Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Children's Referendum - Why You Should Vote No

24

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    At the root of the NO campaign is a religious fundamentalism which views all this as an attack on the family.
    Not really.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1019/breaking33.html

    A new group opposed to the children’s rights amendment to the Constitution was launched this morning in Dublin. <...>

    The new group is made up of John Colgan, Dick Spicer and Mike McKillen, all three of whom had campaigned for the separation of Church and State in the 1980s.

    At an event this morning, Mr Colgan said most of the procedures to be introduced under the amendment, such as the rights of children to be heard in court, were redundant as they were already a part of practice. Moreover, what was not already being done could be implemented through ordinary legislation, he said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Not really.

    That's one example of a no group.

    The no campaign is supported by many many religious fundamentalist individuals and groups; Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign,

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    That's one example of a no group.

    The no campaign is supported by many many religious fundamentalist individuals and groups; Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign,
    The No campaign does feature those groups.

    It also includes the secularists I mentioned above, and these folk
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1025/1224325680536.html

    <...>Ray Kelly of Unmarried and Separated Families of Ireland (USFI) confirmed the referendum had prompted his group to resign from the coalition of more than 100 organisations that make up the Children’s Rights Alliance.

    “The proposed amendment doesn’t go far enough. It’s a golden opportunity wasted to give children an equal right to have a father. It’s an erosion of parental rights and it’s actually putting the State in the position where it’s more powerful than the parent,” Mr Kelly said. “We don’t feel that the referendum is actually about children’s rights. Looking at the wording we don’t see anywhere it’s actually giving more rights. It’s actually an adoption referendum.”
    The "it's all religious fundamentalists" line is just more spin, aimed at avoiding the need to advance any substantial reason for this referendum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    The No campaign does feature those groups.

    It also includes the secularists I mentioned above, and these folkThe "it's all religious fundamentalists" line is just more spin, aimed at avoiding the need to advance any substantial reason for this referendum.

    Okay, Okay, already.
    Only 80% of them are of a religious bent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Okay, Okay, already.
    Only 80% of them are of a religious bent.
    I've no idea what percentage of potential No voters have religious motivations. Similarly, I've no idea what percentage of the Yes side have religious motivations.

    I'm more interested in the substance of the case for a change to the Constitution, which is still not to be seen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    The no campaign is supported by many many religious fundamentalist individuals and groups; Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign,

    How could any true Irish person not be convinced by the weight of evidence and logic from this side :rolleyes:

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17 freedomtoday


    The Roscommon case and others like it were the fault of a grossly inept HSE, and government bodies who cared about nothing but their own pockets. At ant time the state could have stepped in and removed those children, even after the court order, but failed to do so. It makes no sense to give more power to the state when it failed to use the power it had to the detriment of innocent children.


  • Registered Users Posts: 586 ✭✭✭Aswerty


    There's a big difference in the No voters. Some say these changes hurt the famly, some find the changes redundant and others don't think the changes go far enough. Bunking them all into the same bracket is a bit ridiculous especially when it is the potential harm to the family that the hard line religous are focussed on. It seems to me the groups with the most diverging opinions are both on the No side.

    Also in reference to a previous poster claiming adoption doesn't have a place in this referendum I thoroughly disagree. When my mother was born she was fostered by a family (her mother was ill and died when she was very young) who within a year wanted to adopt her since they were moving to another country. Her father wouldn't allow the adoption because he didn't like the idea of having his daughter adopted. He wasn't able to care for her so she was placed in a convent where the nuns were strict but fair. Luckily in her teens she found a home in a family which I know consider my mothers family. But my point is that adoption at a very young age would by far have been the best option for her but it was her natural family that vetoed it and robbed her of a chance of having a functioning family for the best part of her youth. I'm hoping changes made in this referendum would stop something like this from happening again. I'm aware children aren't place in convents anymore but a similar case nowadays would have meant she would have ended up in a different foster home which is still not ideal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭ciarafem




