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
The Children's Referendum
Options
Comments
-
What side is the Iona Institute on? NO.
What side is 'Dana' Rosemay Scallon on? NO.
What side is Kathy Sinnott on? NO.
I was leaning towards a YES vote in any case.0 -
I will be voting yes.
Have heard various different people giving out about random things in relation to this - performance of the state to date, abortion, the state judging the morals of people (despite this being in the existing article which will be removed)0 -
It's a relatively minor change which ties up some legal loose ends and removes archaic and ambiguous wording.Tim Robbins wrote: »It's a sinister political stunt. Would have been nice to have something that gave children real and meaningful rights.
The option is to leave the loose ends hanging there, or sort them.
I've seen a lot of posts claiming that nothing needs to be changed and that the children of married couples can be adopted, but no actual facts to back this up. Every government body, including the adoption authority, specifically states that the children of married couples are not eligible for adoption.
Even if removing this block only applies to 2 children per year, then it's necessary.
You could say rightly that amendments should be much more overhauling and this should be a much bigger change. But then you risk a battle over higher profile items, and the loose ends get lost in the fray. Sometimes amendments need to be small and clean - prep work, even, for a larger set of amendments further down the line.
That's pretty cynical. Do you know any fosterers? I don't, but I'd be fairly sure that fosterers willing to adopt a child as their own couldn't give two fncks about €350/month versus being able to clarify their home as the child's permanent and stable base.7. This referendum will be used to put families who are receiving 350 euros a month for fostering children under pressure to adopt - when they may not want to. They will also loose their 350 euros a month as soon as they adopt.
I also don't see why someone could be put under pressure to adopt a foster child. How many children are in long-term foster at a cost of €350/month? Do you really think this is a big consipracy to lower fostering payments? Cos I'm pretty sure the cost of running a referendum is higher.
The RefCom booklet is short, concise and exceptionally unbiased.8. The lack of public information about this referendum is nothing short of disgraceful. The government is trying to dumb it down to a no brainer let's care for children.
Unlike EU referenda, this is actually a fairly simple amendment, so there's no excuse for claiming that you're confused, except if you don't bother reading up on it.0 -
What side is the Iona Institute on? NO.
What side is 'Dana' Rosemay Scallon on? NO.
What side is Kathy Sinnott on? NO.
I was leaning towards a YES vote in any case.
When these are the reasons Yes people give, it makes me think the government have completely succeeded in ensuring people haven't even thought about what they are doing. Tragic.0 -
I don't see how this sorts anything. In fact, it runs the risk of making things worse.The option is to leave the loose ends hanging there, or sort them.
Well, I think a lot more needs to be changed and clarified.I've seen a lot of posts claiming that nothing needs to be changed and that the children of married couples can be adopted, but no actual facts to back this up. Every government body, including the adoption authority, specifically states that the children of married couples are not eligible for adoption.
Even if removing this block only applies to 2 children per year, then it's necessary.
The cynicism is to avoid 95% of children's rights, the right to education, their rights to medical care, the rights to know who their parents are, the rights to spend time with their parents. The cynicism is to change nothing that would stop the awful offenses to children by the state happening again.You could say rightly that amendments should be much more overhauling and this should be a much bigger change. But then you risk a battle over higher profile items, and the loose ends get lost in the fray. Sometimes amendments need to be small and clean - prep work, even, for a larger set of amendments further down the line.
That's pretty cynical. Do you know any fosterers? I don't, but I'd be fairly sure that fosterers willing to adopt a child as their own couldn't give two fncks about €350/month versus being able to clarify their home as the child's permanent and stable base.
I also don't see why someone could be put under pressure to adopt a foster child. How many children are in long-term foster at a cost of €350/month? Do you really think this is a big consipracy to lower fostering payments? Cos I'm pretty sure the cost of running a referendum is higher.
The RefCom booklet is short, concise and exceptionally unbiased.
Unlike EU referenda, this is actually a fairly simple amendment, so there's no excuse for claiming that you're confused, except if you don't bother reading up on it.
