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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Children's "rights" referendum

  • 12-06-2010 10:33AM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭


    Excellent piece by John Waters in yesterday's (11/06/10) Irish Times on this - for me, this is the nub of the issue:

    Advocates of this amendment rely on a loose, sentimental use of language, of which the term “children’s rights” is an example. Since children are by definition incapable of exercising such “rights” for themselves, the outcome of a constitutional change in this area is likely to be a transfer of rights from parents to the State, in effect to the Health Service Executive, an organisation with zero credibility in child-welfare matters. There is therefore nothing intrinsically or self-evidently “progressive” about this amendment.

    As the father of three children, I would take serious issue with an institution which can't even keep count of the number of children who died in its care being granted any further powers to interfere in families. I'll be voting no.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I still haven't a bogs notion as to what the point of the thing is.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Nodin wrote: »
    I still haven't a bogs notion as to what the point of the thing is.....

    From my reading of it, it would appear to give increasing powers to the state to look after the moral and social (and probably religious) wellbeing of a Child, who is deprived of such on upbringing by incapable parenting.

    The OP makes a fair point, as the state has shown itself somewhat incapable of looking after Chidlren who enter into it's care. It is similar to the argument in favour of private prisons. While people like Gary Douche end up dead in State Care, it shows that the statist option is not always the best.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Het-Field wrote: »
    From my reading of it, it would appear to give increasing powers to the state to look after the moral and social (and probably religious) wellbeing of a Child, who is deprived of such on upbringing by incapable parenting.

    The OP makes a fair point, as the state has shown itself somewhat incapable of looking after Chidlren who enter into it's care. It is similar to the argument in favour of private prisons. While people like Gary Douche end up dead in State Care, it shows that the statist option is not always the best.

    It's not a question of state vs parents, as it seems to be framed here. The point of the referendum is to allow the rights of the child to be considered independently of the rights of the family, ie acknowledge that the rights of the child are not always best served by acting on the rights of the family. This is also crucial because in Irish law, the "family" is defined as a married man and woman. As a result, children whose parents are not a heterosexual married couple are afforded far less protection by our constitution. This is effectively a form of discrimination.

    In addition, the proposed amendment would allow for the rights of the child to be included in the constitution as an express right, rather than simply implied. This would have implications for the rights of children to express their opinion on judicial or administrative matters that will affect the child.

    John Waters is correct that people have the right to object to it, but they had better do so with very good reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    taconnol wrote: »
    It's not a question of state vs parents, as it seems to be framed here. The point of the referendum is to allow the rights of the child to be considered independently of the rights of the family, ie acknowledge that the rights of the child are not always best served by acting on the rights of the family. This is also crucial because in Irish law, the "family" is defined as a married man and woman. As a result, children whose parents are not a heterosexual married couple are afforded far less protection by our constitution. This is effectively a form of discrimination.

    In addition, the proposed amendment would allow for the rights of the child to be included in the constitution as an express right, rather than simply implied. This would have implications for the rights of children to express their opinion on judicial or administrative matters that will affect the child.

    John Waters is correct that people have the right to object to it, but they had better do so with very good reason.

    The easiest solution is the best

    why not recognise same sex couples as a family

    instead of going thru this convoluted exercise of using children and giving a failed state more powers


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The easiest solution is the best

    why not recognise same sex couples as a family

    instead of going thru this convoluted exercise of using children and giving a failed state more powers
    Because there are more types of families than just heterosexual and same sex couples.

    Plus that solution would ignore the need to have children's rights to be expressly mentioned in the constitution and other necessary changes. So no it's not the case that the easiest solution is the best.

    Again, this is NOT about parents vs state - an argument that Coir will no doubt be relishing in. In fact, the proposed change would oblige the state to provide better support for families so that the child's needs can be better met within the context of the family.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    taconnol wrote: »
    Because there are more types of families than just heterosexual and same sex couples.

    Plus that solution would ignore the need to have children's rights to be expressly mentioned in the constitution and other necessary changes. So no it's not the case that the easiest solution is the best.

    Again, this is NOT about parents vs state - an argument that Coir will no doubt be relishing in. In fact, the proposed change would oblige the state to provide better support for families so that the child's needs can be better met within the context of the family.
    The OP is correct though. This new legislation would give the Government the right to interfere where it is not wanted with the upbringing of the child.

