The Children's Referendum

Sarky

But... But... Reading not-bibles is hard! There are no thees or thous anywhere! And without the words unholy and abomination, how can you know that something's illegal!?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nonnationalist wrote: »

Law Society Urges a ‘Yes’ vote in the Children’s Referendum
<.....>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.<....>

Whenever you see this line being peddled, you know the source is being disingenuous. Adoptions by non-family members are as rare as hen's teeth, and not because of any legal impediment.

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you had time to read past the first sentence in the previous post.

Well, I'm sure you haven't read the exchange of posts with enough attention. My comment about you swallowing the spin was in respect of the adoption issue. Or, more correctly, non-issue.

robindch wrote: »

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.

Nope, you are wrong. You don't change the Constitution without substantial cause because, each time you do, you create uncertainty over previous case law. So you need a substantial reason for a change each time; such as justifies the uncertainty created.
Now, clearly, if someone has just formed an opinion on the basis of "Dana's agin it, so I'm in favour", then no further reflection is necessary. In that situation, there's even no need to pretend to have read the proposed wording at all. Sure it's Dana, enough said.

Jimoslimos

nonnationalist wrote: »

Law Society Urges a ‘Yes’ vote in the Children’s Referendum...

Five years between reg and 1st post :eek:

It must be good!

robindch

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm not saying children's testimony should be discounted fully, but we should be cautious before lending too much weight to it.

The amendment doesn't say that a court must believe the kid, and instead insists that the court must hear to the child. Then, the court is free to make up its own mind up about how much weight it wants to lend to what the child says.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

The amendment doesn't say that a court must believe the kid, and instead insists that the court must hear to the child. Then, the court is free to make up its own mind up about how much weight it wants to lend to what the child says.

Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings

referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

This is a legal minefield. There is nothing there that is not open to interpretation.

wonderfulname

I really don't get the hype about this referendum, I don't believe the vast majority of what either side is claiming, I really don't see how most claims can be connected back to the wording in question. I see it as being a bit of retrospective housekeeping, which may have a positive impact on a very small number of minors at some point in future (not that the number actually matters, but you'd swear by some it was going to impact every family in the country).

So for me I've been weighing up whether the benefits outweigh the potential for unforseen challenges, I've come to the conclusion they do, and I like that the reference to morality will be removed, and that the wording is far more fitting of Ireland today, so I'm voting yes.

The only reason I struggled with this decision was because the change is so small, can anybody explain why people are going so mental over this?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

wonderfulname wrote: »

.... can anybody explain why people are going so mental over this?

It's a good question, and I don't have a good answer. I'd suggest a few things that might have an influence.

Following the defeat of the Abbeylara Referendum, I think the Government had a real fear of fecking things up again. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the substance of that Referendum, it was one that should have been politically easy to win - yet it was lost.

And this one isn't dissimilar. Politically, it should be easy to sell an Amendment that can be presented as protecting children (and, again, I'm trying to avoid getting into the substance of the current Amendment, despite having very clear views on it myself). And, when it comes to it, Frances Fitzgerald has been skillful in building up political consensus around it. As many have commented, there isn't any opposition from any organisation of real substance. The No campaign is the saddest and loneliest bunch of losers you ever saw.

But I think this makes for an unsatisfying debate. The Yes campaign looks strange, when there's absolutely no organised opposition. Their campaign posters - and, to be fair to them, the political parties pay for those posters themselves - almost highlight the absence of any No posters. It's almost surreal; the debate without a contrary view.

On the No side, its frustrating to see the lack of challenge of these consensus views. Maybe there is a point to this Referendum. Maybe there is some issue to which this Amendment is a solution. But the absence of any real debate means those points are not brought out. We don't have the catharsis of at least feeling our views have been adequately aired. Just allowing out my own position, the only airing of perspectives that I felt needed to be put out there was by that small group of secularists who advocated a No. They held a press conference, and then vanished from view - and I'm not criticising them for that; at least they got out there which is more than I did.

Anyway, trying to conclude, I think the problem was the shadow of the rejection of the Abbeylara Amendment. When the Supreme Court gave its judgment yesterday, it must have felt like the ghost of Abbeylara was back haunting them. Why else would the Government risk encroaching on the McKenna principles, facing opponents with no status on an issue that most would accept without too much questioning?

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is a legal minefield. There is nothing there that is not open to interpretation.

Well, are you suggesting that children should not be asked?

Or are you -- like me -- at best, satisfied that the proposed amendment text is just a little bit better than what's there at the moment?

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's almost surreal; the debate without a contrary view.

