childrens Referendum **poll added**

wp_rathead

9959 wrote: »

Fuinseog wrote:

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

As stated in an earlier post, journalist John Waters.

If there was ever an incentive to vote YES so..

twinytwo

say_who_now? wrote: »

I stopped reading here. I hate sweeping generalisatons.

As for what's a referendum for? Well we live in a democracy, the government cannot make changes to the constitution without first offering the people a say in the matter.

Or would you rather live in China?

LoL... we live in a percieved democracy, very different from a true democracy

Fuinseog

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I think Switzerland have a vote on where to put bus stops...could be wrong though.

the swiss have money, probably because they know ho to save.

steddyeddy

Fuinseog wrote: »

the swiss have money, probably because they know ho to save.

I really dont think how well a country can save is an arguement against giving kids more rights.

Annasopra

Phoenix wrote: »

What is it all about?

Childrens rights

Fuinseog

mango salsa wrote: »

Childrens rights

do children not already have enough rights? maybe they should include responsibilities as well.
I worked with juvenile delinquents and even they were amazed at how much they could get away with and not get a custodial sentence.

Annasopra

Fuinseog wrote: »

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

I haven't seen serious campaigners against it


http://www.aps.ie/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrvRkUZ6tY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.freethinkingvoice.org/index.php/irelands-childrens-rights-referendum-campaign

http://www.campaignforconscience.org/the-childrens-referendum-resources-to-help-you-vote/


http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/09/we-are-being-told-to-vote-yes-in-the-childrens-rights-referendum-is-it-really-a-good-thing-for-children-2469654.html

http://tnsradio.ning.com/m/group?id=5354208:Group:146230

http://europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.ie/2012/09/irelands-childrens-rights-referendum.html?m=1

https://facebook.com/referendumvov10

Annasopra

Fuinseog wrote: »

do children not already have enough rights?

No.

As we saw in the Roscommon case, the PKU case, the kilkenny incest case, the baby Ann case.

steddyeddy

Fuinseog wrote: »

do children not already have enough rights? maybe they should include responsibilities as well.
I worked with juvenile delinquents and even they were amazed at how much they could get away with and not get a custodial sentence.

On the other hand in this country we had children given criminal atatus because they were orphans.

Benny_Cake

Fuinseog wrote: »

do children not already have enough rights? maybe they should include responsibilities as well.
I worked with juvenile delinquents and even they were amazed at how much they could get away with and not get a custodial sentence.

What responsibilities do you propose should be imposed on children and what penalties would you put in place to make sure they lived up to them?

My only problem with this referendum is that it should have been held years ago.

Fuinseog

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What responsibilities do you propose should be imposed on children and what penalties would you put in place to make sure they lived up to them?

My only problem with this referendum is that it should have been held years ago.

if a teenager goes out and steals a car and destroys it, he should be sent to borstal, but in my experience the judge will give them another chance and another. you need about a 100 convictions before you get a custodial sentence.

their guardians should be held accountable for any crimes committed by their children.

LittleBook

Fuinseog wrote: »

can you find anyone or group that is pushing for a 'no' vote?

9959 wrote: »

As stated in an earlier post, journalist John Waters.

I'd a hard time imagining that anyone could launch a "no" campaign for this referendum, Waters aside.

But there it is.

"We are opposed to removing the right of children to have their rights vindicated by their parents".

Which worked out really well for these kids.

Would any of the "rights" that will apparently be created if this referendum passes be something that couldn't be done by statute? I saw a poster the other day about a kid trafficked for prostitution and apparently this referendum addresses such cases. Surely just making it illegal to pimp out a child would have as good an effect in such a case?

TwoShedsJackson

wprathead wrote: »

If there was ever an incentive to vote YES so..

It's not just him, there's also the Christian Solidarity Party, the wingnuts from Youth Defence, and the guy who edits Alive!, the extremist Catholic rag.

UCDVet

Like 99% of everything; it comes down to money and power.

Someone wants more money and more power and they campaign to get it. Traditionally, it's easy to get money and power from the public by playing to their emotions. Anything about crime, safety, health, and children tend to do very well.

'VOTE for X because of THE CHILDREN'
'VOTE for Y because of SAFETY'

The people at the top spear-heading the campaign will benefit directly. Once enacted, it will take an act of God to 'undo' the funds dedicated to X or Y. And, historically, the program will prove to be ineffective.

See the TSA in the United States.