    That's not mentioning the increase in taxes that it will take to fund these new roles. I for one will be voting against this in the referendum.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    The family is a private institution and God help the bureaucrat who tries to interfere in the rearing of those said children, except in the case of abuse. I worry about precedents, perhaps too much. I wonder where this will leave us in 20 years time - will the State intervene if a parent forgets a dentist appointment? If a child is prevented from going to a cinema? What exactly is a child's rights? If its a matter of protecting individuals from physical or sexual abuse, that is already covered in existing legislation.

    This is a stealth attack by typically interventionist nanny's with nothing better to do with their time. Leave the family alone. Keep the dead hand of the State out of its affairs as much as possible.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The OP is correct though. This new legislation would give the Government the right to interfere where it is not wanted with the upbringing of the child.
    I'm pretty sure most abusers don't want the state authorities to "interfere" in the upbringing of the child in question but it isn't exactly a valid argument for the state not to get involved. As I've already said twice before, this is not about state v parents - it's about giving families the support they need to look after children within the family and allowing judges the ability to consider the rights of the child as separate to that of the rights of the family, among other things.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's not mentioning the increase in taxes that it will take to fund these new roles. I for one will be voting against this in the referendum.
    Your argument for not giving children the constitutional rights and protection they need and deserve, and should have according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is that you don't want to pay for it? Jesus.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    Denerick wrote: »
    The family is a private institution and God help the bureaucrat who tries to interfere in the rearing of those said children, except in the case of abuse. I worry about precedents, perhaps too much. I wonder where this will leave us in 20 years time - will the State intervene if a parent forgets a dentist appointment? If a child is prevented from going to a cinema? What exactly is a child's rights?go If its a matter of protecting individuals from physical or sexual abuse, that is already covered in existing legislation.

    This is a stealth attack by typically interventionist nanny's with nothing better to do with their time. Leave the family alone. Keep the dead hand of the State out of its affairs as much as possible.

    The current system is obviously not working and if legislation is the problem fix it. Saving children from neglect and abuse ≠ the government hunting you down for going to the cinema.

    Its a real shame they didn't use this referendum to finally fix the definition of the family, then we could do away with all this civil partnership nonsense for same sex couples. There really just aren't any arguments for leaving it the way it is.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    The current system is obviously not working and if legislation is the problem fix it. Saving children from neglect and abuse ≠ the government hunting you down for going to the cinema.

    Its a real shame they didn't use this referendum to finally fix the definition of the family, then we could do away with all this civil partnership nonsense for same sex couples. There really just aren't any arguments for leaving it the way it is.

    The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years. Those children are now adults, and the series of reports speaking of their trauma is enough to sicken even the most iron of hearts. But amending the constitution so as to give the state greater control over the interests of the family is not the right path. How does a referendum of this manner save children from neglect and abuse? We have laws that protect children and punish abusers. I'll definately be voting against this referendum, as I said its clearly a stealth attack by do-gooders to push the states nose into where it clearly doesn't belong.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Denerick wrote: »
    The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years.
    What exactly does this sentence mean? Do you think child abuse is not widespread today, or that it didn't happen earlier than 60 years ago? You are confusing the institutional abuse of the past with the reality of today, which is that the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child, ie within the context of family and friends. In fact, according to the SAVI report, 80% of abusers were known to the child. Basing our judgement and indeed our laws on the past, rather than on the present is a mistake.
    Denerick wrote: »
    But amending the constitution so as to give the state greater control over the interests of the family is not the right path. How does a referendum of this manner save children from neglect and abuse? We have laws that protect children and punish abusers.
    Actually, under the current wording of the constitution, the state is only allowed to intervene in "in exceptional circumstances" (Art 42.5). As a result, the authorities have had to ignore or minimise the rights of the child and instead pursue the rights of the family, which may have little or no overlap.

    A referendum would change this situation and bring about other changes, such as allowing the child the right to express its opinion on legal and administrative matters that concern it (not to be confused with the idea that the child gets to decide the outcome of such matters).

