Children's Referendum - Why You Should Vote No

Sarah Molloy

There is massive, unprecedented support for a yes vote, from all quarters, not just governmental. Parents groups like the National Parents Council, OPEN, One Family have come out in favour of a Yes. Women's groups are saying yes too, including the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Irish Country Women's Association, Mothers Union. So too are groups representing children in care like the Irish Foster Care Association and EPIC. These people know what they are talking about. Fr Peter McVerry says yes to it - he works with the most marginalised in our society so knows what he is talking about.

Curly Judge

Sarah Molloy wrote: »

There is massive, unprecedented support for a yes vote, from all quarters, not just governmental. Parents groups like the National Parents Council, OPEN, One Family have come out in favour of a Yes. Women's groups are saying yes too, including the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Irish Country Women's Association, Mothers Union. So too are groups representing children in care like the Irish Foster Care Association and EPIC. These people know what they are talking about. Fr Peter McVerry says yes to it - he works with the most marginalised in our society so knows what he is talking about.

I wonder if you set up a list of those who are opposed to the referendum how many of them would also have been opposed on the divorce or contraception issue?
I suspect that we are dealing here with the usual arkward squad who have opposed every bit of progressive legislation ever brought in to this counry.

Annasopra

Curly Judge wrote: »

I wonder if you set up a list of those who are opposed to the referendum how many of them would also have been opposed on the divorce or contraception issue?
I suspect that we are dealing here with the usual arkward squad who have opposed every bit of progressive legislation ever brought in to this counry.

Exactly

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Curly Judge wrote: »

I wonder if you set up a list of those who are opposed to the referendum how many of them would also have been opposed on the divorce or contraception issue?

Ah, yeah. If you can't get the ball, get the man.

I'm sick to my back teeth of the "Oh, Dana's voting No" bull that Yes voters seem to fall back on when they realise their understanding of this referendum is flawed.

Can I point out that, today, your Supreme Court - the body charged with protecting you from the arbitrary exercise of Government power - told you that your Government had unlawfully used your money to fund a website and publication that gave you biased and incorrect information about this Amendment.

If you don't vote No in principle on foot of that information, you'd want to have a damn good reason. And you haven't produced it yet.

If you vote Yes now, you're telling the Government that you don't mind if they pull the wool over your eyes.

ThisRegard

The referendum is regarding a change in the constitution, not an up yours to the government based on todays judgement.

No wool was pulled over peoples eyes, I'd like to think people can make their decision based on the wording of the amendment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ThisRegard wrote: »

No wool was pulled over peoples eyes

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'd like to think people can make their decision based on the wording of the amendment.

Oh, I'd expect the vote will still be valid; you'd expect the Courts to accept any popular vote to be valid, despite any unlawful action such as found today.

I'm simply drawing attention to something that people shouldn't be naive about. Voting Yes after this will confirm what politicians guess already; they can treat the electorate with contempt, and get away with it.

Annasopra

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

You don't know what the misstatement was. So actually your interpretation of the supreme court judgement says otherwise

iora_rua

Any chance the 'yes' vote would cover removing Traveller children from their mostly dysfunctional environment, and giving them some chance of a decent education and lifestyle? Yeah, then I might vote! In the meantime, as I don't have any kids, I really don't feel qualified to vote. So, I'm NOT going to vote.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

You don't know what the misstatement was. So actually your interpretation of the supreme court judgement says otherwise

Eh, no. The Supreme Court does indeed confirm that the extent of Government distortion is such that it even contains a misstatement.

However, they also plainly state that much of the material is biased. So, no, the Court have found quite directly that the material was advancing only one side of the argument.

Personally, I don't see why you would want to cover up on the Government's behalf. Can I suggest you might want to mull over what happened today?

I mean, I may be old fashioned, but when I hear that the Supreme Court makes a judgment that very plainly says the Government has acted unlawfully with respect to the electorate process, I feel it might actually be something that people need to take note of.

And notice - in case people haven't - that I'm not saying "You must vote No now". I'm saying you'd need a damn good reason to vote Yes - such that compensates for the Government being found by the Supreme Court to be unlawfully interfering in the process.

And that's what happened - that's what they found. I'm not overstating anything. Others are trying to underplay it. Ah, Governments interfering in popular votes. Sure, what's the harm in that?

