Are there any other ways to recognize human rights other than a referendum

ResearchWill

gozunda wrote: »

The act referred to appears relies on a person that " harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence."

That is sufficient for a stranger or individual not normally in regular contact with the person they are harassing

However in the case of a child subject to mental abuse in a home environment or an employee under the direction of a manager who directly psychologically abuses that employee in their place of work AND where that abuse is inherent in the environment - section 10 fails to cover such bullying or psychological abuse

I agree that section 10 is useful especially in there case of electronic harassment however where bullying / psychological abuse is insidious it would be nearly impossible to take a case under that section.

It is important to remember that Psychological Abuse may not only involve the use of words or physical acts but may rely on situational harassment including isolation, unfair treatment, and the emotional abuse of the individual whether a child or adult. This form of psychological assault can be seen in some forms of child abuse, employee bullying and elder abuse

Such psychological abuse is unfortunately not dealt with under current criminal law in my opinion.



I am aware of a number of cases of electronic harassment which have relied on section 10 but not in cases of psychological abuse I have referred to.
The OP requested in the first post regarding mechanisms for recognising human rights other than a referendum. I believe the criminalisation of Pychological abuse of an individual whether of a child or adult is a valid direction in this context.

I believe it is, I have seen a conviction in a ex-relationship situation where the comments made were of a psychological nature, such comments and acts having been committed during and after the relationship.

We have to look at "he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and"

In relation to children section 246 of the Childrens Act 2001 deals with it

246.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person who has the custody, charge or care of a child wilfully to assault, ill-treat, neglect, abandon or expose the child, or cause or procure or allow the child to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to the child's health or seriously to affect his or her wellbeing.

(2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

(3) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section—

(a) notwithstanding the death of the child in respect of whom the offence is committed, or

(b) notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to the health of the child, or the likelihood of such suffering or injury, was obviated by the action of another person.

(4) On the trial of any person for the murder of a child of whom the person has the custody, charge or care, the court or the jury, as the case may be, may, if satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of the child, find the accused guilty of that offence.

(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have neglected a child in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary suffering or injury to his or her health or seriously to affect his or her wellbeing if the person—

(a) fails to provide adequate food, clothing, heating, medical aid or accommodation for the child, or

(b) being unable to provide such food, clothing, heating, medical aid or accommodation, fails to take steps to have it provided under the enactments relating to health, social welfare or housing.

(6) In subsection (1) the reference to a child's health or wellbeing includes a reference to the child's physical, mental or emotional health or wellbeing.

(7) For the purposes of this section ill-treatment of a child includes any frightening, bullying or threatening of the child, and “ill-treat” shall be construed accordingly.

In relation to marriage or partner situation there is relevent family law measures, which can lead to criminal convictions.

The work place is a interesting one, I am going to have to think about it, but there is of course civil law that covers bullying in the work place. The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 at section 8 says "(b) managing and conducting work activities in such a way as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any improper conduct or behaviour likely to put the safety, health or welfare at work of his or her employees at risk;" Section 77 (2) SAYS "(2) A person commits an offence where he or she— (a) fails to discharge a duty to which he or she is subject by virtue of sections 8 , 9 , 10 , 11(1) to (4), 12 , 13 and 15 to 23 ," Section 78 sets the punishment "is liable— (i) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, or (ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €3,000,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both."

Grolschevik

TL/DR:

"The government's gonna steal our babies and vaccinate them against our will".

The first bit of pro-"No" argument I've actually seen, bar some hysterical rants on Facebook, so I thought I'd share:

(From the "Alliance of Parents Against the State", http://www.aps.ie/page8.php)


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 decision 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 no.

gozunda

Sorry I have had my attention on other things so just now picking up the threads here - an interesting discussion ...

ResearchWill wrote: »

I believe it is, I have seen a conviction in a ex-relationship situation where the comments made were of a psychological nature, such comments and acts having been committed during and after the relationship.

We have to look at "he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and"

In this instance there was a move of status from married to seperated between the litigants ie an ex-relationship but In the main this Act fails to cover most cases of bullying where the victim is in normal regular contact or under the direction of the bully

In relation to children section 246 of the Childrens Act 2001 deals with it

246.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person who has the custody, charge or care of a child wilfully to assault, ill-treat, neglect, abandon or expose the child, or cause or procure or allow the child to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to the child's health or seriously to affect his or her wellbeing.

(2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

(3) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section—

(a) notwithstanding the death of the child in respect of whom the offence is committed, or

(b) notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to the health of the child, or the likelihood of such suffering or injury, was obviated by the action of another person.

(4) On the trial of any person for the murder of a child of whom the person has the custody, charge or care, the court or the jury, as the case may be, may, if satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of the child, find the accused guilty of that offence.

(5) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have neglected a child in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary suffering or injury to his or her health or seriously to affect his or her wellbeing if the person—

(a) fails to provide adequate food, clothing, heating, medical aid or accommodation for the child, or

(b) being unable to provide such food, clothing, heating, medical aid or accommodation, fails to take steps to have it provided under the enactments relating to health, social welfare or housing.

(6) In subsection (1) the reference to a child's health or wellbeing includes a reference to the child's physical, mental or emotional health or wellbeing.

(7) For the purposes of this section ill-treatment of a child includes any frightening, bullying or threatening of the child, and “ill-treat” shall be construed accordingly.

Again the 'ill treatment' is being dealt with in a specific context of the material needs of a child and the parents obligations to provide these needs. It fails in this instance to factor psychological abuse of children outside the remit of the home environment. Or by other individuals not in loco parentis

In relation to marriage or partner situation there is relevent family law measures, which can lead to criminal convictions.

Of interest which ones in particular are you referring to?

The work place is a interesting one, I am going to have to think about it, but there is of course civil law that covers bullying in the work place. The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 at section 8 says "(b) managing and conducting work activities in such a way as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any improper conduct or behaviour likely to put the safety, health or welfare at work of his or her employees at risk;" Section 77 (2) SAYS "(2) A person commits an offence where he or she— (a) fails to discharge a duty to which he or she is subject by virtue of sections 8 , 9 , 10 , 11(1) to (4), 12 , 13 and 15 to 23 ," Section 78 sets the punishment "is liable— (i) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, or (ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €3,000,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both."

Unfortunately that particular act if you notice places the responsibility of contravention of health and safety provisions not on an actual perpetrator but on the governing organisation. For this to be applied there must be a recognised injury. In the case of psychological abuse the link between cause and effect for such injury is much harder to prove than say loosing a finger in an unguarded machine.

RW - I do believe you have hit the nail on the head in an oblique way - There is no currently no single piece of legislation that deals properly with the issue of psychological abuse of the person in any way similar to that available to individuals who have suffered physical abuse such as a physical attack etc

This is an area that I believe will require legislation to properly deal with the huge amount of bullying / psychological abuse that is encountered by both children and adults in nearly every walk of life. There are no proper criminal penalties for such behaviour and as such it remains outside the bounds of direct prosecution as what it is - a criminal act on the person.