And the cynicism is to surely pretend you are giving them rights and anyone who disagrees is some weirdo who is against children's rights and this amendment will somehow stop the awful things that used to happen while you make preparations to cut child benefit?0 -
Advertisement
-
No I don't think it is a conspiracy. It is one of many very good examples of how this law has been poorly thought out.I also don't see why someone could be put under pressure to adopt a foster child. How many children are in long-term foster at a cost of €350/month? Do you really think this is a big consipracy to lower fostering payments? Cos I'm pretty sure the cost of running a referendum is higher.
You have to put the show on the other foot. There are parents who put their children into respite care because they need help - perhaps because the parents have health problems.
Now, they will have the fear that the state can take their kids.
I am not scare mongering, I am just saying this is very poorly thought out law. All these people who dismiss these No arguments as scare mongering are conveniently forgetting how easily abuse of children by the state has already happened.
There should be some cast iron protections - there are none.
How would you like if you were abused by the state and then told to vote Yes to childrens rights to stop this happening when you knew all this changed were tiny things in relation to adoption?0 -
No, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would an amendment to the Constitution that protects the Gardaí from accusations of corruption.That's a bit like assuming a state where 100s of murders are occurring daily and going "The Gardaí don't do enough to prevent murders therefore we shouldn't make murder illegal in our constitution."
And, just before it gets silly (after all – this is the interweb), I’m not making any comment about the Gardaí. I’m just upsetting your rant.
Ah, the old “Dana is against it, so that absolves me of any responsibility to account for voting Yes” line.What side is the Iona Institute on? NO.
What side is 'Dana' Rosemay Scallon on? NO.
What side is Kathy Sinnott on? NO.
I was leaning towards a YES vote in any case.
Can’t say I find it convincing. But, I’ll grant you, it seems to be awfully popular with some.
All I can say is that I don't understand that to be the case, and the Constitution does allow for children to be adopted when parents have failed.magicbastarder wrote: »from what i understand, the way the law is interpreted (regardless of how it may be actually phrased), a biological parent can prevent a child from being adopted by someone else, even if the biological parent cannot be trusted to be left alone with the child.
And repeat that adoption is, in practical terms, an irrelevance.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »... adoption of any child, whether a marital or non-marital child, by non-family members is quite a rare event these days. Just taking two recent years as a for instance there were only 190 Irish Adoption Orders in 2009, 148 of which were within families (and 140 of them were by "natural mother and her husband"). There were only 189 Irish Adoption Orders in 2010, of which 154 were within families (151 were by "natural mother and her husband"). To get a sense of context, there were more than 1,000 adoptions every year from 1964 to 1984, with the exception of 1979 when there was still a whopping 988 adoptions.
Adoption belongs back in the Jurassic period, and I don't know why folk aren't aware of its near irrelevance. It's certainly very strange to see the Government using it as a ground for changing the Constitution.0 -
Since you don't know me from Adam, I'd be interested to learn how you know that I've "been taken in by the spin". For your information, and with the sole exception of Kathy Sinnots insane ravings in Wednesday's Irish Times, I haven't read any media commentary on this, nor watched any on the telly, nor consumed anything online other than the one item I quoted above, and have read here. Instead, I've read the before and after Constitutional articles myself and spent some time pondering both. I'm quite happy that the new text is much better than the old. You may disagree, but you will need to explain what's wrong with it as you haven't done that yet.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »No, you've been taken in by the spin.
If the best response to my points that you can produce is to tell me that I'm closed minded, then I'm quite happy that you've lost the argument good and proper.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Well, if you reflect on it with an open mind I'm sure enlightenment will come. [...] Well, there's always a necessity for people to being open to hear evidence.
/fail0 -
An interesting letter...Irish Examiner wrote:Wednesday, November 07, 2012
While I was initially in favour of a constitutional provision providing for children’s rights, having studied the proposed amendment I will be voting no for a number of reasons.
The fact that no-one can give any reasonable forecast as to how it will be implemented in practice is in itself good enough reason for a no vote. The claim that the courts will decide does not reflect current practice whereby judges delegate decisions relating to children to social workers, whose decisions are more influenced by ideology than the best interests of children.