Deank

Question for you wise boardsies on this one, hypothetically if myself and Mrs K were in a car accident and neither of us survived what would happen to our kids in the absence of a will, would they be in state care or would they be placed with immediate family if there was a yes vote in the referendum?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deank wrote: »

Question for you wise boardsies on this one, hypothetically if myself and Mrs K were in a car accident and neither of us survived what would happen to our kids in the absence of a will, would they be in state care or would they be placed with immediate family if there was a yes vote in the referendum?

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/who-will-take-care-of-your-children-if-you-die-108075.html

If parents die without appointing a legal guardian, the social services will be called in. A social worker will be assigned to them and they will look for foster care.

"They will go to great lengths to find a relative to care for the children," says Lisa, a spokesperson with the HSE. "And if they can't find a relative they will ask a close friend of the family to look after them temporally. And they will, if at all possible, keep the children together. That is paramount. When they can't find anyone who is close to the children, they are put in residential care while a suitable foster family is sought. But that is, absolutely, a last resort."

Shane Dunphy, a childcare worker, lecturer and author of Wednesday's Child, has dealt with three cases of orphaned children in his career. "In two cases, the children were taken in by relatives; they were, in fact, already being cared for by those relatives. And we were called in to talk to the children about bereavement.

"The third case was one I mentioned in my book. In that case, there was no close family and they were looked after by friends temporally while a suitable family was found. And the three children were kept together. But that can be a problem. Because many foster families are not willing to take more than one child - so often they will end up being split up. Younger children are easier to place. Once they reach even 10 and 11, it can be harder."

gizmo555

mango salsa wrote: »

You don't know what the misstatement was. So actually your interpretation of the supreme court judgement says otherwise

They explained this on Prime Time tonight. In essence, the government booklet used a phrase "the [constitutional] requirements will continue to be" and then listed a number of points. Some of the points listed are new requirements which the amendment would introduce.

The use of the word "continue" wrongly implied that they are already in the constitution and hence that the amendment would change less than it actually will if passed.

Podman

The Children's Rights Referendum aka The State Child Abduction Referendum

Given the Government's track record of lying through its teeth, I decided to do a little research before the vote on Saturday.
I found out that if this referendum is passed, it will remove the natural right of the family as the primary authority for the rights of the Children, and give that power to the State.

That means any/all of our Children can be legally removed from the Family Home without the consent of the Parents, and put into a "home" with no Family contact whatsoever.
____________________________________________________

Children will be Property of The State
____________________________________________________

The Constitution already reflects the Rights of The Family as the primary Protector of the Children in that Family. That right is Paramount. Do not vote it away.
____________________________________________________

Under the Constitution of Ireland, the "State" is already obliged to honour the Family and Children.
Under the Constitution, Children already have inalienable Rights.
The "state" want control of your Children, the same state that promised you jobs and prosperity, but instead gave us poverty and debt for the next hundred years.
I wouldn't trust a state employee to hold my coat, much less take any Child of mine into "care".
I have yet to meet someone who as a Child has been in the "care" of the state and was not abused.
Many Children who survive the "welfare of the state" go on to have a criminal career and many of those go in and out of prison regularly.

Lets face it, anything the state touches loses its integrity and fails miserably.
Please do not condemn generations of children to state ownership and control, it will never replace the Family home.
Love cannot be "appointed" by bureaucrats.
Do not be complicit in the ruination of OUR society.
_____________________

The yes "side" are obviously well represented, too much according to the Supreme Court, so with that in mind, here are ten reasons to vote NO...

The amendment will remove article 42.5 from the Constitution.

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 arbi-trary decision can be made by one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevent-ed 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 une-lected 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 be-lieve 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 pro-tect 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!
_________________________________

A few Videos to broaden the mind.

Children under threat from Irish State AGAIN - Special wording and trickery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGdAQb8PZg

JUGENDAMT the so called 'Child Welfare Agency' echoes Nazi Germany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ISiTxNRjAE

Children's rights referendum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqpzUSjbepA

• There is also a very worrying trend coming to light recently, that of Child abuse, kidnapping, trafficking and cover-ups at the highest levels.

Powerful Paedophile Ring Linked to Parliament Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxDaXWHaGo

Scottish Establishment Paedophile Ring Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDzpodfaiM

BBC Threatened: Told to Shut Up About Child Abuse Cover-Up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03x4Jd8nPHE

No-one thinks it will ever happen to them, and yet history has repeatedly shown that it does.
I will be voting NO to Child abduction, while it is still a crime under the Constitution of Ireland.


