1. Anyone understand why this referendum is necessary? Why is more important than the Malahide walkway.
2. Anyone think of voting No can you give a reason?
Thanks.
Children's Referendum
Who said it was more important than the Malahide walkway? I don't see how a national referendum is related to a building project by Fingal County Council.Pent Up wrote:1. Anyone understand why this referendum is necessary? Why is more important than the Malahide walkway.
Things don't have to be directly related to be compared in importance.Bonzo wrote:Who said it was more important than the Malahide walkway? I don't see how a national referendum is related to a building project by Fingal County Council.Pent Up wrote:1. Anyone understand why this referendum is necessary? Why is more important than the Malahide walkway.
It is more important for me that I have a cup of tea in the morning than for me to cycle my bikes every two weeks. They are not related either.
No what I was trying to ask was how important is this referendum?Bonzo wrote:I don't understand what you're trying to say. In your original question are you suggesting the referendum is more important than the walkway?
Why can't it just the legislation be handled through the Dail? Do we need constituential change and what difference will the change actually make?
I think this referendum is a stage show. So that, Labour and Fine Gael say look we did that and deflect attention away from all the dodgey stuff they are doing.
Yes I'd agree that it's a stunt to deflect from more important economic issues.
Good piece today by Vincent Browne in Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 36565.html
"Children as citizens of the State are conferred with as much in the way of rights as anybody else in article 40.3.1, which states: “The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.” The proposed change makes no difference at all legally but it conveys a cosy feeling that we care about children."
Good piece today by Vincent Browne in Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 36565.html
"Children as citizens of the State are conferred with as much in the way of rights as anybody else in article 40.3.1, which states: “The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.” The proposed change makes no difference at all legally but it conveys a cosy feeling that we care about children."
This is why I considering voting No.Bonzo wrote:Yes I'd agree that it's a stunt to deflect from more important economic issues.
Good piece today by Vincent Browne in Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 36565.html
"Children as citizens of the State are conferred with as much in the way of rights as anybody else in article 40.3.1, which states: “The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.” The proposed change makes no difference at all legally but it conveys a cosy feeling that we care about children."
They could have done something that would have changed things e.g.
1. Adopted people have a right to know who their parents are.
2. People who have "father unknown" on the birthcert have a right to know who their parent is.
3. No child will be discriminated against because of their religion or lack off.
The other dodgey thing is that it says in exceptional circumstances the state will care for the child instead of the parent.
But look at the track record there. There is nothing to suggest that state will improve its standards or help the family be reunited.
A pain in the hole of a social worker could scare a family just like a pain in the hole bank official can scare someone who has missed a mortgage payment.
-
Harry Byrne
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 14:51
- Has thanked: 1 time
Thats some politcal rationale there, boliing it down to insulting language to describe social workers whose job it is to implement the social protection of our children.
I'm not sure whether the refrendum was necessary as I don't know how often it dictates the course of but the revised articles seem to provide greater support for the option to take children out of abusive and threatening situations. Sadly in a lot of cases the biggest danger to the well being of the child is their own parents.
If it also makes it easier for children in long term fostering to be adopted, I wouldn't argue with that either.
If it enables Judges to take the wishes of an older child into a family judgement, I'd be up for that too.
Then again I've tried to look at the issues rather than linking it to a bicycle bridge.
I'm not sure whether the refrendum was necessary as I don't know how often it dictates the course of but the revised articles seem to provide greater support for the option to take children out of abusive and threatening situations. Sadly in a lot of cases the biggest danger to the well being of the child is their own parents.
If it also makes it easier for children in long term fostering to be adopted, I wouldn't argue with that either.
If it enables Judges to take the wishes of an older child into a family judgement, I'd be up for that too.
Then again I've tried to look at the issues rather than linking it to a bicycle bridge.
Why vote for something when they do not even say what "exceptional circumstances" must be before the child is taken away from the family and when they don't even say what "level of care" the state is willing to provide?
A constitution is meant to provide black and white guarantees that the people have decided not mechanisms that the courts interpret. Otherwise what's the point of it?