So what? If clobbering children was mandated by the constitution, would you be unhappy that there was no significant opposition to removing the mandate?

This referendum is about -- from the legal perspective -- improving one small corner of the country's constitution. There are certainly other things which need improving more than this corner, and this improvement is not at all as good as it could be. However, it remains an improvement.

And the fact that the only people who oppose it are individuals like Kathy Sinnott, Joseph O'Connor, John Waters and a certain Mr McKevitt does nothing more than confirm a decision made elsewhere.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

So what? If clobbering children was mandated by the constitution, would you be unhappy that there was no significant opposition to removing the mandate?

I've made it plain that I'm avoiding discussion of the subject of the Amendment; I'm exploring the point raised about why there's an amount of heat in some quarters over what should be a technical discussion. I'm not even saying I've an answer - just that I'd agree that the spectacle of the referendum could be interesting to consider.

Maybe you don't see anything unusual in the spectacle of Yes posters appearing without any No posters. Grand. I find it a little surreal. The only No poster I've seen was a handwritten sign that a woman was holding in her hand outside Reads bookshop as I passed in a bus, around lunchtime today. And before you say it, I've no doubt the woman is a religious loon of some type.

What I'm saying here is speculative. I've said whatever I'm saying about the Amendment, here and in various threads elsewhere; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1431

You're voting Yes. I'm voting No. I suspect the Yes side will have it, by a wide margin. I'm not sure what issue has been resolved, for all that.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Maybe you don't see anything unusual in the spectacle of Yes posters appearing without any No posters.

Well, I find election posters fairly weird to start with. Ok, perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse here, but still, why on earth would anybody vote one way or another based upon a face and a bland "Vote Yes!" or "Vote No!"? And what's it with that girl on Labour's posters, the one with her hair unforgivably (and probable photoshop-ically) orangey-red? For a few days, I absent-mindedly thought there was some by-election I'd missed and that Labour were running somebody who, as usual, was using a photo ten years out of date.

But then again, I get the same impression with this referendum as I have with all the previous ones -- that me, together with perhaps ten or twenty percent of the population, are reading the original text of the constitution (and related Treaties, if any), reading the proposed amendment and making a call one way or the other, sometimes in the light of some informed opinion on it. In my case, the latter was Hugh O'Flaherty's opinion against it -- I agree with most or all of what he says, save his conclusion that it's unnecessary (since I believe that the new wording is demonstrably clearer and more liberal than the old).

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure what issue has been resolved, for all that.

I agree and I can't think of what -- other than opening up the possibility of the adoption of children of married parents -- is going to change in the short term. Probably little if anything, but then again, I'm not voting specifically to change anything, since that's the bailiwick of the Dail via legislation.

Instead, I'm simply voting yes because the new wording is better than the old, and that's the beginning and end of it. Can't understand why so many other people tie themselves up in knots about something that's really quite simple.

MrPudding

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

One parent can claim whatever they want about the other. This is the case now and will still be the case if the referendum is passed. So no change there. What will also not be changing is the fact that the courts don't really care what is being claimed, only what can be shown, as far as possible, to be true.

So not really a reason to vote against.

MrP

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

I get the same impression with this referendum as I have with all the previous ones -- that me, together with perhaps ten or twenty percent of the population, are reading the original text of the constitution (and related Treaties, if any), reading the proposed amendment and making a call one way or the other, sometimes in the light of some informed opinion on it.

I'd say in this one, I was more aware of the eighty percent who didn't. There seemed to be a complacency, and a willingness to accept the endorsement of Barnardos and so forth on the one hand and assumptions made about the nature of contrary views based on the (few) people making them. Like I've vented here, I saw and heard a lot of assumptions made on the basis of Dana. I'm not sure I noticed before the extent to which people don't trouble to identify and verify what people are saying.

For me, I can trace the start of my decision to vote No to when I read Hardiman J.'s judgment in the Baby Ann case; it was just too difficult to relate the facts of that case to how it was cited in support of the Yes side. The case is actually the story of a child and her natural parents being treated with contempt by the Adoption Board, but finding protection from the arbitrary and biased exercise of authority because of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. I hope this new wording - which I expect has been accepted by the Irish people - proves to extend the same protection to others.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Instead, I'm simply voting yes because the new wording is better than the old, and that's the beginning and end of it.

If you want to get into wording:

* The proposed 42.A.3: " Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child."
Does this mean people can have kids and sell them to adoption agencies?

* The proposed 42.A.2: " 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,"

Why is the word "likely" there? Does this mean you don't even have to fail as a parent - you just have to be "likely" to fail? That seems very unfair.

