Children's Referendum 10th November

seamus

Full text of the proposed new article 42A:
http://www.childrensreferendum.ie/thirty-first-amendment-of-the-constitution

Something I was initially suspect about when it was first mooted about 8 years back by FF. I expected that the rights of children would be put above the rights of adults, but this doesn't appear to have happened.

The text seems very straightforward. A new article with four subsections:

- The first asserts universal rights for all children (regardless of the marital status of their parents, according to the Minister) and the duty of the state to protect those rights

- The second provides the state more power to intervene and take control in exceptional cases where the safety and welfare of a child is at risk, including the power to have a child forcibly adopted out if the parents have failed to care for them for a significant length of time.

- The third basically allows the state to make adoption laws (I'm not sure why this is there?)

- The last states that in any court proceedings concerning the child's welfare or custody, the welfare of the child shall be given the most weight and depending on the age of the child, the childs own views will have weight in the courtroom.

The first and last items appear to be the normal practice, enshrined into the constitution.

The second item will no doubt be the major debate point, as various groups argue about the primacy of the family unit above all else, and so forth.

Personally I see nothing disagreeable in there and the second item is long overdue, but I'm sure that others will be able to point out where the knock-on effects of this change would be.

I have to read up on the third section to find out exactly why it's there.

[Edit: It would appear the main point of the third section is to allow for universal voluntary adoption regardless of the marital status of the parents. But I'll keep reading.

Morag

About bloody time, it's only taken 23 years, these are part of the changes needed so we can finally ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child.

carveone

seamus wrote: »

- The third basically allows the state to make adoption laws (I'm not sure why this is there?)

Because the existing situation is that a married mother can only place her baby for adoption if her baby is not her husband’s baby. (Staggering, isn't it.) An unmarried woman has no restrictions.

[Edit: It would appear the main point of the third section is to allow for universal voluntary adoption regardless of the marital status of the parents. But I'll keep reading.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell..

seamus

carveone wrote: »

Because the existing situation is that a married mother can only place her baby for adoption if her baby is not her husband’s baby.

Can parents not both provide consent to allow a child to be adopted, or am I missing something here? Surely a woman should not be allowed to place a child for adoption without the child's father's consent?

carveone

seamus wrote: »

Can parents not both provide consent to allow a child to be adopted, or am I missing something here? Surely a woman should not be allowed to place a child for adoption without the child's father's consent?

I'm not totally sure but I don't think so - a married couple cannot give up a child for adoption (officially, I suppose). It's rather odd to say the least. If I remember correctly, I'm getting that info from the Crisis Pregnancy Agency.

The adoption agency has some sort of legal requirement to find out the father's views on the adoption. But no, consulting the father is not mandatory for adoption to proceed. After all, the mother will be single (by definition) so she can just say she doesn't know who the father is or doesn't want to say etc. The Adoption board can't do anything about that...

Morag

seamus wrote: »

Can parents not both provide consent to allow a child to be adopted, or am I missing something here? Surely a woman should not be allowed to place a child for adoption without the child's father's consent?

IF she is not married to the father and he does not have guardianship then, she must attempt to contact the father of the child and he then has a certain time period in which to respond, if he does not then the adoption procedure continues.

Stillorganboy

This is one for the Barristers to earn extra money from "take control in exceptional cases where" it's written for them.

Fromthetrees

I would hope that the bill will raise the status of the unmarried father in this country above the level of sperm donor.
The de facto situation we have in Ireland today is definitely not putting the child's welfare as paramount, the system is weighted almost solely towards the mothers best interest.
Hopefully this referendum will help address this cruel imbalance that currently prevails.
In the vast majority of cases children are better off having regular physical contact with both parents where all responsibilities and decisions are at least discussed.

galwaycyclist

I am not sure if I like this. It appears to relate only to the duty of "the state".

I would also like to see a statement describing a duty of adult citizens towards children.

seamus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I would also like to see a statement describing a duty of adult citizens towards children.

The constitution describes the nature of the state and its government and its powers and duties in respect of their citizens.
Individual citizens are not specifically bound by the constitution and so such a statement would not be appropriate.

It would be redundant anyway, since it's implicit in the state's duty to protect children that they would enact laws which enforce the duties of parents/adults.

Morag

It should trigger some of the reforms needed in the family court, with having child advocates and to bring us more in line with the convention on the rights of the child which states article 9.3

States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

and article 12

Article 12

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

Scofflaw

Finding it hard to see where the core opposition to this is going to come from, other than groups who don't think it goes far enough.

