for various reasons unable to return to their birth parents.

Take for example a baby/ young person who is entered into the care of the state and their parents are not able or do not want to take care of their children. The passing of this referendum would give these young people, who have already had a rough start is life the opportunity to be adopted by a family and receive the love, stability, sense of belonging that all children should be afforded!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

suzanne88 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you realise that the proposed section with regards to adoption is in relation to young people living in the care of the state only.

Perhaps you could help explain it to us.

Is this essentially about the position of marital children in State care? If so, you might elaborate on the extent to which non-marital children in long-term foster care are adopted.

You might explain if prospective adoptive parents typically seek or accept older children, such as might be in care.

You might elaborate on the extent to which any Irish child, nowadays, would be adopted by non-relatives, in practice.

You might comment, in passing, on whether the idea of a child being adopted by complete strangers belongs in the Jurassic period.

You might conclude as to whether the adoption provision is meaningful in any sense. You see, it's not so much that we don't know what it's about. It's that we've formed the opinion that it's baloney.

Gaspode

My suspicion is that the state is effectively trying to do away with the long-term fostering system in favour of adoption, thus saving the state an absolute fortune. Once a child is adopted, the state is no longer obliged to pay foster parents, arrange social worker visits, etc. effectively allowing it to wash its hands of the child.

A cynical view I know, and probably not the intended spirit of the proposed amendment, but surely a win situation for the exchequer.
I feel that the amendment will leave the whole thing as vague and unclear as the current wording in the constitution so I'll more than likely be voting no (still waiting for someone, anyone to make a clear and logical argument for the yes side - pictures and soundbites of little children dont an argument make).

AngryLips

Gaspode wrote: »

My suspicion is that the state is effectively trying to do away with the long-term fostering system in favour of adoption, thus saving the state an absolute fortune. Once a child is adopted, the state is no longer obliged to pay foster parents, arrange social worker visits, etc. effectively allowing it to wash its hands of the child.

What is your point? That fostering is better for the child than an adopted family?

Gaspode

No, the point is that adoption is far cheaper for the state than fostering.
Adoption may or may not be better for the child, depends on the situation, i.e. why they are in the fostering process

oscarBravo

Gaspode wrote: »

Adoption may or may not be better for the child...

I'm pretty sure there's some mention of the best interest of the child somewhere in the proposed amendment.

Pawwed Rig

I will be voting No because I believe there is no need for a change in the constitution to protect children. If the laws we have were enforced adequately and on a timely basis many of the issues would be solved early on.
I also do not believe the State should be granted anymore powers as they have been proved to be completely incapable of providing for the children currently and historically in their care and I could not in clear conscience vote for something that would put more children under the control of the State institutions (HSE).

gizmo555

suzanne88 wrote: »

Hi All.....
I'm not sure if you realise that the proposed section with regards to adoption is in relation to young people living in the care of the state only.
if this referendum is passed it will allow for the legal adoption of young people who are living in the care of the state on a Long Term basis i.e. with no actual opportunity to return home to their birth parents.

Actually, you've just made this up.

This is the wording of the amendment dealing with adoption:

"Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child."

You will note it says nothing at all about only applying to children who have been in long term state care.

lmaopml

suzanne88 wrote: »

Hi All.....
I'm not sure if you realise that the proposed section with regards to adoption is in relation to young people living in the care of the state only.
if this referendum is passed it will allow for the legal adoption of young people who are living in the care of the state on a Long Term basis i.e. with no actual opportunity to return home to their birth parents.

Essentially this will not effect all children living in the care of the state but only young people who are for various reasons unable to return to their birth parents.

Take for example a baby/ young person who is entered into the care of the state and their parents are not able or do not want to take care of their children. The passing of this referendum would give these young people, who have already had a rough start is life the opportunity to be adopted by a family and receive the love, stability, sense of belonging that all children should be afforded!

Not true!

Suzanne, legislation is derived through the ordinary legislative system from the Constitution. The Constitution only enshrines the values and parameters from which that legislation can be debated and defined within the law of the land to define them and to enforce them within law..

That's the point!