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Aswerty wrote: »
    <...> Also in reference to a previous poster claiming adoption doesn't have a place in this referendum I thoroughly disagree.
    Grand, but I don't think you're addressing the point I've made - which is adoption outside of families is a very rare event these days. The overwhelming majority of adoptions these days are by the "natural mother and her husband". So, indeed, the set of circumstances that you relate with respect to your mother simply wouldn't replicate today. I'd even say the implicit assumption in your account - that a single father would be incompetent as a parent, where a single mother would not, - is an assumption that would have been accepted in the 1960s, but not today.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Grand, but I don't think you're addressing the point I've made - which is adoption outside of families is a very rare event these days. The overwhelming majority of adoptions these days are by the "natural mother and her husband". So, indeed, the set of circumstances that you relate with respect to your mother simply wouldn't replicate today. I'd even say the implicit assumption in your account - that a single father would be incompetent as a parent, where a single mother would not, - is an assumption that would have been accepted in the 1960s, but not today.

    The adoption of children within families is part of the problem.
    Why should a baby who has spent 18 months bonding with an adoptive family - who are providing a good home and are dreading the thoughts of having to part with it - be wrenched from the stability of that home and returned to the doubtful future of a "reformed" addict.
    The effect on the birth parents might be wonderful but the effect on a young child, in it's formative years, can only be imagined.
    If this amendment puts the interests of that child first it will be a good days work!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    The adoption of children within families is part of the problem.

    Why should a baby who has spent 18 months bonding with an adoptive family - who are providing a good home and are dreading the thoughts of having to part with it - be wrenched from the stability of that home and returned to the doubtful future of a "reformed" addict.

    The effect on the birth parents might be wonderful but the effect on a young child, in it's formative years, can only be imagined.

    If this amendment puts the interests of that child first it will be a good days work!
    I don't follow your point. Overwhelmingly, the few adoptions that we have every year are by the "natural mother and her husband". In other words, situations where a single woman has a baby and subsequently marries someone who isn't the natural father. I don't see how that relates to babies being handed back and forth between recovering addicts, and I'm currently assuming this is just the usual hyperbole that Yes voters use to hide the lack of any case for this amendment.

    The Constitution already provides that a child must be protected from danger. There is no question of the Constitution demanding that a child be returned to a parent if that exposes the child to risk. All this is covered in the quote already provided many times to the judgement made by Hardiman J in the Baby Ann case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17 freedomtoday


    I'm seeing the Yes voters pull each other apart in front of my eyes. Proves the lack of coherency when one resorts to deception to prove their case. The Constitution already protects children from physical and moral abuse, e.g in exceptional cases. We have everything we need to protect vulnerable children. What we have seen is the failure of the State to use its powers, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to confer more power upon them by voting Yes. This amendment is concerned with pulling children from their families forever, and mentions nothing about supporting parents who are in difficulty. Furthermore, there are no safeguards to prevent a power-hungry State from abusing it's 'new powers'. For the sake of families across Ireland who need to be aided and strengthened, and not torn apart, I ask voters to put prejudice and party loyalty behind them, and come out and Vote No on Sat 10th of November.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    I'm seeing the Yes voters pull each other apart in front of my eyes. Proves the lack of coherency when one resorts to deception to prove their case. The Constitution already protects children from physical and moral abuse, e.g in exceptional cases. We have everything we need to protect vulnerable children. What we have seen is the failure of the State to use its powers, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to confer more power upon them by voting Yes. This amendment is concerned with pulling children from their families forever, and mentions nothing about supporting parents who are in difficulty. Furthermore, there are no safeguards to prevent a power-hungry State from abusing it's 'new powers'. For the sake of families across Ireland who need to be aided and strengthened, and not torn apart, I ask voters to put prejudice and party loyalty behind them, and come out and Vote No on Sat 10th of November.