Providing that children’s views be taken into account may appear superficially attractive, but is fraught with dangers. Putting children into a pivotal position in deciding acrimonious disputes between parents will expose them to manipulation, and possible even to intimidation.
The provision to allow for the children of married parents to be adopted is potentially the most dangerous of all, especially for separated and unmarried fathers.
Mothers, who have custody of children and are living with a new partner, will be entitled to apply to have the children adopted by her new partner against the wishes of the natural father. This would be consistent with the State’s unwritten policy of creating a fatherless society.
Matt Harper
Clones Road
Monaghan
It seems the No people can be split into two categories:
1. Religious nuts.
2. Those who don't trust the state and demand a higher standard of legislation.0 -
"The provision to allow for the children of married parents to be adopted is potentially the most dangerous of all, especially for separated and unmarried fathers.
Mothers, who have custody of children and are living with a new partner, will be entitled to apply to have the children adopted by her new partner against the wishes of the natural father. This would be consistent with the State’s unwritten policy of creating a fatherless society."
That doesn't make much sense though. As the law stands, an unmarried mother can "adopt" her own child with her new partner that she marries. The unmarried father has no rights as to custody and so on, regardless of his name appearing on the birthcert, without having been named a guardian.
The only way this new legislation will change things (according to this excerpt from the man's letter) is that divorced mothers will be able to do the same thing. Yes, it's ridiculously unfair that unmarried fathers have zero rights and it would be just as ridiculous to do the same to married ones - I'm not sure that could be the case though (as married fathers have automatic rights to their children). Must look into this further.......0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not the case. A father who is married to the child's mother has automatic guardianship rights, which cannot later be revoked as far as I can tell. The father's guardianship rights can only be revoked if they were previously awarded by a court. That's as far as I can see from the legislation anyway.it would be just as ridiculous to do the same to married ones - I'm not sure that could be the case though (as married fathers have automatic rights to their children). Must look into this further.......
So while a mother and her new partner may apply for adoption of her existing children, this amendment doesn't change the fact that the mother's former husband is still the guardian of the children.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »No, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would an amendment to the Constitution that protects the Gardaí from accusations of corruption
Actually, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would be a Constitutional amendment that gives the state an obligation to actively deal with the problem.
@Tim Robbins:
I'm not going to do another long multi-quote since I'd end up repeating myself, but you asked me to elaborate on point 2.
If you're concerned about giving the state an open-ended power to take children into care, the article as it stands is worse than the proposed amendment. At present, failure for "physical or moral reasons" (vague) is the condition for state intervention. The new amendment spells out that the parents' failure means that the "safety or welfare" (less vague) of the child is endangered. Here's the text again:Existing Article 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.Amended Article wrote:In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.0 -
I don't live in Ireland right now so know very little about the referendum and don't have an opinion on either side, but I'd be very careful about jumping to assumptions like this. For example during the 2002 abortion referendum the pro-choice vote was to vote no. Yet Dana and her ilk were also calling for a no vote as they thought that proposed changes were not restrictive enough. Sometimes people can vote the same way for completely opposite reasons.
I've read about it and now I'm all confused. God damn it.0 -
But would you not admit some oversight here?So while a mother and her new partner may apply for adoption of her existing children, this amendment doesn't change the fact that the mother's former husband is still the guardian of the children.
You said earlier even if it only benefits one or two people it is worth it. But surely if it screws around 2 or three people it is not worth it.0 -
-
How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?
It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way. We citizens have not got a CLUE about law and cannot read objectively a ''text'' of law the way a solicitor could.
I think that a referendum like this should be battled out in court between the No and the Yes but there ya have it.
We have to remember that every single word going in to the constitution is not just ''sweet words'' on giving children rights. These are LEGALLY BINDING WORDS. Everyone of them are LEGALLY BINDING. And they need to be looked at by people in law to decide how these legally binding words could be interpretated one way or another in a court of law. How they could be manipulated by the social services and government and so on.