The whole thing is totally unnecessary - this referendum is rewording the constitution to 'apparently' protect children - and it's totally unnecessary, the only thing that is necessary is to build laws in accordance with the constitution we already have....and THAT has not been done...but still could be, even down to 'Adoption' to protect a child in danger....Or indeed, giving a voice to a child when their parents separate - these things can be pursued TODAY using the current constitution. This is not impossible.

This referendum is basically a 'yes' or 'no' vote to telling the State that they 'must' now legislate to protect children - when in fact, they were always free to do so through the ordinary system.

The problem is that the 'wording' has shifted - and this new wording will be the gift from us to future generations, when the 'protection' of children was already quite possible in the past, now, and in the future without a need to change the 'wording' that legislation is built on in the first place.

The constitution is there to 'protect' people - not to harm people...the state has always been free under the current constitution to introduce any legislation it sees fit without changing the constitution that protects the family and not necessarily sees state edict as the rule of thumb.

It's not a 'bad' thing to support this, but it is not necessarily a bad thing either to notice the 'shift' in wording - This is important, if we're happy to let the state play this role, simply because we think, ' They're really good..'...than that's what we're passing on to the next generation.

As it stands the constitution DOES protect children, the State has failed to use it - to introduce and pursue such legislation through the normal organ of law.

Instead, we're being asked as a nation to change the wording of our constitution when it is unnecessary, and the wording is decidedly ambiguous.

What you are saying is not true. The Constitution only points the way towards future legislation, it does NOT legislate - and the new wording certainly does not say anything about only children in state care.

AlekSmart

lmaopml wrote: »

Not true!



The whole thing is totally unnecessary - this referendum is rewording the constitution to 'apparently' protect children - and it's totally unnecessary, the only thing that is necessary is to build laws in accordance with the constitution we already have....and THAT has not been done...but still could be, even down to 'Adoption' to protect a child in danger....Or indeed, giving a voice to a child when their parents separate - these things can be pursued TODAY using the current constitution. This is not impossible.


As it stands the constitution DOES protect children, the State has failed to use it - to introduce and pursue such legislation through the normal organ of law.

Instead, we're being asked as a nation to change the wording of our constitution when it is unnecessary, and the wording is decidedly ambiguous.

What you are saying is not true. The Constitution only points the way towards future legislation, it does NOT legislate - and the new wording certainly does not say anything about only children in state care.

Reading this article I'm even ;ess inclined to allow a dozy administration to gallop off on a new tack when the results of it's maladministered current one produce such evident warning signs...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/teenage-hitmen-known-to-gardai-from-childhood-3276741.html

Some of us see and experience this stuff daily,we are oft reminded that it's only a "tiny minority" who engage in it.....I disagree,and that colours my view of this entire referendum and it's basis.

Ozymandius2011

Today's revelations of govt interference in a family law case do not inspire confidence that the new powers given the State by this amendment will be used in a proportionate way.

ciarafem

There is a very interesting article in today's Irish Independent questioning the need for the referendum
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/this-referendum-is-a-waste-of-time-and-will-do-nothing-at-all-for-childrens-rights-3277089.html

gizmo555

I would strongly agree with Bruce Arnold in his opinion piece that even if an amendment were necessary, the language of this proposed amendment is extraordinarily (and unnecessarily) vague. We are being asked to buy a constitutional pig in a poke.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ciarafem wrote: »

There is a very interesting article in today's Irish Independent questioning the need for the referendum
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/this-referendum-is-a-waste-of-time-and-will-do-nothing-at-all-for-childrens-rights-3277089.html

Thought provoking article, which I think underlines a need for deeper deliberation that goes far beyond a "childrens" referendum.

When he hones in on that phrase "inalienable and imprescriptible rights", I think the issue thrown up is the lack of consensus that would exist if an attempt was made to remove that fudge. It's actually the opposite of the situation in Dev's time, when that language was first used. People would have been reasonably clear that "inalienable and imprescriptible rights" meant stuff that a Christian, and in particular a Roman Catholic, would accept as common sense.