    A thoroughly untrue, disingenous and misleading post, if you don't mind me saying so. And even if you do mind me saying so.
    On one hand you are concerned that the state will over use its powers and on the other hand you accuse the state of under using it's powers.
    And you have the shameless chutzpah to refer to the YES side as lacking coherency.
    You are having a laugh, aren't you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    ciarafem wrote: »
    This is already provide for by Art. 42.5 of the Constitution, and Section 54, Subsection 2 of the 2010 Adoption Act.

    I suggest you read this Irish Times opinion piece by a retired social worker who is aware of the facts http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0914/1224324008763.html

    Ok, I'll have a look. I accept that I haven't read up on this enough, but like many people I guess I don't find either of the arguments strong enough yet. Normally I have my mind made up very clearly at this stage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭Angrybastard


    I work with young people in care, and believe me, this referendum, when it's passed, will not change one thing in the way the state intervenes when there is a problem with the treatment of a child within a family.
    The 1991 Child Care Act already provides for intervention.

    The only difference I can see is the change in the criteria for adoption.
    I'm not really comfortable with this aspect, but the rest of the wording is so deliberately banal, that it's difficult (for me) to see a problem with it.

    I suspect they went for the least contentious wording imaginable in order to get cross party consensus.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The only difference I can see is the change in the criteria for adoption.
    I'm not really comfortable with this aspect...
    Why?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17 freedomtoday


    Plenty of information here if anyone wants it http://www.scribd.com/doc/111573063/Children-s-Referendum-Ireland-Vote-NO

    All the facts you'll ever need!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    ciarafem wrote: »
    This is already provide for by Art. 42.5 of the Constitution, and Section 54, Subsection 2 of the 2010 Adoption Act.

    I suggest you read this Irish Times opinion piece by a retired social worker who is aware of the facts http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0914/1224324008763.html[/QUOTE]


    Yet another dichotomy?
    The No side, who distrust the state and it's agents, request us to accept the advice of one of those very agents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Plenty of information here if anyone wants it http://www.scribd.com/doc/111573063/Children-s-Referendum-Ireland-Vote-NO

    All the facts you'll ever need!

    Why is this lady using the logo of NUI GALWAY?
    Does she represent the considered opinion of that organisation?
    Or is it another scam by the NO side?
    Some of the people on the NO side have the morals of a buck rabbit after a feed of viagra?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭mumo3


    My biggest concern here is if they are making these changes to, in theory save more children ... where are they going to place them? The pathetic excuses we hear when horrendous cases come to light is that the HSE and Social Workers are stretched to their limits .. the safety of children should never be an issue if they put as much resources into looking into making the current system work better as they did to research and print up booklets which just confuse people (lay man terms please) instead of changing the laws (Which should be changed but with out the big parade) people would be much happier to except required changes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭Angrybastard


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why?

    Because a three year window for a family/parent to get their act together in such a way that they become capable of looking after their children is narrow and unrealistic in many cases.

    Many of the families that I have worked with have taken longer than this, but have ultimately been reunited with their children.
    Cases where parents are battling addiction or where there are mental health concerns can easily take 3 years and more to address.

    Also, I think the adoption matter is something of a damp squib.
    I'm not aware of large numbers of children crying out to be adopted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭Angrybastard


    mumo3 wrote: »
    My biggest concern here is if they are making these changes to, in theory save more children ... where are they going to place them? The pathetic excuses we hear when horrendous cases come to light is that the HSE and Social Workers are stretched to their limits .. the safety of children should never be an issue if they put as much resources into looking into making the current system work better as they did to research and print up booklets which just confuse people (lay man terms please) instead of changing the laws (Which should be changed but with out the big parade) people would be much happier to except required changes.

    You are correct in that resources are an issue for the state when it provides care directly for young people.
    The recruitment embargo has hit this area really significantly.
    Oftentimes, the young people in a residential centre are cared for by agency workers who come and go and will develop no relationship with them. This impacts in terms of advocacy and assessing young persons needs for the future.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Because a three year window for a family/parent to get their act together in such a way that they become capable of looking after their children is narrow and unrealistic in many cases.