Perhaps it'll be opposed by those who believe the State has no business interfering in family life - that is, bar upholding the sanctity of marriage by preventing gay people doing it and enforcing divorce restrictions, upholding the sanctity of pregnancy by outlawing abortion, and so on.

a little cynically,
Scofflaw

Morag

Most of the concern I am seeing is coming from 'alt' parents, those who are are pagan or are in other alternative communities, that the 'moral' well being of the child will be one of a christian slant.

seamus

Funnily enough, the very first conflict I thought of was against the catholics. That if the constitution recognises the rights of all children equally and is bound to protect them, then it may no longer be constitutional to allow religions to have discriminatory entry policies as that would be in conflict with the fundamental right of the child to have a non-religious education.

Scofflaw

I don't see that either of those is going to be an issue, since neither of them are "exceptional" cases, and there is no constitutional weight to children having either a right to a non-religious education or a religious one. That right is largely vested in the parents:

Bunreacht 42.1 wrote:

The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

Bunreacht 42.4 wrote:

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

And as far as I can see, what's being dropped is the "moral reasons" clause that's currently in the Constitution:

Bunreacht 42.5 wrote:

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.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Annasopra

Scofflaw wrote: »

Finding it hard to see where the core opposition to this is going to come from, other than groups who don't think it goes far enough.

Perhaps it'll be opposed by those who believe the State has no business interfering in family life - that is, bar upholding the sanctity of marriage by preventing gay people doing it and enforcing divorce restrictions, upholding the sanctity of pregnancy by outlawing abortion, and so on.

a little cynically,
Scofflaw

I think opposition groups will be fringe and extremist. The thing is broadcast media has to give them 50/50 airtime. We may be seeing a lot of Niamh Ui Bhriain and Enoch Burke in the next few weeks.

Boulevardier

There is a nasty undercurrent out there, and I have already come across it on another discussion forum.

This could be an unpleasant campaign.

Scofflaw

Boulevardier wrote: »

There is a nasty undercurrent out there, and I have already come across it on another discussion forum.

This could be an unpleasant campaign.

Don't keep us in suspense!

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Tree of Liberty

mango salsa wrote: »

I think opposition groups will be fringe and extremist. The thing is broadcast media has to give them 50/50 airtime. We may be seeing a lot of Niamh Ui Bhriain and Enoch Burke in the next few weeks.

I think you could be very wrong there. Given the wording is so vague it basically gives a blank cheque to the Dáil to decide what legislation it wants to put in place.

There should be clearly defined instances of where a child can be taken from its parents such as extreme physical abuse, sexual abuse etc.; unfortunately this is not the case with this amendment.

The Dáil could under this wording decide in the future that one was not fit to be a parent because of political views held, religious views held or other politically contentious matters. This is too much power to entrust to politicians and therefore I think you will see some heavy hitting constitutional lawyers come out against this just like the previous inquiries referendum.

oscarBravo

The Tree of Liberty wrote: »

There should be clearly defined instances of where a child can be taken from its parents such as extreme physical abuse, sexual abuse etc.; unfortunately this is not the case with this amendment.

Oh, ye gods. The last thing we need is yet more legislation in the Constitution - it's bad enough that the terms and conditions for divorce are written in there.

The Tree of Liberty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, ye gods. The last thing we need is yet more legislation in the Constitution - it's bad enough that the terms and conditions for divorce are written in there.

By having clearly defined wording in the constitution a majority of citizens have to be in favour of changing it. The wording of this referendum is not clearly defined and elected representatives could if so inclined easily fashion legislation that would seriously impinge on the rights of citizens.

The constitution is there to protect citizens from the legislature, this is something that a lot of people seem to forget. The primary function of a constitution is to protect your rights from being trampled on by elected representatives.

Boulevardier

Scofflaw, one example I have seen on another forum is a thread titled "When the state steps in" and it is headed off with a large photo of Marietta Higgs.

That is the sort of thing we can, unfortunately, expect to see more of.

seamus

Rare show of solidarity from the opposition parties on this one. Looks like any "No" campaign will come from the lunatic fringes. So unless they manage to find a really good piece of scaremongering (or a valid error in the wording), I suspect this one will pass by a large majority - probably in the 70s or 80s of percent, with a low turnout, probably in the 30s.