We can't assume that any more. At the same time, I don't think we've a clear picture of what rights and duties we do think we all share. Consider the American Declaration of Independence.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Similar concept of "unalienable" rights. Yet, the principles are in some way more comprehensible because they are stated - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Note also that "the People" are unambiguously stated as the source of legitimate power. Contrast to our Constitution's preamble (as the 1916 Proclamation is feckin useless, invoking Zombies as the source of legitimate power)

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.pdf

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

I'd suggest none of the same clarity of purpose exists. The people exist to be vehicles for divine and national fulfillment. Promoting the common good is a side-product, not an end in itself. And we're committed to national unity - no concept akin to "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".

It's a very broad topic, and could occupy several more threads. But my thoughts, after reading Arnold's article, is we need a national discussion just over what kind of values we actually espouse, what objects we expect the State to pursue, and what rights and obligations we really believe should be shared by us. When we were 95% Catholic, that wasn't hard to decode. All you needed to do was ask the Archbishop of Dublin, who would have been happy to answer all those questions on behalf of his flock.

We need to be a lot clearer about who, collectively, we are before thinking we can fix the Constitution.

dfx-

AngryLips wrote: »

Could the results of this referendum turn out to be the one that is most overwhelmingly in favour of the yes side in the history of the state? And where are the "no" voices? I haven't seen any so far. I thought I'd start this thread so people can contribute examples of the so-far-absent No campaign.

Surely removing 'the claim' on the North back in 1998 will never be beaten..90something% I think..

carveone

lmaopml wrote: »

This referendum is basically a 'yes' or 'no' vote to telling the State that they 'must' now legislate to protect children - when in fact, they were always free to do so through the ordinary system.

This gave me quite a start because you come to the conclusion - "yeah, why is this being done in this way. Constitutionally (in my poor opinion) it looks like it's all about the "protection of the family" clauses in Article 41. How the courts comes up with: "protection of family = impossible to give child for adoption = difficult to intervene in problem married families = ability to wildly discriminate" is beyond me but then what do I know. What I do feel is that maybe the problem lies more with Article 41. And maybe the government is terrified of changing that.

On the other hand, the Irish language version of the Constition holds precedence and I would have liked to see some sort of argument on the wording:

Ós ar an bPósadh atá an Teaghlach bunaithe gabhann an Stát air féin coimirce faoi leith a dhéanamh ar ord an phósta agus é a chosaint ar ionsaí.

I asked an Irish scholar about "Teaghlach" once. He said it literally means household but also family. However Irish also has clann, muintir etc Eg: family planning is "pleanáil chlainne"... I would have thought if they meant immediate family they would have said so...

Annasopra

ciarafem wrote: »

Because according to http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal under the new art. 42A.1 it could have been arguable that the BIC required the baby to remain with the adoptive parents regardless of art. 41.1

But this was written by an occupational psychologist. What legal expertise does the guy have.

Sarah Molloy

To silverlining, I am voting yes after reading these two articles from children in care "This referendum will give the state authority to rescue children from a lifetime of pain" http://www.spunout.ie/mag/Politics/A-yes-from-me

"When I was 16 my birth mother wanted me back. I was freaking"
http://www.yesforchildren.ie/campaignnews/inthenews/2012/11/08/when-i-was-16-my-birth-mother-wanted-me-back-i-was/#.UJviXf9QXBE.facebook

Manach

Sarah Molloy wrote: »

To silverlining, I am voting yes after reading these two articles from children in care "This referendum will give the state authority to rescue children from a lifetime of pain" http://www.spunout.ie/mag/Politics/A-yes-from-me

An opinion piece that seeks to give a wide latitude of the State to intervene where the best interests of the child is not clearly defined and where pre-existing legislation such as the Children's Act already empower the State to intervene in such cases?

Polar wizard adventure

No because the nine scariest words in any language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

neil_hosey

how will this affect the whole abortion referendum if it ever comes along?

Will this referendums change not allow the government to disallow any abortion as their choice is more important than the parents, or parents to be?

Sarah Molloy

Polar Wizard Adventure, I am curious as to who you propose is responsible to help in situations where children in families experience unspeakable abuse, violence and cruelty? The truth is that families are sometimes extremely dangerous places. Leaving children in these situations causes horrendous, life-long devastation and pain. You cannot deny this, surely? Who do you think should step in these rare cases to protect the child? Santa Claus?