    In particular it would make the state legally obliged to provide the sort of support so many families need today in order to ensure a safe environment for a child. The concerns expressed to the Ombudsman for Children is not about the state interfering, but about the lack of state support of families in need, for example provision of equipment for a disabled child etc.
    Denerick wrote: »
    I'll definately be voting against this referendum, as I said its clearly a stealth attack by do-gooders to push the states nose into where it clearly doesn't belong.
    Why does the state "clearly not belong" in intervening in a case where the child's best interests are not being served?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Denerick wrote: »
    The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years.
    Do you think that Rock 'n Roll could really be responsible for it all?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Answer me this:

    Who defines what the childs best interests are?

    What will be the remit of the State in future cases?

    To what extent will the state be enabled to intervene in private family matters?

    If this were limited to sexual and physical abuse I'd vote for it. But knowing the way precedents work, before long governments will be passing legislation intervening in very basic, routine family matters.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Denerick wrote: »
    Who defines what the childs best interests are?
    Society - we live in a democracy. Regardless, the constitution will not change much what the child's best interests are considered, but rather give them primacy as a principle of law.
    Denerick wrote: »
    What will be the remit of the State in future cases?
    The state will, among other things, be legally obliged to carry out the measures internationally recognised as best practice that currently are only enforced as guidelines. This includes actions such as the mandatory reporting of child abuse - something that many people have failed to do in the past. The lack of a law in this area helped keep the rampant child abuse of the catholic institutions secret and is why so many who knew cannot be prosecuted under Irish law.
    Denerick wrote: »
    To what extent will the state be enabled to intervene in private family matters?
    These things are on a case-by-case scenario. When you're dealing with a document like the Constitution, we're not talking about scenarios nor specific laws. The laws to implement the principles as laid out in the Constitution will come later. But I'll try to find a more detailed response for you.

    As an example, in the report into the infamous Killkenny Incest case, Catherine McGuinness (Supreme Court Judge) argued that under current laws, the strong emphasis on the rights of the family can lead to a scenario where a higher value is given to the rights of the parent than those of the child. This is not an acceptable situation.

    Another example was the Baby Anna case whereby the child was given up for adoption by her biological parents. Two years later, the biological parents decided they wanted Anna back. They were advised by their lawyers to get married as this would greatly improve their chances of getting her back. They did so and as a result, and despite multiple testimonies from psychologists that Anna would suffer significant psychological trauma by being taken away from the two adults she now considered her parents, the judge concluded that under current Irish law, there was no choice but to hand her over to her biological married parents.

    Denerick wrote: »
    If this were limited to sexual and physical abuse I'd vote for it. But knowing the way precedents work, before long governments will be passing legislation intervening in very basic, routine family matters.
    I'm afraid child abuse, and abuse in general, is not limited to sexual and physical. Moreover, the "slippery slope" argument is never a convincing one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Notwithstanding the vaildity of Taconnel's rehtoric, there remains one very broad classification, which could be used over zealously, and is more then just "exceptional" circumstances. That is where my problem with this thing lies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The OP is correct though. This new legislation would give the Government the right to interfere where it is not wanted with the upbringing of the child.
    The state doesn't get involved for no reason - The state get's involved where there are problems and sometimes it is necessary to remove a child from his or here parents because the child will be better off

    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55 ✭✭Cuddlytroll


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Notwithstanding the vaildity of Taconnel's rehtoric, there remains one very broad classification, which could be used over zealously, and is more then just "exceptional" circumstances. That is where my problem with this thing lies.
    I understand that people here are getting worried about a nanny state, but I am personally very much in favour of putting children's rights first. What this means that in a situation where a child's parents believe that they don't need a life-saving blood transfusion because a few splashes of holy water will do the job then a court can look at the situation objectively and give primacy to what they consider to be in the best interests of the child. Shock stories about the State kicking the door down and dragging away children because their parents forgot to give them their vaccinations or whatever have no basis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Denerick wrote: »
    The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years
    Are you saying that child abuse in the home is not happening nowadays?

