childrens Referendum **poll added**

K-9

Onesimus wrote: »

There is a lot more to it than that. Follow the link I provided on page 4.

Child abuse is already a crime, and people who witness things like that going on in their neighbourhood should notify the appropriate authorities. This new referendum is under the disguise of enforcing childrens rights when in fact it is an attack on children and their families.

follow the link provided and read up on it. You don't need me to tell you here.

I followed the link and the "who are we" section doesn't inspire confidence, http://www.aps.ie/page2.php, given Barnardos and so many are for it.

I'd read up on it and make my own mind up, not go on what the aps and Kathy Sinnott says, or Barnardos and Fergus Finlay for that matter.

NOmeansNo

Sharrow wrote: »

Me but not all parents take into consideration their child's best interests, when this happens children have to have clear cut rights and a voice and input to what happens next. Never again should children be left to suffer as ones in the Roscommon case.

I too have kids and one which has special needs and I am voting yes.

With austerity we need to have the rights of children cleared up so we can use the Convention on the rights of the child to fight and push for our children and really your argument lost all credibility once you mention Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

*********************************************************
Sharrow,

"Me but not all parents take into consideration their child's best interests" is a very cynical argument. I as well as many others have their Children's best interests at hand. You seem to keep making references to the "Roscommon Case" in which BOTH the parents AND the STATE failed at their duty. It is a well known fact the Social Workers Records were clearly lacking details in this case, so there was more than one factor here. HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

" -196 children have died while in care of the State
- 440 of the 513 children who disappeared, while in care of the State between 2000-2010 are still missing

"One of the stated purposes of the Referendum is for Ireland to be fully compatible with the UNCRC. You also need to bear in mind that once Article 42 is changed to remove parents rights, that other Treaties and Conventions will now apply to children, without the consent and even knowledge of their parents. The UN Treaty on Persons with Mental Disability will also apply to children without parental consent. This means that children will be able to consent to Psychosurgery (Lobotomy), Electro-Shock Therapy and even have themselves committed to a Mental Institution without parental consent or knowledge."

If you agree to children, or your children with undergoing medical procedures without parental consent my opinion this is NOT in the best interest of Children. As they may not fully understand the details of procedures they may undergo and will treated as adults in regards to law. Electroshock Therapy and Lobotomy may be treatments used in the cases of mental illness whether the parents agree to this or not.

"The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision." I do believe I have the utmost interest of my children by providing them the natural foundation of a family and good moral values. This treaty disregards parental authority and moral beliefs. It is a far cry from uniting a family... it does however unite the governments in the World for more control... But that is another issue.

As for YOU trying to grant me credibility or not, I will leave that up to the individual. Anyways, what is this great credibility you grant to yourself? As I do not believe something is ok because the government is telling me so. I still stand by by reference to the Nazi regime, as it was a time of economic crisis in which ideas were imbedded into the people. Where as false propaganda and ideas were spread at the cost of people's BEST interest deflecting from the true matters at hand. Unfortunately we find ourselves in these situations time and time again. No one would want to repeat the history in which a government strongly misleads the people with false propaganda and inducing the fear factor. "Godwin's law- is an ARGUMENT"....Yeah, that lost credibility there. There is a reason it is not called a fact, just an argumentative opinion is all. There is also a thing called Holocaust Denial look it up. However Instead of being petty and debunking ones credibility I'd rather focus on the real matters at hand and the children.

I do believe in changes and reforms, I however do not believe in the UNCRC and it handing over power to the state and overshadowing the Family Unit.

My partner is also adopted without getting into his personal story, adoption is not always successful and there are many issues that go with it such as attachment disorder. Is the state ready to handle these adoption cases with care, seeing they have already cut funding? People seem to think everyone willing to adopt are perfect which in fact they are just human beings which can also make mistakes. Will these children be followed up after adoption to ensure safety, security, and mental stability? It is not as straightforward as it is made out to be.

Like I said before 1.1 million(used from Public Spending) in pushing a Yes vote could have went to direct issues in regards to children. What about all the creches and pre-schools that have closed in recent times due to lack of funding. This vote is a clear diversion from issues at hand.

hooradiation

that's... certainly a disjointed mess you've posted there.