But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.0 -
Actually I said if it benefits 2 children, it's worth it. But that's being pedantic. Implicit in that statement is that it should be for the overall good.Tim Robbins wrote: »But would you not admit some oversight here?
You said earlier even if it only benefits one or two people it is worth it. But surely if it screws around 2 or three people it is not worth it.
However, I fail to see what part of my post you quoted suggests that two or three people may be screwed over.
At present, a married woman cannot apply to have her new partner adopt her child. This amendment doesn't seem to change that because it doesn't change the status of the existing father. So this amendment isn't screwing anyone over...
I have read it in full a couple of times, but I won't claim to even come close to remembering it inside-out or having "studied" it.How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?
Everything you have said could apply to any constitutional amendment, past, present and future. So basically what you're saying is that the politicians should be free to amend the constitution between themselves because the population can't be trusted to understand it.It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way
...
But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.
As quite rightly pointed out by Tim Robbins (maybe in another thread), the constitution sets out the framework of what's expected of the state in relation to its population. It's crucial (IMO) that the State is not free to amend that framework without the approval of its superiors - the people.
The citizen has a duty to ensure that they know why they're voting, or refraining from voting if they don't. Claiming that the average Joe doesn't understand the constitution is not a good reason to prevent him from voting on it. It's a form of elitism - it presumes that the politicians understand it better. They don't.0 -
I'm a yes voter and have qualified in constitutional law.How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?
It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way. We citizens have not got a CLUE about law and cannot read objectively a ''text'' of law the way a solicitor could.
I think that a referendum like this should be battled out in court between the No and the Yes but there ya have it.
We have to remember that every single word going in to the constitution is not just ''sweet words'' on giving children rights. These are LEGALLY BINDING WORDS. Everyone of them are LEGALLY BINDING. And they need to be looked at by people in law to decide how these legally binding words could be interpretated one way or another in a court of law. How they could be manipulated by the social services and government and so on.
But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.0 -
Actually I said if it benefits 2 children, it's worth it. But that's being pedantic. Implicit in that statement is that it should be for the overall good.
However, I fail to see what part of my post you quoted suggests that two or three people may be screwed over.
At present, a married woman cannot apply to have her new partner adopt her child. This amendment doesn't seem to change that because it doesn't change the status of the existing father. So this amendment isn't screwing anyone over...
I have read it in full a couple of times, but I won't claim to even come close to remembering it inside-out or having "studied" it.
Everything you have said could apply to any constitutional amendment, past, present and future. So basically what you're saying is that the politicians should be free to amend the constitution between themselves because the population can't be trusted to understand it.
As quite rightly pointed out by Tim Robbins (maybe in another thread), the constitution sets out the framework of what's expected of the state in relation to its population. It's crucial (IMO) that the State is not free to amend that framework without the approval of its superiors - the people.
The citizen has a duty to ensure that they know why they're voting, or refraining from voting if they don't. Claiming that the average Joe doesn't understand the constitution is not a good reason to prevent him from voting on it. It's a form of elitism - it presumes that the politicians understand it better. They don't.
Here Seamus, the way you have used quote there it makes it looks like I said things I never did. If you are quoting another poster you should make sure his / her name is used. What I was trying to say was there is a chance that the amendment means if you are married and alive and well, someone else can still adopt your children.
Is there a potential for one parent now claiming that the other parent has failed in his / her parenting and someone else should be allowed to adopt the child? I don't see anything in the referendum which puts in safeguards in place - for when a marriage breakdowns and partners like to get nasty with each other.0 -
Would that it was.Daftendirekt wrote: »Actually, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would be a Constitutional amendment that gives the state an obligation to actively deal with the problem.
Oh, simply on the basis of your post. Apologies, I didn't realise you were simply making an assertion without any actual basis, other than an expectation that reality would take the form required by your opinion.Since you don't know me from Adam, I'd be interested to learn how you know that I've "been taken in by the spin".
In any event, adoption is an irrelevance. I've actually posted some evidence above in support of that contention.