    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    The state doesn't get involved for no reason - The state get's involved where there are problems and sometimes it is necessary to remove a child from his or here parents because the child will be better off
    We already have legislation in place to protect children. This new piece of legislation will do nothing to help that. Instead it will only cost the tax payer more money to fund an over-laping law. It's pointless.
    Taconnol wrote:
    I'm pretty sure most abusers don't want the state authorities to "interfere" in the upbringing of the child in question but it isn't exactly a valid argument for the state not to get involved. As I've already said twice before, this is not about state v parents.
    Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I would have no problem with this legislation if it only affected known child abusers. But it doesn't, it encompasses all parents the vast majority of whom are sound, honest people. What gives the state the right to moniter these people and then charge them for it?
    Taconnol wrote:
    it's about giving families the support they need to look after children within the family and allowing judges the ability to consider the rights of the child as separate to that of the rights of the family, among other things.
    And it's these "other things" that worries me. I'm not the paranoid type but me thinks there are ulterior motives at work. In fact you've said so yourself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    i wish we could get together as community to look after our kids like we used to do in the old days, ya know, 'takes a village', we get together in regional groups, we can all look after our kids, but we may need to hire people to make sure no one falls through the cracks. we'd need to pick delegates to make sure our wishes are carried out.

    anything but get the state involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    We already have legislation in place to protect children. This new piece of legislation will do nothing to help that.
    This isn't legislation - We are talking about a constitutional amendment and please can you tell me how did our laws protect the children in the Kilkenny Incest case?

    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    This isn't legislation - We are talking about a constitutional amendment and please can you tell me how did our laws protect the children in the Kilkenny Incest case?
    I'm too young to be familier with that case and I'm not going to BS my way through somthing I know nothing about so why don't you tell me how the current legislation failed while I look up old articles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'm too young to be familier with that case and I'm not going to BS my way through somthing I know nothing about so why don't you tell me how the current legislation failed while I look up old articles.

    The current legislation didn't fail - The current constitutional framework failed - That is the problem though - You don't seem to know much about the issues of whether or not a referendum (not legislation) is needed and you've already made up your mind that we don't a need a referendum

    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    The current legislation didn't fail - The current constitutional framework failed - That is the problem though - You don't seem to know much about the issues of whether or not a referendum (not legislation) is needed and you've already made up your mind that we don't a need a referendum
    .
    Definition of referendum:
    the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection.

    Definition of legislation:
    the act of making or enacting laws.

    Considering you can only discuss the issue by trying to undermine my knowledge of the said proposed referendum does not bode well for your campaign.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    .
    Considering you can only discuss the issue by trying to undermine my knowledge of the said proposed referendum does not bode well for your campaign.

    I'm not trying to undermine your knowledge - I'm trying to actually point out firstly that this is about a referendum and not legislation and secondly you seem not to be aware of any reasons why this referendum has been proposed in the first place. You seem to think that current legislation protects children adequately despite numerous groups and numerous reports suggesting otherwise


    http://www.childrensrights.ie/files/ConstitutionStrengthenChildRightsBklt0610.pdf

    http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.17/Ireland_ISPCC_NGO_Report.pdf

    http://www.barnardos.ie/policies_and_campaigns/our-campaigns/Childrens-Rights-in-the-Constitution.html

    http://www.childrensrights.ie/files/GShannon-1stRappReport1107.pdf

    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    I'm not trying to undermine your knowledge - I'm trying to actually point out firstly that this is about a referendum and not legislation and secondly you seem not to be aware of any reasons why this referendum has been proposed in the first place. You seem to think that current legislation protects children adequately despite numerous groups and numerous reports suggesting otherwise
    But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

    It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups. I wonder how the average Joe Soap parent thinks about the states desire to intrude on how they raise their children.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

    It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups.
    how very dare they


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

    It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups. I wonder how the average Joe Soap parent thinks about the states desire to intrude on how they raise their children.

    Why is there not a need?

    Also - The Childrens rights alliance has members of many parents groups

    National Association for Parent Support
    National Parents Council (Post-Primary)
    National Parents Council (Primary)
    Mothers' Union
    O.P.E.N.
    One Family
    Parentline

    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



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    I'd also not be voting for this ammendment. The vast majority of times, as per the present article in the constitution it is the family (ie a traditional one), that decides the best welfare of the child. There was a fairly recent case that went to the Supreme court, where a health authority in Donegal was trying to impose mandatory injections against the wishes of the parents, and the parents won the case based on this wording.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Manach wrote: »
    The vast majority of times, as per the present article in the constitution it is the family (ie a traditional one), that decides the best welfare of the child.
    But the family in the Kilkenny Incest case did not and according to the SAVI report there are lots of incidences of child abuse cases going on but hey lets just brush under the carpet

    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



Advertisement