Reading the comments on breakingnews.ie is comedic. Some people seem to believe that this will lead to routine "confiscation" of children for no reason at all and mandatory vaccinations for everyone. There are also people making serious comments asking if children will be taken away for parents not paying their household charge. I'd be in stitches except that I'm aware that people actually seem to believe these things.

Scofflaw

Boulevardier wrote: »

Scofflaw, one example I have seen on another forum is a thread titled "When the state steps in" and it is headed off with a large photo of Marietta Higgs.

That is the sort of thing we can, unfortunately, expect to see more of.

OK, that's got some reasonably insane stuff. I particularly like this one:

This referendum, putting it crudely, is an attempt by the well-off to become parents without having to go through all the yucky stuff of relationship, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, delivery & afterbirth. I mean why go through all that when you can get a free child legally !!!

Seriously, how in the name of all that's sane has someone got that stereotype lodged in their heads at all?

mystified,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

Finding it hard to see where the core opposition to this is going to come from.

Well I'm voting NO to give Enda & Co. 2 fingers. They can ask me again when they've shut down NAMA and burned the bondholders...

Annasopra

Opposition coming from well known arch conservatives; Kathy Sinnott, Nora Bennis and Enoch Burke (although Burke may not actively campaign against)

http://www.aps.ie/

http://www.campaignforconscience.org/the-childrens-referendum-why-ill-be-voting-no/

limklad

I have no problem with the referendum, as long as the child have a right to stay with a relative or neighbour, if they are willing to look after the child needs and protect the child. The most distressing part of the whole ordeal that the problems the child have to deal with in addition to children homes is that they can be taken away from people they love and trust, not just untrustworthy and bad parents. To a child been taken away from those they love and trust that they are been punished and behave accordingly.

Most threats parent make to their child is that the state have poor facilities and lack of proper care to looking after them. The state agencies will punish them. A Genuine threat with verifiable facts in the news media (of abuse within state institutions from adults as well as other problematic children) can increase a bigger fear of the behavioural state within the endangered child. Children in State care are more likely have more problems long term due to more abuse even introduce to alcohol or drug taking in which other kids may come from. The threats that the state will be punished them and suffer more abuse in States facilities will strike far more fear to the child. If the Child can see in school or in the community that other endangered children are staying in the community with good relatives or neighbours, then the child will be more willing to look for state help. The abuser should be force to move and be punished not the victim child.

If the state appoints a guardian that the child knows and trust, then the child will most likely improve their behaviour and more likely talk to that person to help deal with their issues and pain that was inflicted on them. They are more likely do better in school and stay away from gardai and the state attention unlike kids that are currently in state care. The State through the Courts will need to put a barring order on the bad parents + other abusers to protect the child and the Guardian/s that is protecting and looking after the child needs.

Over the years I have hear stories of children who in the past have been look after by neighbours and relatives look after them well after their parents (some who were abusive) dies.

One neighbour in the 40's or 50's here in Limerick city was a spinster look after a boy who parents were killed in a car accident, who relatives did not want anything to do with him. The boy did nothing wrong and was a typical young boy of the time. He grew up with the neighbourly poor spinster who eventually adopting him. He was proud to have her family name as his and love her dearly for what she did for him. His children are proud to have the family name too as their father tell them what she did for him.

Relatives or good Neighbours should be first port of call to look after children and assigned emergency guardianship before been taken away from the community by the state to remove any stigma of state intervention, so distance relatives should be next port of call, unless things are really bad there too.

Carers who been given Guardianship will allow the carers of the child, to make any emergency decision to be made, especially at weekends or late at night. This will lift a huge burden on the state coffers and resources as well having a best possible loving home for the child and the child can still be with friends.

There is surprising lots of good people out there who would be willing to look after children when the need arise. The state will need to open their eyes to look for them and not be dismissive when they turn up.

If the Government need this referendum to pass, then they need to setup what their policy is going to be and how and what plan they have to improve state agencies/bodies who are meant to help children and improve deficit system of neglect of state agencies/bodies towards children. Once they have done this it will remove any credibility of the opposition extreme groups will have for the state intervention for the Child welfare. They must publish guidelines for State bodies and guidelines for the courts to follow to what is consider best for the child, preferably to stay within the community or distance relative who will have the best care at heart. State care can be a lonely and unforgiven environment for the child.