Well, the actual situation is that a No vote is the default. The onus is on the Yes side to indicate why an amendment is necessary.I'm quite happy that the new text is much better than the old. You may disagree, but you will need to explain what's wrong with it as you haven't done that yet.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The Irish constitution is actually really, really easy to read. If you've any inclination to read it at all that is. I find people are great at making excuses about not doing their own research and expect to be spoon fed, then give out that the spoon feeding isn't balanced.
There's also a massive, massive difference between some of the more aspirational articles in the constitution and the laws on the statue books, most of which we pretty much absorbed from British law after independence or have had to introduce post EU membership as EU law is superior to Irish law. Stating that Irish people are somehow having their constitutional 'rights' (most 'rights' stated in it are limited by clauses anyway) trampled over in plain sight is an incredibly patronising argument to make, implying somehow that people can't be arsed reading a document that's cheap to buy or can be read for free online.0 -
Law Society Urges a ‘Yes’ vote in the Children’s Referendum
Dear Colleague,
At a meeting of the Council of the Law Society on Friday last, 2nd November, 2012, the Council voted by an overwhelming majority to recommend a ‘yes’ vote in the Children’s Referendum on 10th November, 2012.
The Society’s Family & Child Law Committee had urged the Council to take this position. It is unusual for the Society to take a stance on a referendum, but the significance that the Society attaches to the Children’s Referendum is such that it has decided to lend its unreserved support to promoting a ‘yes’ vote.
The Council of the Law Society considered carefully the text of the proposed Constitutional amendment at its meeting. It also listened to a presentation and answers to queries on the legal issues by an individual who is probably Ireland’s leading expert on Child Law, the Society’s Deputy Director of Education, Dr Geoffrey Shannon.
Following a discussion, the Council concluded that the proposed Constitutional amendment achieved the correct balance between the autonomy of the family and the rights of the child. It welcomed the fact that the threshold for State intervention would be more child centred and would be defined by reference to the effects of the failure on the child, rather than the reasons for such failure. In the Council’s considered view, this proposal achieves the fundamental objective of ensuring that the interests and welfare of the child are fully protected, while respecting the family’s right to autonomy.
In the view of the Council, the Children’s Referendum is an historic development that has the potential to make a real and positive difference to the lives of children in Ireland. In asking the Irish people to support a ‘yes’ vote, the Law Society maintains that a positive outcome will signal a new beginning for those children who have been let down by the system in the past.
This referendum is asking the people of Ireland to give children a ‘second chance’ to experience stability and security within a caring and loving family. There are hundreds of children who are currently caught in a twilight zone between a family that cannot fully care for them and a family that cannot fully adopt them. A ‘yes’ vote will put an end to this sorry situation.
The new child protection proposal will ensure family support as the starting point for State intervention. We welcome this, as for too long, family support has been a poor third to child protection and alternative State care in the battle for resources and professional time.
This referendum will need resources to realise its full potential. The litmus test for this referendum will be whether it will lead to better decisions for children. If the Government supports this referendum with the necessary resources, I firmly believe that it will result in a better and brighter future for the lives of children in Ireland.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
James B McCourt
President0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »
7. This referendum will be used to put families who are receiving 350 euros a month for fostering children under pressure to adopt - when they may not want to. They will also loose their 350 euros a month as soon as they adopt.
Foster care allowance is 350 per week not month0 -
I'm not sure whether you had time to read past the first sentence in the previous post. Here's the third:GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I didn't realise you were simply making an assertion without any actual basis, other than an expectation that reality would take the form required by your opinion.[...] I've read the before and after Constitutional articles myself and spent some time pondering both. I'm quite happy that the new text is much better than the old.
Wrong again. The amendment stands as it is. If people agree with it, they can vote in favour and if they disagree with it, they can vote against. If they hold no opinion, or do not consider themselves sufficiently well-informed about it, then they should not vote. If they disagree about the basis for the vote, then they should spoil their vote. That's rational voting behaviour.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Well, the actual situation is that a No vote is the default. The onus is on the Yes side to indicate why an amendment is necessary.