We're broke. As far as I'm concerned we have no business increasing programs or spending. The problem with public sector funding is that it's relatively easy to INCREASE spending; but next to impossible to DECREASE it. You can have 10 years of record increases to X; but if you try to decrease X by 3% you'll have strikes and all sorts of political backlash.

Programs get passed to 'help the children' and what ends up is you get a 'Director of Children's Welfare' who makes 20x the median salary for doing god only knows what, a department with a huge budget that spends it recklessly, etc, etc.

R0ot

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

Mint Sauce

I have no issue with the referendum its self, and understand the reasons for. But what I do have issue with, or a concern that as there is hardly going to be any 'No campaign' against this, most people are probably going to vote Yes anyway. The current government, departments, and the opposition is going to be wasting money on a 'Yes campaign' that is unlikely to be needed, money that could probably actually be spent on what they are trying to bring in, protecting vulnerable children.

Mint Sauce

R0ot wrote: »

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

In addition to my previous post, I would only be concerned of our nanny state, having more nannying. Where children are taken away unessesarly, where some other intervention could have been used or tried.

franktheplank

R0ot wrote: »

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

I have concerns about this referendum, I certainly won't be voting yes on the basis that's the government is pushing it and it's seen as a referendum that gives more rights for children.

I will have to do my research but i have concerns (as I'm sure any right minded person would) that the power to place a child into care can be abused. The most obvious one is who is going to make this decision? A social worker straight out of college, the police, the ISPCA who? That's something im gonna have to check before i vote.

The other area of concern I have is that if we see an expansion of residential homes for children will there be more privatization of this sector? Will the appropriate resources be there to ensure these homes are run properly, inspected, staff vetted etc.

I worked for a time in disability homes and some of the places were shocking. I know homes for children taken into care are inspected and regulated (unlike those for the disabled) but will this continue to be the case.

The potential for harm to children in care is huge if homes are not properly inspected and regulated (as we all know) and we could possibly be putting children in this places on the whim of a social worker, gaurd, ISPCA who?

Should traveller children from loving families be put into care because they live in caravans? Or what if a parent has a mental illness or unconventional lifestyle choice and the person or people deciding have a prejudice?

admiralofthefleet

is it true that a yes vote being carried will mean children can be given injections in school with the parents knowledge or consent?

franktheplank

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

is it true that a yes vote being carried will mean children can be given injections in school with the parents knowledge or consent?

I presume you mean without the parent's knowledge and consent and tbh I don't know but it would seem to be leaning in that direction.

It's all about putting the child's welfare first which is great in a lot of ways but when it comes to making more difficult decisions on the child's welfare I think it's worrying if it allows the state that power.

Suppose you're child is causing trouble in school. He/she is diagnosed with ADD, could the state force the child to take medication for this? Im no legal expert (by any means) but the referendum seems to be about putting the child's welfare above the parent's wants. That's all fine but it doesn't say who makes the decisions and im assuming if the parent's are knocked back it's up to the school's, social worker, gardai etc. which would concern me greatly.

GhanGee

R0ot wrote: »

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

I believe We all want the best for our children, but can someone tell me what is the downside? This morning I found this "If passed, this amendment will remove from children the most important right that they have - that is the right to parental protection and advocacy."

In past 2 years there were many cases documented and filmed by a TV. Scandalous cases of UK social services, check on google "UK Social Services stealing Children aka State Kidnapping" and more. This is no conspiracy theory, dailymail.co.uk wrote "Children stolen by the state" - quoted "The social workers hire ‘experts’, such as psychologists, who earn thousands of pounds writing reports which appear to confirm the case planned for the courts. The reports can contain woolly allegations, such as that a mother might suffer from a ‘borderline personality disorder’." (business or not?)

After I've been told about these cases and checked it out I see things differently. What if 'child protection' law will be turned against GOOD parents. Obviously, this strict law was ruled after a death of 17 months old baby P who died by the hand of his parents. It was a tragic, RIP. Now over 10k children are taken by British SS in a year.

I don't know all the facts but please anyone tell me Ireland is not copying British law, as it might well bring more evil than good.

uck51js9zml2yt

What about religious freedoms.
Could a secular state disagree with parents bringing their kids up in a religion and take the kids from them.
It opens up a can of worms.

flutterflye

I just got a leaflet in the door about the referendum.

The new proposed article seems to be talking a lot about putting any child up for adoption if the parents haven't been doing their job.
I'm not sure how I feel about that tbh.
I mean, adoption is a permanent thing - which would be good for the child to have that stability, but at the same time it means that the child can not return to their birth parents if things get better at home.