Join the Discussion...

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/notes-on-constitutional-amendement-on-childrens-rights-2012

http://freemanireland.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-biggest-reason-to-vote-no-on-the-children-s-referendum-lie-of


More reading...

Supreme Court says Government’s Referendum site ‘not fair, equal or impartial’
http://www.thejournal.ie/supreme-court-upholds-appeal-against-governments-referendum-site-666108-Nov2012/

Irish Children’s Rights Referendum will make children property of the state: U.S. legal expert
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrens-rights-referendum-will-make-children-property-of-the-state/

3greenrizla's

Deank wrote: »

Question for you wise boardsies on this one, hypothetically if myself and Mrs K were in a car accident and neither of us survived what would happen to our kids in the absence of a will, would they be in state care or would they be placed with immediate family if there was a yes vote in the referendum?

AFAIK Yes, but your children will have a say in where they are placed.

Curly Judge

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Eh, no. The Supreme Court does indeed confirm that the extent of Government distortion is such that it even contains a misstatement.

However, they also plainly state that much of the material is biased. So, no, the Court have found quite directly that the material was advancing only one side of the argument.

Personally, I don't see why you would want to cover up on the Government's behalf. Can I suggest you might want to mull over what happened today?

I mean, I may be old fashioned, but when I hear that the Supreme Court makes a judgment that very plainly says the Government has acted unlawfully with respect to the electorate process, I feel it might actually be something that people need to take note of.

And notice - in case people haven't - that I'm not saying "You must vote No now". I'm saying you'd need a damn good reason to vote Yes - such that compensates for the Government being found by the Supreme Court to be unlawfully interfering in the process.

And that's what happened - that's what they found. I'm not overstating anything. Others are trying to underplay it. Ah, Governments interfering in popular votes. Sure, what's the harm in that?

I don't know of anyone on the YES side who do not think the government screwed up. Of course their decision to spend money to present only one side of the argument was at least niave and at worst unfathomable.
While Frances Fitzgerald is probably now felling very silly I cannot bring myself to see her as a loony childcatcher. She makes an unlikely Svengali.
On the substantive issue nothing has changed.

Debthree

This is a total no brainer. Frankly I can't believe that anyone is even considering voting no. Ask anyone in Barnardos, ask any GP, they'll tell you horror stories of children whose natural parents take them out of foster care time and time again only to abuse them and neglect them. When they've had their kicks they send them back to the foster family who provide stability and love and again a few weeks or months down the road the natural parents come knocking and the abuse and neglect start again.

I cannot believe that people think it's okay for natural parents to retain their parental rights to a child they are abusing. The ISPCA have the right to remove a dog from a licensed dog owner if he/she is abusing the dog. But children? No. Right now they're staying put.

Yes is absolutely the only option here if you give a toss about children.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Curly Judge wrote: »

On the substantive issue nothing has changed.

But the point is there is no substantial issue to begin with as exhaustively pointed out on many threads at this stage.
The essence of the Yes case, once the spin is challenged, is "Oh, Dana is voting No, so that can't be right".
And it is disturbing how some people are trying to change the subject so quickly away from the plain fact of the Government being found by the Supreme Court to be unfairly and unlawfully interfering in the vote.

Debthree wrote: »

I cannot believe that people think it's okay for natural parents to retain their parental rights to a child they are abusing.

That's because no-one is making that case. The Constitution already puts an obligation on the State to act where parents are abusive.
The Yes case is based on misrepresentation of the issues.

Debthree

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But the point is there is no substantial issue to begin with as exhaustively pointed out on many threads at this stage.
The essence of the Yes case, once the spin is challenged, is "Oh, Dana is voting No, so that can't be right".
And it is disturbing how some people are trying to change the subject so quickly away from the plain fact of the Government being found by the Supreme Court to be unfairly and unlawfully interfering in the vote.That's because no-one is making that case. The Constitution already puts an obligation on the State to act where parents are abusive.
The Yes case is based on misrepresentation of the issues.