Voting against an amendment simply because one can't think of a reason to vote in favour is irrational and unfair since it denies the vote, and the worth of the thought, of the people who have made the effort necessary to understand what it's about and voted in favour.0 -
-
Indeed, fixed, apologies.Tim Robbins wrote: »Here Seamus, the way you have used quote there it makes it looks like I said things I never did. If you are quoting another poster you should make sure his / her name is used.
I don't know the ins and outs of adoption law, but it would seem to me that it would not be possible for the mother's new partner to adopt the child without the consent of the father with natural guardianship rights. Notwithstanding the ability of such children to be adopted in the first place, this amendment doesn't change the rights of parents with guardianship.What I was trying to say was there is a chance that the amendment means if you are married and alive and well, someone else can still adopt your children.
No, I don't think so. Or at least, not any more than there currently is. In terms of the obligation towards the child, the text only deals with the failure of all parents towards the child. If the child has at least one functioning parent, then the state has no remit to "endeavour to supply the place of the parents". This amendment doesn't give the state the power to replace a dodgy parent with a good one, where another good parent already exists.Is there a potential for one parent now claiming that the other parent has failed in his / her parenting and someone else should be allowed to adopt the child?
Not explicitly, but such safeguards are implicit in the proposed section 4.I don't see anything in the referendum which puts in safeguards in place - for when a marriage breakdowns and partners like to get nasty with each other.0 -
Where is he getting that from?nonnationalist wrote: »The new child protection proposal will ensure family support as the starting point for State intervention. We welcome this, as for too long, family support has been a poor third to child protection and alternative State care in the battle for resources and professional time.
This referendum will need resources to realise its full potential.
Here is the text here
Huh????The litmus test for this referendum will be whether it will lead to better decisions for children.
The referendum should be guaranteeing better decisions. Otherwise it is not good law.If the Government supports this referendum with the necessary resources, I firmly believe that it will result in a better and brighter future for the lives of children in Ireland.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
James B McCourt
President
Well this is the nub of the issue. The government does not have to ensure there are any resources for distressed children. This is my entire point.
All the referendum is give power to the government it does not ensure they act to a minimum standard.
Thank you law society you have confirmed my No vote.0 -
I actually have strong reservations about that last point. While it may seem progressive and child-centric, in many cases children can be prone to defending their abuser, especially a close family member. I'm not saying children's testimony should be discounted fully, but we should be cautious before lending too much weight to it.The National Parents Council, an organization that represents the interests of parents with children in primary schools, has called for a yes-vote, thusly:- 1,500 confirmed cases of child abuse in 2011: For the first time, the Constitution will take a child-centred approach to child protection and will put an onus on the State to better support families
- Up to 2,000 children living in long term State would finally be eligible for adoption: This is in cases where the child cannot successfully return to their birth family
- 65% of children are not asked their opinion in court decisions affecting them: For the first time, judges must listen to the views of children when making their decision in court cases relating to custody or child protection
I'm not in Ireland at the moment so have limited info on the referendum. From what I've read I'd broadly be in favour of a yes vote. However 90% of the proposed changes seem to be wishy-washy fluff with little substance. I'm also uncomfortable with the wording "Children's referendum" - a disingenuous way of influencing a yes vote. Nobody votes no to "children" do they?
Overall the referendum seems like an exercise in justifying a rather useless government department, which isn't really needed.0 - 1,500 confirmed cases of child abuse in 2011: For the first time, the Constitution will take a child-centred approach to child protection and will put an onus on the State to better support families
-
Advertisement
-
How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?
It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way. We citizens have not got a CLUE about law and cannot read objectively a ''text'' of law the way a solicitor could.
I think that a referendum like this should be battled out in court between the No and the Yes but there ya have it.
We have to remember that every single word going in to the constitution is not just ''sweet words'' on giving children rights. These are LEGALLY BINDING WORDS. Everyone of them are LEGALLY BINDING. And they need to be looked at by people in law to decide how these legally binding words could be interpretated one way or another in a court of law. How they could be manipulated by the social services and government and so on.
But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.
Ah they old "free us from thought and responsibility" mentality of religion :pac:0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement