Secularists urge no vote on childrens rights referendum

recedite

I have noticed a definite pattern from previous referendums;
The govt. sets a date for the vote, and then sits back. Time passes and journalists demand to see the proposed wording, so the ministers responsible eventually cobble something together at the last minute, with minimal public consultation. It tends to be excessively wordy, and at the same time ambigious, so that different interpretations are possible.
A constitution should just state certain ideals in simple language. The wordy stuff should appear in subsequent legislation.
An alliance of "No" voters then forms, comprising those who oppose the changes, those who think they don't go far enough, and those who always say no, whatever it is.
On the day, the referendum scrapes through, and I don't bother to show up.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not sure how far this provision would stretch in dealing with a major public health issue such as one caused by lots of parents deciding to be morons and not getting their children vaccinated.

I've started so I'll finish. Apart from the case of an adult Jehovah's Witness being forced, despite to her religious objections, to accept a blood transfusion on grounds that her child might otherwise be orphaned, the only situation that I'm aware of that medical treatment can be forced on a conscious, rational person is where they have an infectious disease. The "PKU" case rules out the possibility that treatment can be forced on someone simply on the basis of medical opinion. Hence, if Irish people collectively decided not to vaccinate their children, there's no law to force them to. It would be rather strange if their was.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, and for the record, IMO, none of Onesimus' points are valid arguments for a no vote. At best they are scaremongering, tenuous arguments based on appeals to fear and consequences and written using emotive language and rhetoric.

I wouldn't fully accept that, as changing the Constitution always creates a doubt as to what happens next until caselaw interprets the new wording. A little scaremongering isn't a bad thing, if it makes people think.
But the primary thing people need to think themselves out of is the subtle suggestion that "Yes" is the natural choice, and someone needs to produce reasons to vote "No". The "Yes" side are the ones with a case to make, and they haven't made it yet. If Onesimus' is scaremongering, the "Yes" side are grandstanding.

EyeOnTheBall

3rkfiv.jpg

Sarky

Why?