TwoShedsJackson

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

Peetrik

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

Any other completely unsubstantiated broad generalizations you want to dream up for anyone who doesn't agree with you?

People with dark brown hair seem to smell like cabbage?

TwoShedsJackson

It's hardly unsubstantiated - Youth Defence are opposed, the Alliance of Parents against the State are opposed, and seem to consist of the likes of Nora Bennis etc., the Christian Solidarity Party are opposed, and Fr. Brian McKevitt is opposed.

I don't think it's unfair to describe any of the above as either religious or right-wing.

bbam

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

Indeed..

the biggest argument I've seen is "I have my childrens best interest at heart, I don't want the state interfeering, so a NO vote is sensible"

People pushing this for a NO vote don't seem capable of recognising that not all parents think and put their childrens best interests first. They seem to be taking the notion personally and pushing back against it like stroppy teenagers.

The state or social workers have no interest in the decisions people make unless they are making decisions that are abusive and dangerous to their children. Its just the usual old "anti establishment" crap.
The state failed its duty in the past so why should we vote to give it more powers, the idiots can't see that the additional provisions will allow the state to exercise its duties..

And those who can't see that a very small minority of children wouldn't be better taken from their birth parents and adopted into suitable caring families, well, its just byond beleif that people can't or won't see that these cases are out there and need to be dealt with properly and promptly.

Peetrik

And all those people/groups were probably opposed to Ireland giving away all the recently discovered national resources as well.

The doesn't make it any more valid to say "The ONLY people opposed seem to be 'A' or 'B'" as every other sane person in Ireland was against it as well.

Broad unsubstantiated generalizations just detract from any argument you make.

Corkfeen

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

To be fair it's only particularly extremist religious cranks who claim they'll be robbed of religious freedom which they won't.

TwoShedsJackson

Peetrik wrote: »

And all those people/groups were probably opposed to Ireland giving away all the recently discovered national resources as well.

What? 'Probably' means nothing, and what have national resources got to do with it?

The doesn't make it any more valid to say "The ONLY people opposed seem to be 'A' or 'B'" as every other sane person in Ireland was against it as well.

Nor did I say that, I said that the ONLY people I have heard express a negative opinion are members of right-wing religious organisations. Also, just because you declare only those opposed to this to be the sane ones, does not make it so. Now who's coming in with the broad unsubstantiated generalisations?

Peetrik

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

what have national resources got to do with it?

Apart from being a comparable example of the peoples interests being put second, it is the very relevant factor of the state having an abysmal track record.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Also, just because you declare only those opposed to this to be the sane ones, does not make it so.

Again this was in relation to the example I gave of the state giving away our resources pretty much for free... unless you want to argue this was a fantastic idea?

Tayla

Get Real wrote: »

F
Secondly, under the constitution, a child born outside marriage has less rights. for example, an unmarried father does not have as many legal rights over his own child. Imagine a child who is abused by their mother, and is put into state care needlessly because the father has less rights.

Can you please explain how a child born through unmarried parents will now have more rights through this referendum? This referendum doesn't give an unmarried father legal rights at all. Actually if you think about it the way it currently stands a child born outside marriage has more rights than a child born to married parents because those children can be adopted therefore fulfilling their right to a family....allowing the children of married parents to also be adopted doesn't increase the rights of a child born outside marriage.

A group of campaigners for fathers rights are now opposed to this referendum saying

“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.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1025/1224325680536.html

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

I presume the kid being trafficked for prostitution was a no poster and not a yes poster? As far as I read there is nothing in this referendum that would make a blind bit of difference to child trafficking...nothing that isn't already in the constitution or law already anyway.

The yes campaigners are saying that this will ensure that the child gets listened to in court but they could already do that anyway.

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?