A constitution is meant to provide black and white guarantees that the people have decided not mechanisms that the courts interpret. Otherwise what's the point of it?
-
diggerbarnes
- Posts: 412
- Joined: 18 Oct 2012, 10:20
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
It may fall short of the ideal but it is more positive than negative. So why would you vote no?
1. It is very bad law.
The idea of a constitution is that it is supposed to give people more rights. Our constitution was brought in when fascism was working its way around Europe. Without a constitution if a crazy government get into power they can legislate for whatever they want. With a constitution they can't. The idea being the constitution protects people and can't be changed without their say. So right now, you can get a divorce. If a crazy Catholic government came into power and didn't believe in any form of divorce they can't prevent it.
This amendment gives government the power to take your children away from you under what they say can be "exceptional circumstances". Now, here's the point. They decide the "exceptional circumstances" - not you. Here are some previous reasons why children were taken away from people in Ireland:
* The parents were not married
* The family were ashamed
* The religion in fashion did not approve.
* The family were in poverty
If you turn back the clock of history - this amendment would have protected *none* of those children. Instead, it would have given the state legal and constitutional backing to take the children.
In addition, the government now are disappointing but not crazy. A crazy government could abuse this amendment. Do crazy governments get elected? Yes have a look around the world. Have a look at history and see what happens when there is economic collapse.
Even if we never get a fully crazy government think about economic collapse. 100,000+ people in negative equity, mortgage arrears, unemployment. When do "exceptional circumstances" include and exclude poverty? We don't know. So, do parents who have hit financial times have any guarantees their children will not be taken? NO. It's for the courts and state to decide the "exceptional circumstances" - not you.
2. As for children's rights - yes great idea. But the biggest right, the one that would make the biggest impact and biggest difference would be to end the legal right for a school to discriminate against a a child based on their religious views of the school.
This legislation was brought in by a government and a democratic government. They can keep it there for as long as they want. It may not make a difference to you as there are ET schools popping up over Fingal - but say the ET school is not working out, or say you live in Carlow where there are not so many?
The most fundamental right after safety is education. Children need to be given constitutional rights to equal access to school irrespective of their religion - which is usually decided by their parents not them.
I feel by ignoring this issue would be like the white apartheid government in South Africa having a referendum for rights for blacks but this referendum gave them tiny rights with respect to adoption but ignored the real issues and still kept systems of apartheid in place.
3. Because this referendum achieves so little for children's rights I think it is a political stunt. They will still cut your child benefit, still make you pay to bring your 1 year old to the Doctor, still make it difficult for you to find a school if you live in the wrong part of town and don't feel comfortable pretending your believes.
Labour + FG want to be able to say "hey look we brought into children's rights". They didn't. They ignored children's rights.
Hey, how come we are having a referendum for tiny rights for children but yet we are told we can do nothing about bankers pensions?
The idea of a constitution is that it is supposed to give people more rights. Our constitution was brought in when fascism was working its way around Europe. Without a constitution if a crazy government get into power they can legislate for whatever they want. With a constitution they can't. The idea being the constitution protects people and can't be changed without their say. So right now, you can get a divorce. If a crazy Catholic government came into power and didn't believe in any form of divorce they can't prevent it.
This amendment gives government the power to take your children away from you under what they say can be "exceptional circumstances". Now, here's the point. They decide the "exceptional circumstances" - not you. Here are some previous reasons why children were taken away from people in Ireland:
* The parents were not married
* The family were ashamed
* The religion in fashion did not approve.
* The family were in poverty
If you turn back the clock of history - this amendment would have protected *none* of those children. Instead, it would have given the state legal and constitutional backing to take the children.
In addition, the government now are disappointing but not crazy. A crazy government could abuse this amendment. Do crazy governments get elected? Yes have a look around the world. Have a look at history and see what happens when there is economic collapse.
Even if we never get a fully crazy government think about economic collapse. 100,000+ people in negative equity, mortgage arrears, unemployment. When do "exceptional circumstances" include and exclude poverty? We don't know. So, do parents who have hit financial times have any guarantees their children will not be taken? NO. It's for the courts and state to decide the "exceptional circumstances" - not you.