Yes, "act" being the operative word here. They act by investigating the parents, possibly leading to a court case. The parents say they'll do better, blah blah blah but nothing is done in the long run. They retain their parental rights and they continue to neglect and abuse. Meanwhile the children in foster care wait for the next knock on the door from their natural parent ready to pull them out of their safe home and start the abuse again. This goes on every day in this country. It's disgusting. It's horrific. It's time it stopped.

TrishAlmighty

Curly Judge wrote: »

I wonder if you set up a list of those who are opposed to the referendum how many of them would also have been opposed on the divorce or contraception issue?
I suspect that we are dealing here with the usual arkward squad who have opposed every bit of progressive legislation ever brought in to this counry.

Thats a whole lot of assumption there, I plan on voting no on saturday.....and unlike you've suggested , I am completely in favour of divorce and contraception!

On reading this thread it seems your opinion is based mostly on "I dont like the people who want a No vote so I'll go the other way".
Many of the reasons I have chosen to vote no have nothing to do with the above arguements. The states treatment of children with mental and physical disabilties are the major problem....its been shown in the past that they dont operate in the best interests of these children. Parents in the past have been able to appeal cases where much needed benefits or assistance have been removed by the government to save money. The changes will prevent this from happening. Meaning, the state can continue to remove these facilities and dont have the added annoyance of parents appealling and possibly winning the appeal.

Basically, if the state decides its best (for them, not the child) then we cant question it.....even if its blatantly obvious that they've made the wrong decision. Lets face it, they make the wrong decision more often than not.

This is my opinion, based on information I've seen on tv interviews and papers etc. so by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but I still feel more clarity is needed on how the changes affect what the state is already able to do.

TrishAlmighty

Debthree wrote: »

This is a total no brainer. Frankly I can't believe that anyone is even considering voting no. Ask anyone in Barnardos, ask any GP, they'll tell you horror stories of children whose natural parents take them out of foster care time and time again only to abuse them and neglect them. When they've had their kicks they send them back to the foster family who provide stability and love and again a few weeks or months down the road the natural parents come knocking and the abuse and neglect start again.

I cannot believe that people think it's okay for natural parents to retain their parental rights to a child they are abusing. The ISPCA have the right to remove a dog from a licensed dog owner if he/she is abusing the dog. But children? No. Right now they're staying put.

Yes is absolutely the only option here if you give a toss about children.

But as the constitution is right now, the state have power to remove a child in that situation....the question isn't whether they should or shouldn't remove the child, its why dont they use the power they have already to remove children in those situations.

I would definitely consider abuse and neglect "exceptional cases", so unless they use the legislation whats the point of changing it. The biggest issue in the circumstance above is the lack of Social Workers to monitor the situation and provide proper assistance, stepping in and removing the child at the first sign of problems......not 2 or 3 years down the road.

Macha

TrishAlmighty wrote: »

Basically, if the state decides its best (for them, not the child) then we cant question it.....even if its blatantly obvious that they've made the wrong decision. Lets face it, they make the wrong decision more often than not.

I don't think we should see this as the state vs the family. I think it's more a question of allowing the state to give more support to families and children when they need it. For example, at the moment there are thousands of kids in state care who can't be adopted because of the way the Constitution is worded at the moment.

The one other thing I'd say is that a lot the reports that have come out of child abuse (perpetrated by institutions or families) have recommended these sort of changes to the Constitution.

TrishAlmighty

Macha wrote: »

I don't think we should see this as the state vs the family. I think it's more a question of allowing the state to give more support to families and children when they need it. For example, at the moment there are thousands of kids in state care who can't be adopted because of the way the Constitution is worded at the moment.

The one other thing I'd say is that a lot the reports that have come out of child abuse (perpetrated by institutions or families) have recommended these sort of changes to the Constitution.

Unfortunately it often does come down to state versus family in such cases though.

I was in favour of the changes until I became aware of the possibility this could happen and I know many people who have been in this situation so its a huge concern for me. Its just another aspect that should be considered before following the herd and voting yes. Knowledge is power after all, even if its only purpose is to make people do a bit more research before making a final decision.

Macha

TrishAlmighty wrote: »

Unfortunately it often does come down to state versus family in such cases though.

I was in favour of the changes until I became aware of the possibility this could happen and I know many people who have been in this situation so its a huge concern for me. Its just another aspect that should be considered before following the herd and voting yes. Knowledge is power after all, even if its only purpose is to make people do a bit more research before making a final decision.