Also, it keeps going on about "the best interests of the child" - but who says what the child's best interests are?

I suffer from depression and anxiety a fair bit.
Is it my kid's best interest to be placed with a family where the parents are mentally healthy all the time?

Oh I don't know - I don't like the vagueness of it all.

I do however think that it's a great thing that children be recognised in the constitution as having rights, and that these rights supersede those of the parents where there is abuse or neglect.

Onesimus

On the face of it, from the title it sounds wonderful, but is it really? On these pages we have provided you with information to make an informed decision. Do the research for yourself and we think that you will agree that this is an attack on Families and Children. Children will actually have less rights if this incideous legislation passes. Ireland will be giving up the sovereignty of our children to unelected people in the UN and EU

Irish children deserve a world-class Child Protection System, but the Irish State have always proven to be the worst possible parent. What is happening to children now in State "Care" is far worse than ever occurred in the old institutions. Wait for Ryan Report II, coming soon.

We are being fooled by the Government and by people with vested interests to sign away our parental rights to determine what is in the best interests of our children. If the Constitution is changed it will give license to the Government to do anything they want and you will have no say.

The Irish Government are currently allowing 30% of all Irish Children to live in consistent poverty. They have allowed banks to make 6,000 families homeless, they have cut back services to Special Needs even in the good years. They have allowed children to die in hospitals because they would not fund treatments. They have denied children an Education, the right of all children "Enshrined" in the Irish Constitution. They have allowed the deaths of 260 children in "Care" of the State and allowed 500 to go missing in a decade, many of them trafficked into child prostitution and nobody was held accountable for these failures. Children are dumped on the street at age 18 by the Child "Protection" System. Can you imagine a parent who loves their child doing that?

Now the Government are asking you to sign away your parental rights so that the State decides Best Interests.

The question we are being asked here is "Do you trust the Government?,
worse yet. "Do you trust the Government with your children".
Please note that or group is not funded. Can I also make it clear that we have no Spokesperson or Leader, it has been wrongly reported and assumed that Kathy Sinnott is the leader of our panel. We are individuals who decided to put our resources together in the short time allowed to present our individual views. Anyone is welcome to join if they can contribute to the debate with a good understanding of the issues.
.
Our panel consists of individuals each of whom have a specialized knowledge in this debate, Kathy's interest is in the area of Special Needs children and how this will affect them and their parents. Kathy also has a unique understanding of the UNCRC and has written extensively on the topic. I will leave you with a quote from Emily Logan, The Children's Ombudsman in an opinion piece in the Irish Times;
"My office has never examined a case involving a conflict between parents’ rights and children’s rights. And if there is one thing that has become confirmed by the eight years of this office’s operation, it is that parents are by far the strongest and most tenacious advocates for children."
http://www.aps.ie/

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

GhanGee

here is another one and ONCE AGAIN, I am not saying this is supposed to happen in Ireland, but I would be shocked if Ireland copied a doubtful law (unique in the EU !!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9545361/Foreign-government-may-take-UK-to-European-court-over-its-illegal-child-snatching.html#

Lollipops23

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

Much as I understand your concern about how much the state can interfere with your parenting of your kids, surely it should be easier for the state to intervene in the cases of neglect?

Have a gander over in the Parenting forum sometime, you often see threads about people upset about kids in their neighbourhood/family being neglected and abused. Hell, some of the stories in a thread in PI the other week by a woman with a crazy mother would bring a tear to your eye.

wendell borton

Had planned to vote yes but now i am not so sure. What difference will voting yes make to the rights of children.

Is there realy a need for this referendum? As far as i know child abuse is a crime but that didn't stop what went on in this country by the church etc..
If the laws in place were actualy enforced instead of bringing in new ones just to be ignored again for the sake of optics we would be better off.

bbam

I would plead with those who have made up their minds in this to read the information fully. To date there has been very little information given out but it will be available in time to read an understand before the vote.

I believe this to be a good thing for children, particularly children being raised in bad families. There have been countless cases where SW had to stand back and allow terrible situations continue as their hands were tied.

Providing a proper documented procedure is in place then a framework where defenceless children could be removed from abusive families has to be welcomed.

It's a fact that Irish society has to recognise. Not all children are better off left with their parents, many need protection from their parents and this amendment to the constitution should allow more powers to exercise this protection.

hooradiation

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

If this is the best a no campaign can manage, then I don't think there's much chance of this not being passed.