2. As for children's rights - yes great idea. But the biggest right, the one that would make the biggest impact and biggest difference would be to end the legal right for a school to discriminate against a a child based on their religious views of the school.
This legislation was brought in by a government and a democratic government. They can keep it there for as long as they want. It may not make a difference to you as there are ET schools popping up over Fingal - but say the ET school is not working out, or say you live in Carlow where there are not so many?
The most fundamental right after safety is education. Children need to be given constitutional rights to equal access to school irrespective of their religion - which is usually decided by their parents not them.
I feel by ignoring this issue would be like the white apartheid government in South Africa having a referendum for rights for blacks but this referendum gave them tiny rights with respect to adoption but ignored the real issues and still kept systems of apartheid in place.
3. Because this referendum achieves so little for children's rights I think it is a political stunt. They will still cut your child benefit, still make you pay to bring your 1 year old to the Doctor, still make it difficult for you to find a school if you live in the wrong part of town and don't feel comfortable pretending your believes.
Labour + FG want to be able to say "hey look we brought into children's rights". They didn't. They ignored children's rights.
Hey, how come we are having a referendum for tiny rights for children but yet we are told we can do nothing about bankers pensions?
Earlier today i spent a hour or so writing my thoughts and feelings re the pending Children's Referendum.As i was ready to submit my thoughts the computer logged me out of the site and my article dissipated into thin area,it's dissapeared!
In the light of what has been the recent decision before lunch by the judge of the Supreme court re the campaighning which was in breach of national justice and the spending of the Present government of public funds for a one sided campaign ,i strongly feel now that we as a nation should go to the polling stations and exercise a presence but a non vote/just write 'undecided due to breach of national justice' on the top of the ballot paper and do not tick either yes or no.It will be counted as a spoilt vote.
If the majority of votes are spoiled or recorded as a non vote but present at polling station the government will have no choice but to reschedule another referendum re these issues and possibly other issues that have not been included in this referendum.
We the Irish nation have yet again been conned /unduely persuaded to vote in one direction while the no campaighners have not had equal access to finances to present a case for a no vote.This is not indicating to me as a citizen that my voice will be heard as equally as any other person eligible to vote.
I must say i was and still am inclined to vote a yes to protect our children but i also feel other areas should have been covered similar to the concerns of those that have so eloquently outlined in this forum.
After this decision in the supreme court today i do not trust the present government to treat the children of our nation equally.I have been thrown into a feeling of being a victim of abuse by the government of the day again. Yes, again!I am retired from a position in which one of my roles was child protection and i have seen
how the system works both in a good way and bad.
My instincts are normally correct!This is another national scandal pipped before the post.The referrendum commision have outlined the proposals.The present government have unfairly used the public's hard earned tax payers money to sway the voters for a yes vote rather than equally funding the no vote campaighners.This is unjust and now the supreme court have judged that to be the case.
The decision to have the referendum cancelled for now should be decided if possible by Our President if that is allowed by the constitution!
In the light of what has been the recent decision before lunch by the judge of the Supreme court re the campaighning which was in breach of national justice and the spending of the Present government of public funds for a one sided campaign ,i strongly feel now that we as a nation should go to the polling stations and exercise a presence but a non vote/just write 'undecided due to breach of national justice' on the top of the ballot paper and do not tick either yes or no.It will be counted as a spoilt vote.
If the majority of votes are spoiled or recorded as a non vote but present at polling station the government will have no choice but to reschedule another referendum re these issues and possibly other issues that have not been included in this referendum.
We the Irish nation have yet again been conned /unduely persuaded to vote in one direction while the no campaighners have not had equal access to finances to present a case for a no vote.This is not indicating to me as a citizen that my voice will be heard as equally as any other person eligible to vote.
I must say i was and still am inclined to vote a yes to protect our children but i also feel other areas should have been covered similar to the concerns of those that have so eloquently outlined in this forum.
After this decision in the supreme court today i do not trust the present government to treat the children of our nation equally.I have been thrown into a feeling of being a victim of abuse by the government of the day again. Yes, again!I am retired from a position in which one of my roles was child protection and i have seen
how the system works both in a good way and bad.
My instincts are normally correct!This is another national scandal pipped before the post.The referrendum commision have outlined the proposals.The present government have unfairly used the public's hard earned tax payers money to sway the voters for a yes vote rather than equally funding the no vote campaighners.This is unjust and now the supreme court have judged that to be the case.
The decision to have the referendum cancelled for now should be decided if possible by Our President if that is allowed by the constitution!
How does this proposed amendment protect any of our children?Dowager wrote: I must say i was and still am inclined to vote a yes to protect our children
Even if the President could do that, I doubt he would.The decision to have the referendum cancelled for now should be decided if possible by Our President if that is allowed by the constitution!
I would urge a No vote and welcome real child protection and equality legislation. But, I don't think a referendum is necessary for that.
-
jack white
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 20:15
- Has thanked: 3 times
I'll be voting yes.
The various hardline Catholic groups that want a No vote haven't given any plausible reason.
In effect the No campaign wants to keep the status quo. And the status quo gives bad parents as much constitutional rights as good ones. All this talk about protecting the family doesn't take into account the fact that there are certain families that deserve to be broken up because ill-treatment of children is the norm.
As Fintan O'Toole stated the other day, if you really want to vote no your opinions can be ascertained by simply inserting the word 'not' into the amendment.
For instance:
There should NOT be any explicit acknowledgment in the Constitution that children have rights. The State should NOT be able to intervene, proportionally and in exceptional cases, where parents are putting the safety and welfare of children at risk.
Sounds shocking when you out it like that, doesn't it? But that's what you're voting for if you vote no.
Here's his article, by the way:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 80829.html
The various hardline Catholic groups that want a No vote haven't given any plausible reason.
In effect the No campaign wants to keep the status quo. And the status quo gives bad parents as much constitutional rights as good ones. All this talk about protecting the family doesn't take into account the fact that there are certain families that deserve to be broken up because ill-treatment of children is the norm.
As Fintan O'Toole stated the other day, if you really want to vote no your opinions can be ascertained by simply inserting the word 'not' into the amendment.
For instance:
There should NOT be any explicit acknowledgment in the Constitution that children have rights. The State should NOT be able to intervene, proportionally and in exceptional cases, where parents are putting the safety and welfare of children at risk.
Sounds shocking when you out it like that, doesn't it? But that's what you're voting for if you vote no.
Here's his article, by the way:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 80829.html
Jack, I initially was yes, and then super yes when I heard the religious nuts were telling people to vote no. But then, I started thinking that if the only reason why you are voting yes is because idiots are telling you to vote no then the government has succeeded in holding you back from thinking about the issues.
The argument from Fintan O'Toole is a false dichotomy. I don't believe inserting the word "not" represents my viewpoint nor do I want to keep the status quo. Just proper fair laws.
Perhaps, it might be you is happy going along with status quo doing what the big parties are telling you to do without even thinking about it and using a false dichotomy - just because some fancy journalist has incorrectly used it. The government are trying to hood wink you think into thinking they are giving children meaningful rights. They are not. All they are doing is giving the state more power.
If you compare it to something like the Declaration of human rights, where it states what the rights are. That's really good. But, when you look at something like this, there is no mention of any rights whatsoever. Just some power for the state to make decisions.
Where any of the previous decisions any good?
No - they were bloody awful.
The argument from Fintan O'Toole is a false dichotomy. I don't believe inserting the word "not" represents my viewpoint nor do I want to keep the status quo. Just proper fair laws.
Perhaps, it might be you is happy going along with status quo doing what the big parties are telling you to do without even thinking about it and using a false dichotomy - just because some fancy journalist has incorrectly used it. The government are trying to hood wink you think into thinking they are giving children meaningful rights. They are not. All they are doing is giving the state more power.
If you compare it to something like the Declaration of human rights, where it states what the rights are. That's really good. But, when you look at something like this, there is no mention of any rights whatsoever. Just some power for the state to make decisions.
Where any of the previous decisions any good?