Yes, I agree it's important to consider all aspects of it before voting. On this particular issue, I see it as being a measure that actually helps keep children with their families rather than letting it get to the point where they have to be taken away. If families in difficulty could be given support earlier, it's less likely that situations will arise whereby the only way to ensure the child's safety is outside the family.

It's shocking when you compare the amount of cases each social welfare officer in Ireland have to deal with compared with the UK. It's a question of resources for sure but I see this amendment about giving a really strong legal basis for an obligation on the state to provide that care.

oscarBravo

TrishAlmighty wrote: »

Parents in the past have been able to appeal cases where much needed benefits or assistance have been removed by the government to save money. The changes will prevent this from happening.

How?

Basically, if the state decides its best (for them, not the child) then we cant question it...

Again, how do you arrive at that conclusion from the text of the amendment?

TrishAlmighty

oscarBravo wrote: »

How? Again, how do you arrive at that conclusion from the text of the amendment?

As I stated in my initial post, this is an opinion I have derived from tv interviews and newspaper coverage........I have invited people to correct me if I am wrong so If you believe this is incorrect then by all means put your arguement forward.

I believe this particular concern was raised by Maria Mhic Mheanmain from "Parents for Children" on TV3 during the week sometime also.

I am not a member or advocate of Parents for Children by the way, that's just the interview that came to mind.

TrishAlmighty

Macha wrote: »

Yes, I agree it's important to consider all aspects of it before voting. On this particular issue, I see it as being a measure that actually helps keep children with their families rather than letting it get to the point where they have to be taken away. If families in difficulty could be given support earlier, it's less likely that situations will arise whereby the only way to ensure the child's safety is outside the family.

It's shocking when you compare the amount of cases each social welfare officer in Ireland have to deal with compared with the UK. It's a question of resources for sure but I see this amendment about giving a really strong legal basis for an obligation on the state to provide that care.

At first I was of that mind too.....any change can only be an improvement after all. But my distrust of this countrys government and the courts handling of many child abuse cases etc. has made me a sceptic. So the slightest hint of underhandedness was enough to sway me

oscarBravo

TrishAlmighty wrote: »

As I stated in my initial post, this is an opinion I have derived from tv interviews and newspaper coverage........I have invited people to correct me if I am wrong so If you believe this is incorrect then by all means put your arguement forward.

My argument? There's nothing to that effect in the referendum wording. You might as well claim that the referendum will require us to sell our children into slavery, and then ask me for my argument as to why that's not the case.

TrishAlmighty

oscarBravo wrote: »

My argument? There's nothing to that effect in the referendum wording. You might as well claim that the referendum will require us to sell our children into slavery, and then ask me for my argument as to why that's not the case.

By stating it here I was hoping someone might be able to let me know if this is true or not......its not something I have taken from the wording of the constitution but an arguement put forward in an interview regarding the referendum. If there is any chance it is true then I wont be voting yes, so if you or anyone else can give me guidance as to why this cant be the case then I may consider voting yes.

Like most of the country I am unsure as to how the changes will benefit children and also of how the existing legislation doesnt already account for situations where the state needs to protect children i.e. abuse & neglect. If in doubt I will vote NO!

oscarBravo

TrishAlmighty wrote: »

If there is any chance it is true then I wont be voting yes, so if you or anyone else can give me guidance as to why this cant be the case then I may consider voting yes.

I'm not sure what guidance you need. Granted, someone has claimed that the referendum will have a specific unwanted side effect: that's par for the course with referendum campaigns; I'm still waiting to be conscripted into the post-Lisbon EU army at €1.65 an hour.

But anyone can claim whatever they want. For a claim to be in any way persuasive, it really ought to include some sort of explanation as to how it's a logical conclusion from the wording of the referendum.

Was such an explanation forthcoming? If so, what was it?

Manach

oscarBravo wrote: »

My argument? There's nothing to that effect in the referendum wording. You might as well claim that the referendum will require us to sell our children into slavery, and then ask me for my argument as to why that's not the case.

This is not outrightly so in the wording. However, the constitution according to current theory is both a living document with unenumerated rights can be interpreted (confined to Art 40.3, but this change would influence future rights). So by lessening the emphasis on the family and strengthen the State's role in what it subjectively perceives to be the best interest of the child, this might lead in the future to cases being more decided more favourable to the State than parents.