No but the worries are that in the future that the government decides that every child must be vaccinated then this yes vote would mean that they could force the parents to allow their children to be vaccinated. This is a great legal analysis of the wording of the text, definitely worth a read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

Tayla

WhiteRoses wrote: »

One of the cases that sparked this was the Baby Ann case. I don't know all the details for sure, so don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but basically what happened was:

-A woman in a relationship with a man got pregnant. The relationship broke up and the mother placed the child up for adoption.
-The child was adopted into a new loving family and bonded with her new parents.
-When the child was about 1yr old (I think), the parents got back together and decided they wanted the baby back.
-Under the instruction of their lawyer, they quickly got married so they'd have more rights.
-They began legal proceedings to get their daughter back. By now, she had bonded with her new family and her adoptive parents didn't want to give her back.
-The birth parents lost their case, and Ann was supposed to stay with her adoptive parents.
-The birth parents appealed and took the case to the supreme court.
-Despite the fact that the judge agreed that being seperated from her adopted family would cause great emotional distress to baby Ann, according to the constitution birth parents (in particular, married birth parents) have ultimate rights to their child and they won their appeal.
-Now 2 years old, baby Ann was returned to her birth parents.

I challenge anyone to say this was a good outcome. The current laws protect parents rather than children. The outcome of that case came to be because of parental rights, what rights did baby Ann have? None. Despite the fact that it was detrimental to her wellbeing, she was taken away from her adoptive family because her parents had the right to do it. That to me is so wrong.

The adoption had not been completed and any mother regardless of marital status would have been entitled to withdraw their consent to adoption and take the case to court. The natural parents in this case may (or may not) have used their subsequent marriage to further their case but they may have also won the case on a different day, in a different court had they not been married.

NOmeansNo

hooradiation wrote: »

that's... certainly a disjointed mess you've posted there.

Fits in well with this thread so. I am a busy woman do not have much time so I responded to somebody, as well as contributing my own piece and I think it is quite clear.

bbam

Tayla wrote: »

This is a great legal analysis of the wording of the text, definitely worth a read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

This isn't a "legal analysis"
Its just ramblings posted by some crank on the internet... Why oh why would any sane person believe the ramblings of some guy who posts on a website from an account created just to post on this topic.. Really !

This is exactly what's wrong with how people use the internet, people just don't seem to be able to look at the context in which information is presented... If its a website that anyone can register and post to without any credibility check then the information posted is worthless and dangerous. People need to use whatever shred of intelligence they have before reposting such links and spreading trash ramblings onwards.

This guy could be the worst child abuser on the planet or manage a paedophile ring and there's you spreading his crap for him !

Tayla

bbam wrote: »

This isn't a "legal analysis"
Its just ramblings posted by some crank on the internet...

I stand corrected, it's an analysis of how the legal text of the changes could be interpreted.

bbam wrote: »

This guy could be the worst child abuser on the planet or manage a paedophile ring and there's you spreading his crap for him !

Considering this referendum has nothing to do with paedophiles or child abusers then it doesn't really matter whether it's Gary Glitter or Ghandi who wrote it.

bbam

Tayla wrote: »

I stand corrected, it's an analysis of how the legal text of the changes could be interpreted.
.

Could be interpreted by who though?
If it were a credible source, but this guy could be any nutcase so why would his interpretation be important?

Tayla wrote: »

Considering this referendum has nothing to do with paedophiles or child abusers then it doesn't really matter whether it's Gary Glitter or Ghandi who wrote it.

Really??
Like a child abuser wouldn't want to promote a NO vote to protect themselves by keeping children's rights weak?

Tayla

bbam wrote: »

Could be interpreted by who though?

The courts.

bbam wrote: »

Really??
Like a child abuser wouldn't want to promote a NO vote to protect themselves by keeping children's rights weak?

Tell me how a No vote protects child abusers...you said it keeps childrens rights weak but what new rights does a child get if this referendum is passed that makes any bit of difference to a child abuser?

bbam

Tayla wrote: »

Tell me how a No vote protects child abusers...you said it keeps childrens rights weak but what new rights does a child get if this referendum is passed that makes any bit of difference to a child abuser?

And you've never heard of any cases where a parent is a child abuser and would be worried about improved rights and protection for children??

Tayla

bbam wrote: »

And you've never heard of any cases where a parent is a child abuser and would be worried about improved rights and protection for children??

I'm sure there are but what improved rights and protection are the children going to get from this referendum that will protect them from a parent who is a child abuser? Please tell me if you know of any improved rights, you might just change my mind.

bbam

Tayla wrote: »

I'm sure there are but what improved rights and protection are the children going to get from this referendum that will protect them from a parent who is a child abuser? Please tell me if you know of any improved rights, you might just change my mind.