No - they were bloody awful.
-
jack white
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 20:15
- Has thanked: 3 times
Nevertheless, by voting No you are aligning yourself with the religious nuts and, like it or not, you ARE saying that the state should not be able to intervene when parents are putting their children at risk. That is the constitutional status quo you're upholding.
You're right of course to say that the state let children down countless times over the years. But I don't see why that's an argument for a No vote. In fact it's the opposite. That's one status quo that nobody wants to keep.
I suppose the question you have to answer is the following:
When is the state more likely to let children down: when it has a constitutional right to intervene in cases of child abuse or when it doesn't?
Voting No just gives the state an excuse to turn a blind eye to cases of child abuse in the future. Voting yes means it has no excuse.
You're right of course to say that the state let children down countless times over the years. But I don't see why that's an argument for a No vote. In fact it's the opposite. That's one status quo that nobody wants to keep.
I suppose the question you have to answer is the following:
When is the state more likely to let children down: when it has a constitutional right to intervene in cases of child abuse or when it doesn't?
Voting No just gives the state an excuse to turn a blind eye to cases of child abuse in the future. Voting yes means it has no excuse.
If you are saying you do just do the opposite to religious nuts what you are saying is you allow them to do you thinking for you. How ironic?jack white wrote:Nevertheless, by voting No you are aligning yourself with the religious nuts and, like it or not, you ARE saying that the state should not be able to intervene when parents are putting their children at risk. That is the constitutional status quo you're upholding.
The state should of course intervene against crazy parents but you don't need a referendum to do that. It should be done by normal family and criminal law.
Because it is time that children got proper rights. Starting with all the rights that are applicable form the declaration of human rights. This means - they have a right to an education not based on their religion but based on their human rights nothing else.You're right of course to say that the state let children down countless times over the years. But I don't see why that's an argument for a No vote. In fact it's the opposite. That's one status quo that nobody wants to keep.
It doesn't need anything in the constitution and has already intervened.I suppose the question you have to answer is the following:
When is the state more likely to let children down: when it has a constitutional right to intervene in cases of child abuse or when it doesn't?
No it doesn't. Show me where exactly in the amendment that is the case.Voting No just gives the state an excuse to turn a blind eye to cases of child abuse in the future. Voting yes means it has no excuse.
1.
The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
2.
1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty
towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° 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.
3.
Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of
any child.
4.
1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—
i. brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the
safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
ii. concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,
the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings
referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
It's think its all shambolic now because in my humble opinion, the likely outcome of a yes vote to the referendum will be challenged in the courts because of the supereme court decision yesterday . I feel it will give rise to claims that the result will have been influenced by the states campaign which was described as "not fair, equal or impartial". Like divorce, I think this will take more than one go to get over the line.
This referendum has been talked about for 8 years now, so the people saying its a stunt are most likely people who have to interest in children's issues, which is disappointing and frightening, for too long it was put on the long finger, go and vote and protect vulnerable children.
That's an awful argument. You are probably a member of FG and Labour and haven't a clue about children.diggers wrote:This referendum has been talked about for 8 years now, so the people saying its a stunt are most likely people who have to interest in children's issues, which is disappointing and frightening, for too long it was put on the long finger, go and vote and protect vulnerable children.
But instead of making assumptions about people you disagree with, how about you tell us how this amendment protects any vunerable child? And let people make up their mind if it will protect vunerable children or if it is bad law.
The referendum was put on the long finger because it was never clear how it would solve any problems, what good it would do and what cans of worms it would open up.
Earlier Harry Byrne said:
The state can already intervene.
Earlier Jack White said:I'm not sure whether the refrendum was necessary as I don't know how often it dictates the course of but the revised articles seem to provide greater support for the option to take children out of abusive and threatening situations.
I would suggest both of you read the current constitution section: 42.5 which is what this referendum wishes to remove:Nevertheless, by voting No you are aligning yourself with the religious nuts and, like it or not, you ARE saying that the state should not be able to intervene when parents are putting their children at risk.
You've both made arguments on completely false and inaccurate presmises.In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
The state can already intervene.