They need to have a better list of foster homes and better monitoring of poor performing foster homes and states fatalities and appropriate punishment for offenders. They need to compassionately interview the child and not be too heavy handed with the child if reports are unfavourable towards the child, as the children find out when abusers lie and act innocent in order to protect themselves will blame the child for all their problems causing more upset upon the child, who do not know how to handle their own behaviour problems as they been in unstable abusive homes with poor role models around them at home.

The child should have a right to a loving Family home.

Corkfeen

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well I'm voting NO to give Enda & Co. 2 fingers. They can ask me again when they've shut down NAMA and burned the bondholders...

I'll be honest the logic of this is odd, why would you choose to oppose something if it is primarily designed for the benefit of children rather than the government in power . If 'No' had the majority, the odds are that no more proposals for an amendment would arise for years upon years.

Whoever is in government should not matter for certain referendums. This is progressive (if anything it is lacking) and it shouldn't be a viewed as a way to say "F U" to the government. There are plenty of legitimate forms of protest to utilise. Holding the government to ransom, it just won't work and it is rather inappropriate to use the rights of children to do so. If you have objections to what is proposed, fair enough but otherwise....

oscarBravo

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll be honest the logic of this is odd...

I was working on the assumption that it was irony.

Godge

What are the "natural and impresciptible" rights of a child? Can't find anything about them and would like to know what we are voting to protect.

Corkfeen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll be honest the logic of this is odd...

I was working on the assumption that it was irony.

Damn, that would make far more sense. Must not type words at night! :P To be fair, there is always one....

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll be honest the logic of this is odd, why would you choose to oppose something if it is primarily designed for the benefit of children rather than the government in power .

It's because it's not really about the independent exercise of rights by children. It's about change the balance between the State and parents in exercising those rights.

And the background, remember, is one where the State has, for decades, demonstrated quite appalling form when it comes to children in its care. Parents fail too, but the issue here has been overwhelming about the abuse of children in State care. When you consider where we've actually come from, its hard to understand how this thing got on the agenda at all.

But, unfortunately, the political class seem united in grandstanding on the issue and wanting to seem to be doing something about it. The lack of opposition from any significant political group is worrying, and lends the situation to the spin that the only people worried about this are extreme Catholic loons.

Godge wrote: »

What are the "natural and impresciptible" rights of a child? Can't find anything about them and would like to know what we are voting to protect.

It's basically a religious concept - it predates Christianity, but use of the term in our Constitution reflects the influence of Catholic theology when it was first drafted.

It is essentially the idea that God has given you certain rights, which the State cannot interfere with. The term basically is used to suggest that, even if we all vote for this Amendment, we still can't change or interfere with the rights that God gave you.

And example of the invocation of natural rights was the McGee case. The Courts determined that married couples had a natural right to privacy - the State had no right to interfere in a union made by God. Ironically, this meant that married couples could import contraceptives - because the State had no right to ask them what they wanted them for.

"Imprescriptable" just means that they cannot be limited by any law - including the constitution.

Morag

Godge wrote: »

What are the "natural and impresciptible" rights of a child? Can't find anything about them and would like to know what we are voting to protect.

The rights as laid out in the UN convention of the rights of the child which we signed up to in 1990 and ratified in 1992 but only now 20 years later are having the referendum needed to ensure those rights.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sharrow wrote: »

The rights as laid out in the UN convention of the rights of the child which we signed up to in 1990 and ratified in 1992 but only now 20 years later are having the referendum needed to ensure those rights.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Not really. Natural rights, as I said, are essentially a religious concept. A UN convention is a statement of rights - but the phrase in the amendment would have much broader application.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Natural rights, as I said, are essentially a religious concept.

Immanuel Kant would disagree.

A UN convention is a statement of rights - but the phrase in the amendment would have much broader application.

...such as?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

Immanuel Kant would disagree.

While I'm not saying that no-one has ever tried to make a case for natural rights without a deity, I'd feel Kant's motivation was religious.
In any event, as I said, the presence of the term in our Constitution reflects the influence of Catholic theology. This wording repeats the existing use of the phrase from Article 42(5)

oscarBravo wrote: »

...such as?

Oh, whatever rights God gave you. The point is that the Convention is just a formal legal statement. It might reflect your natural rights; it might be intented to help you secure your natural rights. But it can't be your natural rights.
And the best example I can think of is the McGee case above.

Godge

If the natural and imprescriptible rights are those set out in the Convention on the Child etc. why isn't that in the proposed amendment?