Precious flower

I'm not sure which way I'll be voting. I couldn't help thinking about how many children have died or gone missing in state care? The safety of the children is naturally of the utmost importance but the state has failed in that regard before. I think the state needs to show it is protecting the vulnerable members in it's care before it demands more rights over the parents.

Can't believe they have ads in both Irish and English and posters everywhere! Right we get it, stop wasting money putting up a poster on every single lamp post!

Sarah Molloy

Precious flower, I agree the State has to up its game. This amendment is only one part of the picture, the foundation stone of an entire programme of reform that is desperately needed. Yes, the State has failed in the past but that the amendment doesn’t give the State more power – it actually makes it more accountable and puts on onus on it to make sure families are better supported to bring up their children.

As I see it, most children in Ireland have wonderful families and they are very lucky. As I said, I also believe that families should be supported better to raise their children. However, I also know that some children in families can experience horrendous abuse and cruelty. Unfortunately, some families can be extremely dangerous places. These children have a right to be protected. I believe that this is the State's job. But what the amendment does is change the existing focus on parental failure for "physical and moral reasons" towards better protection and support to all children whether or not their parents happen to be married.

Robbo

neil_hosey wrote: »

how will this affect the whole abortion referendum if it ever comes along?

Will this referendums change not allow the government to disallow any abortion as their choice is more important than the parents, or parents to be?

It has nothing to do with abortion, therefore Richard Greene thinks it does.

Pawwed Rig

Sarah Molloy wrote: »

Polar Wizard Adventure, I am curious as to who you propose is responsible to help in situations where children in families experience unspeakable abuse, violence and cruelty? The truth is that families are sometimes extremely dangerous places. Leaving children in these situations causes horrendous, life-long devastation and pain. You cannot deny this, surely? Who do you think should step in these rare cases to protect the child? Santa Claus?

The State already has the power to step in in these cases. Parents can be prosecuted easily under existing laws. The amendment doesn't really change this other than potentially force through adoptions which in reality will most likely never happen

Precious flower

Sarah Molloy wrote: »

Precious flower, I agree the State has to up its game. This amendment is only one part of the picture, the foundation stone of an entire programme of reform that is desperately needed. Yes, the State has failed in the past but that the amendment doesn’t give the State more power – it actually makes it more accountable and puts on onus on it to make sure families are better supported to bring up their children.

As I see it, most children in Ireland have wonderful families and they are very lucky. As I said, I also believe that families should be supported better to raise their children. However, I also know that some children in families can experience horrendous abuse and cruelty. Unfortunately, some families can be extremely dangerous places. These children have a right to be protected. I believe that this is the State's job. But what the amendment does is change the existing focus on parental failure for "physical and moral reasons" towards better protection and support to all children whether or not their parents happen to be married.

I was thinking that myself that the State would be more accountable if the children's referendum went through. It's amazing how backward this country has been when it came to the rights of the most vulnerable children in our country.

lmaopml

Precious flower wrote: »

I was thinking that myself that the State would be more accountable if the children's referendum went through. It's amazing how backward this country has been when it came to the rights of the most vulnerable children in our country.

The State would be 'accountable' if they sought legislation based on our current Constitution in the first place - but they haven't done so...they could have yesterday, they could today, they could tomorrow, but they aren't.

They could seek to have a child's voice heard, they could seek to have a child adopted if the circumstances are drastic - but they haven't done so through the ordinary legislative system which is only 'derived' from our Constitution - no need to re-word it!

They didn't do so, and they don't deserve us to reword our Constitution that allows ALL of those things to take place through the ordinary system - which has always been an option without a need for a referendum in the first place.

The current wording allows for all of these things...:) Why change it? Seriously why change it?

This referendum is a 'sales' pitch, and one that seeks to separate accountability from any terrible things that have happened here, and also happened all over the world, and sell the idea that 'the hands of the State were tied', but by voting 'Yes' we can 'untie' them - afterall it was impossible to DO, anything prior to this referendum.

The referendum is unnecessary. They could pursue any kind of childrens rights right now under the current constitution, but apparently it's not worthwhile doing without a clap on the back and some ambiguous re-wording - Nice!