And I suppose your one of the tin foil hat brigade that thinks improving and re enforcing the ability of the state to intervene in cases where parents systematically abuse children is not necessary. Really, if this only improves the states progress on this by 1% then it is worth it.
I'd seriously worry about the motives of anyone trying to muddy the waters on this by saying its about forced religious beliefs, forced vaccinations or as in the information you linked - allowing children to post pornography of themselves. I'd wonder what people are really worried about.

Tayla

bbam wrote: »

And I suppose your one of the tin foil hat brigade that thinks improving and re enforcing the ability of the state to intervene in cases where parents systematically abuse children is not necessary. Really, if this only improves the states progress on this by 1% then it is worth it.
I'd seriously worry about the motives of anyone trying to muddy the waters on this by saying its about forced religious beliefs, forced vaccinations or as in the information you linked - allowing children to post pornography of themselves. I'd wonder what people are really worried about.

Not at all but you keep going on about child abusers like this referendum protects children from them but it doesn't. You either can't or won't answer the question and it's disgusting that you are implying that anyone who doesn't choose to blindly go along with a yes vote seems to have some type of ulterior motive....just who is the anyone in your post? Do you mean anyone as in every person who may vote NO?

That part in the link about posting pornography of themselves seems to have been thrown out there as an extreme example of what a child may wish to do, other examples he gave were the child becoming a scientologist or getting access to information about committing suicide.

It's absolutely ridiculous that you are using child abuse to further your point when this referendum has nothing to do with it...as I said earlier if you knew of any additional rights an abused child would have under this referendum then I would have genuinely loved to know but instead you just accuse me of being part of the tin foil hat brigade.

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

The courts.




Tell me how a No vote protects child abusers...you said it keeps childrens rights weak but what new rights does a child get if this referendum is passed that makes any bit of difference to a child abuser?

Does the guy have any legal experience and knowledge though?

squod

Sinn Féin is calling for a YES vote in the Children's Rights Referendum

http://www.sinnfein.ie/childrens-referendum

The shinners want a yes vote. I presume then 95% of people on Boards will be voting no.

Tayla

K-9 wrote: »

Does the guy have any legal experience and knowledge though?

I don't know, I did say earlier after my initial post that I was wrong and what I should have said was that it was an analysis of how the legal text could be interpreted ...rather than a legal analysis of the text.

bbam

The children are afforded more protection as there is a clearer more
Definite path on its way which will allow the representatives of te state remove children from abusive situations, permanently if it warrants so. Surely this is a good thing?
And I think mentioning child abuses is very apt as an example of someone children need protection from.

The guy is an Occupational Phscycologist, so no he has no legal input on the subject whatsoever

NOmeansNo

New confirmation I am deffinately voting NO. The government has illegally been holding back mobility allowances to the over 66 due to DISCRIMINATION which is ILLEGAL under the Equal Status Act. This is an absolute disgrace I would not trust these people to have the best interest of my children as they are currently seeking legal advice due to the matter. This started 12 years ago before the economic downturn. What's their excuse now? THE Govt. should be ashamed of themselves..... Equality for this that and the other.....HA! My son may potentially rely on this payment someday so it especially hits home and sickens me. Now let them gather that 1.1 million public spending money(Also being challenged by law) SPENT on Vote Yes propaganda and pay back the members of society with mobility issues they neglected.

steddyeddy

Amazing that thousands of children where molsted, raped and tortured in this country and yet more people are supporting a no vote than those who stood up for us as kids.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Amazing that thousands of children where molsted, raped and tortured in this country and yet more people are supporting a no vote than those who stood up for us as kids.

And this referendum will stop this how?

Annasopra

NOmeansNo wrote: »

New confirmation I am deffinately voting NO. The government has illegally been holding back mobility allowances to the over 66 due to DISCRIMINATION which is ILLEGAL under the Equal Status Act. This is an absolute disgrace I would not trust these people to have the best interest of my children as they are currently seeking legal advice due to the matter. This started 12 years ago before the economic downturn. What's their excuse now? THE Govt. should be ashamed of themselves..... Equality for this that and the other.....HA! My son may potentially rely on this payment someday so it especially hits home and sickens me. Now let them gather that 1.1 million public spending money(Also being challenged by law) SPENT on Vote Yes propaganda and pay back the members of society with mobility issues they neglected.

Ok but thats completely unrelated