    Many of the families that I have worked with have taken longer than this, but have ultimately been reunited with their children.
    Cases where parents are battling addiction or where there are mental health concerns can easily take 3 years and more to address.
    There's no mention of three years anywhere in the proposed amendment.
    Also, I think the adoption matter is something of a damp squib.
    I'm not aware of large numbers of children crying out to be adopted.
    How many do there have to be before we start caring about them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17 freedomtoday


    Any thoughts on the content? Or are you so convinced by the no side that all that's left is blind prejudice?


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭Angrybastard


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's no mention of three years anywhere in the proposed amendment. How many do there have to be before we start caring about them?

    You're right, there isn't any mention of a three year window, but it what is being widely mooted.

    Of course we should care about the kids who want to be adopted.
    I'm just saying the attention this aspect of the proposal is getting is disproportionate to the very small number of situations where this is an issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    [QUOTE=Angrybastard;81603596]Because a three year window for a family/parent to get their act together in such a way that they become capable of looking after their children is narrow and unrealistic in many cases.

    Many of the families that I have worked with have taken longer than this, but have ultimately been reunited with their children.
    Cases where parents are battling addiction or where there are mental health concerns can easily take 3 years and more to address.

    Also, I think the adoption matter is something of a damp squib.
    I'm not aware of large numbers of children crying out to be adopted.[/QUOTE]
    Well, of course lets not rush them.
    Let them take their jolly sweet time getting their house in order and let's not hurry the poor darlings to give up their booze and heroin in too much of a rush.
    FFS, Four years is only one twentieth of an adults life but it's 50% of a childs formative years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭Angrybastard


    [QUOTE=Angrybastard;81603596]Because a three year window for a family/parent to get their act together in such a way that they become capable of looking after their children is narrow and unrealistic in many cases.

    Many of the families that I have worked with have taken longer than this, but have ultimately been reunited with their children.
    Cases where parents are battling addiction or where there are mental health concerns can easily take 3 years and more to address.

    Also, I think the adoption matter is something of a damp squib.
    I'm not aware of large numbers of children crying out to be adopted.

    Well, of course lets not rush them.
    Let them take their jolly sweet time getting their house in order and let's not hurry the poor darlings to give up their booze and heroin in too much of a rush.
    FFS, Four years is only one twentieth of an adults life but it's 50% of a childs formative years.[/QUOTE]

    Let's be clear, I'm going to vote yes in this referendum.
    I'm just voicing concerns that I have about this imperfect proposal.
    And if you think I'm advocating leaving children to remain in unsafe conditions, you are mistaken.
    I just pointed out that often, parents can take three years plus to make the adjustments necessary. It's frustrating, but it's true.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge



    Well, of course lets not rush them.
    Let them take their jolly sweet time getting their house in order and let's not hurry the poor darlings to give up their booze and heroin in too much of a rush.
    FFS, Four years is only one twentieth of an adults life but it's 50% of a childs formative years.

    Let's be clear, I'm going to vote yes in this referendum.
    I'm just voicing concerns that I have about this imperfect proposal.
    And if you think I'm advocating leaving children to remain in unsafe conditions, you are mistaken.
    I just pointed out that often, parents can take three years plus to make the adjustments necessary. It's frustrating, but it's true.[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough!
    But under the new arrangements the childs faster biological clock will have to be weighed against the parents tardiness.
    Your presumption that the parents are entitled to generous time to sort themselves out while the child must be allowed to spin in the wind awaiting their pleasure will no longer be weighted in the parents favour.
    Hopefully?
    These inadequate people- and people who cannot make at least half a fist of rearing their offspring are, in my opinion, inadequate - must be prepared to shape up or ship out within quite a narrow time slot. I would give them a year at the outside.
    But them maybe I am just a heartless bastard?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭starman08


    The no campaign has John Waters who has entered the Eurovision Song Contest on a number of occasions and Dana who has won the Eurovision Song Contest. My big question is what is Jedwards opionion on this matter.

    Impartial info video http://youtu.be/HLpa_FKT4R0 view it people and make up your own minds and stop listening to scaremongering.


Advertisement