If they are not, if they are as suggested, natural rights derived from a Christain concept, why are they not elaborated in the amendment?

We have a history when it comes to issues like this of putting wording in the constitution that means different things to different people and we end up in the situation where the State is refusing to legislate for what is in the Constitution i.e. a right to abortion in certain circumstances.

Another point is whether the constitution draws a distinction between a child and an unborn child. If a child has a natural and imprescriptible right to life as set out in the Convention and that applies to an unborn child, by passing this amendment are we making the morning-after pill illegal?

Words like "imprescpriptible" make me nervous.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Godge wrote: »

If the natural and imprescriptible rights are those set out in the Convention on the Child etc. why isn't that in the proposed amendment?

You are right, it could specify the Convention if that was at issue.

That's what happens with EU Treaties, for example. Article 29 of the Constitution has bits added saying "The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). The State may ratify the Single European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th day of February, 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day of February, 1986)." etc etc.

Now, of course, the reason the EU Treaties need to be specified is because we have agreed to be bound by decisions made by the EU institutions. Hence, it needs to be clear that EU Regulations and Directives take precedence over the laws made by the Oireachtas. Otherwise, there could be quite a big conflict over what law applied.

But I actually doubt there is any big conflict between our Constitution and the Convention. There's some kite flying about some UN Committee commenting on the State's power being limited where it needs to intervene in the case of children with married parents, but it's actually quite clear that the State does have this capacity under the Constitution as it stands. I'd suspect there's more of an issue in Iran and Saudi Arabia, who would also purport to have signed the Convention, observing obligations such as not discriminating on the basis of a child's gender.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

whatever rights God gave you.

Which God?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sharrow wrote: »

Which God?

Oh, our Constitution is quite explicit about that. You do know how it starts

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

rolly1

Article 41 section 1.1 states :

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

So now we have both the Family and Children both having inalienable and imprescriptible rights. So the state, the new Super-Parent of us all, will now be setting up two equal sets of rights against each other...Nothing at all to be wary of, of course.

Corkfeen

GCU, that part of the constitution actually has no legal precedent. The trinity etc seems to have been retained out of tradition more than anything and the special position of the church was removed decades ago. It is supposed to be secular, even if the government fails to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Corkfeen wrote: »

GCU, that part of the constitution actually has no legal precedent. The trinity etc seems to have been retained out of tradition more than anything and the special position of the church was removed decades ago. It is supposed to be secular, even if the government fails to do so.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The Article specifically stating the RC Church to have a special position is gone - so you can argue that it's now simply invoking Trinitarian Christianity - which would be almost all Christians in the Republic. However, the influence of Catholicism on the text is a little deeper than that. For instance, the notionally vocational panels in the Senate have to do with the influence of the corporatist RC social thinking prevalent in the 1930s.

As to the legal status of the Preamble, I'll try a direct quote as I find explaining facts to people here is like swimming in treacle

http://www.constitution.ie/reports/crg.pdf

... the Preamble has been cited in legal cases and has been taken into account in judicial decisions, for example, McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284, The State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] IR 325, King v Attorney General[1981] IR 233, Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36 and Attorney General v X [1992] 1 IR 1. For this reason and others mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph it seems that it does have legal effect.

Boulevardier

While we are on this point (which is a bit off-topic), I would personally have a problem with:

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Whom does this refer to? Presumably the "centuries of trial" in question were between two groups of people both claiming to act for Jesus Christ. It seems to me that the Constitution is referring to the Catholic majority's trials at the hands of the Protestants. If so, is it proper to have this in?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Boulevardier wrote: »

If so, is it proper to have this in?

Good point - could be a subject for a new thread?

Ozymandius2011

Undecided how to vote at present. A central concern of mine is the impact - if any - this proposed amendment will have on the growing problem of anti-social behaviour amongst children.

Carol Coulter in the Irish Times wrote recently that the first paragraph's reference to the 'imprescriptible rights of children' probably alluded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2006, the Committee on Children's Rights (a UN body) said in Statement 8 that signaturies must outlaw corporal punishment. As a victim of gross anti-social behaviour by persons ranging in age from 10-16 on 2005-8, which went on a couple of days a week and against which the Gardai did/could do nothing more than 'talk to the parents' before it started up again, I have a dual-approach to decided how to vote.

- Firstly, if the de-facto implication of the first paragraph is to outlaw corporal punishment in the home, then will this lead - through a consequent removal of deterrent bearing mind the unwillingness of the courts to punish juvenile offenders or to issue curfews via ASBOs - to the problem of anti-social behaiour getting worse?

- Alternatively, would removing children from failing parents reduce anti-social behaviour by placcing the relevant children under closer supervision?

I am also not persuaded that the amendment would reduce child abuse. We are empowering social-workers to take children from their parents. A paedophile social-worker would therefore find children to be easier prey than at present.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Carol Coulter in the Irish Times wrote recently that the first paragraph's reference to the 'imprescriptible rights of children' probably alluded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I've no answers to your very good questions, but your reference to Carol Coulter's mention of the possible meaning of "natural and imprescriptable rights" in the amendment reminded me of Jeremy Betham's comment "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonscnse, -- nonsense upon stilts."

In any event, I don't think she's drawing a direct connection between the two - she's just speculating that the Courts would probably consider similar rights to some of those in the Convention. Article 41 already uses the term "imprescriptible rights" in relation to the family, while Article 42 (which includes the obligation on the State to provide free primary education) also talks of the "natural and imprescriptible rights of the child"; I think the amendment is really just echoing the existing language.

seamus

This would be John Waters who ran away when his girlfriend became pregnant with his child and then later took her to court to try and claim custody of the child he'd abandoned?

Forgive me for not being willing to hear his opinions on parenting.

Glinda

I'm feeling very cautious, even anxious about this referendum. It seems to be the accepted view that it's a good thing and that anyone who questions it must be a loony. I am very uncomfortable with this. I know a large number of people who are in a similar position. Many of them are well informed, well educated people who would be broadly liberal in their views and a bit appalled that they would be identifying somehow with extreme religious bigots and crackpots by doubting that the State should have its powers to intervene in families expanded. Lots of them say they won't vote at all this time, for that reason. (I always vote).

I hear the arguments for voting yes, but I don't see many of them referenced in the wording. By this I mean that it is being presented as a general argument: 'if you are in favour of children's rights vote yes, if you are against them vote no' but I would very much welcome someone setting out clearly and specifically what will a child have after this in real and practical terms that they didn't have before?

(The only bit I'm sure I support is permitting adoption for children of married parents, where those parents both consent.)

The State's record in caring for children in its care is truly appalling. On a case by case basis, I suspect it has a far worse record than parents do. I also don't agree with asking children in conflict situations to give their opinion on which parent they prefer. What a thing to do to a child. As a member of a minority religion, I am also uncomfortable with the idea that the State has a role in deciding what my moral duty is. Aaargh.

(Not trying to suddenly morph into a whacko bigot extreme loony at my age, but I would love someone to set out the arguments for this exact, specific wording, not for children's rights in general, which seem to me already constitutionally protected, albeit as with so many things in this country, not actually protected at all in reality. I just don't see (with the exception of the adoption thing how this amendment will change this).

I also haven't made up my mind yet, so feeling a bit tortured by the whole thing!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Glinda wrote: »

Lots of them say they won't vote at all this time, for that reason.

It's disturbing to hear that, but it is understandable. The official position seems to be to say as little as possible about the referendum, in the hope that it will just quietly go through.

It reminds me a little of the Referendum on the International Criminal Court back in 2001. RTE phoned the Department of Foreign Affairs, and asked them for a copy of the Treaty setting up the Court. They weren't able to provide one - despite the country going out to vote on whether to give the Court jurisdiction.

The Referendum was passed - people hadn't a clue what they were voting for. I think some people had a vague idea it had something to do with drug smuggling.

I voted no, for one simple reason that got hardly any coverage at all.

http://www.refcom.ie/en/Past-Referendums/International-Criminal-Court/Arguments-For-and-Against/

Irish peacekeeping forces could find themselves before the Court if problems arose in their mission.

That struck me as far too much to expect as a commitment by our troops, simply for participating in missions that our Government committed to; if involved in some incident, they should at least have their case heard under Irish law.

Not that it matters now - it's now done and dusted.

Anyway, I hope whenever the Referendum Commission produces its leaflet on the current referendum, it answers your questions.

RandomName2

I am confused about this aspect of 'the rights of the child' - surely the status quo is that they have rights as Irish citizens, with additional measures in place concerning minors?

Also the aspect of having a representative - is this just jobs for the boys? Presumably children will not be able to elect such representatives - I'm assuming appointment... ?