Can't understand why so many other people tie themselves up in knots about something that's really quite simple.

Politics is never scientific and there will always be biases we have that others don't.

I am very angry about the schools thing, the fact that so many scammers can get free medical care whereas every time my kids get sick it's a stressfuljudgement call I have to make whether it is bad enough to spend another 60 on and a whole load of other things that has probably influenced my judgement - the most obvious one that I don't trust the state.

2009 - 2010, I had some financial problems like everyone else negative equity and a few other things. Major stress. More irrationality. You quickly forget you are in the top 10% of the world's living standards.

So where is this going. I can't stand the idea that when other good families have their irrationality - about when they might lose their home that they will never lose, that they have to consider the idea that they could lose their kids even though they never will.

It's a thought - not an act - I believe this amendment will proliferate.

I am old fashioned person when it comes to family. I hate the way both parents have to work now to pay a mortgage and even at that - it's probably for a small house with no green nearby for the kids and a tiny back garden.

I am not so old fashioned that it has to be the mother who stays at home, I just think it is ridiculouse your creche or child minder gets 5 / 7 days and you get 2 / 7 days.

We have created a society which detaches parents from children.
So there is a very strong element of a protest vote in my decision.

I would love to see a referendum which gave children real rights.
1. Equal and free access to health and education.
2. The right to know who your parents are.

etc.

ShooterSF

Why should all children be afforded free health care? I'd accept an argument that we might need to adjust the means test parents have to go through if it's putting some kids at risk but we already give children's allowance to people in society that don't need it. I'd rather not see more waste.

Nodin

Apparently its a 30% turn out. Not, amazingly, the worst ever.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1110/childrens-referendum-constitution.html

Corkfeen

Looks like it will pass, full results should probably be out by 1 or 2. An absurdly low turnout.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So there is a very strong element of a protest vote in my decision.

Decisions like this are bizarre.

In a constitutional democracy, referendums are held to decide whether or not to amend the text of Constitution. The reasons to vote for or against must depend only upon the original text and the amended text. Voting for some other reason undermines the fundamental nature of constitutional democracy.

I'm not at all sure how to resolve this misunderstanding. But any or all of the following might help:

• Educating the electorate on the basics of democracy;
• Make voting mandatory;
• Extend the means by which votes may be cast;
• Ask people to indicate that they understand the basis of the vote, by requiring they declare something like "Having weighed up and original and amended texts fairly, I declare that my vote is based upon these texts only, as follows...";
• Hold referendums on the same day as a national election;
• Allow people to choose whether to "protest" against the government, but at the expense of not having a say in the referendum. ie, each voting slip would allow a choice of either (a) voting to boot the current government out of office; or (b) voting on the the original and amended texts. Pick either (a) or (b).

Any other ideas?

fisgon

A Father McKevitt was just on the News on Radio 1, apparently the editor of Alive magazine.

Rambling, predictably blaming the media, the politicians, the charity organisations (a new one that one), for the lack of discussion on the Referendum, and then making stuff up. He made some claim about the State now having primary responsibility for children, which a lawyer also in the studio told him was simply factually incorrect. Big surprise that he would simply twist the facts to suit his point of view.

I laughed out loud when he accused the media and politicians of putting out misinformation, of not giving the whole story. This from the editor of lying, misinforming, propagandist Alive. Truly contemptible.

Nodin

Corkfeen wrote: »

Looks like it will pass, full results should probably be out by 1 or 2. An absurdly low turnout.

Ye'd wonder if there should be a sort of quorum on these things, if not for the yes vote, for the turnout.

robindch

From the IT:

Irish Times: The referendum has been carried as just announced at Dublin Castle: Yes votes: 615,731. No votes: 445,863, with Yes: 58% and No: 42%.

Corkfeen

Nodin wrote: »

Ye'd wonder if there should be a sort of quorum on these things, if not for the yes vote, for the turnout.

Turnout of 33% overall but it isn't the lowest so i'm not sure if there would be a precedent. I'll be honest, it struck me as more of a lazy electorate who couldn't be arsed to inform themselves.(Going by the logic that it doesn't affect them) It really wasn't a very complex referendum. I think it might be necessary to hold a referendum on more than one topic when holding them in the future.

Oh dear jesus, David Quinn is trying to imply that gay marriage(in a roundabout way) wouldn't pass. :pac:

Nodin

Corkfeen wrote: »

.....
Oh dear jesus, David Quinn is trying to imply that gay marriage(in a roundabout way) wouldn't pass. :pac:

Good to see he's got his finger on the pulse there. I heard at the end of the RTE reporting a clip of John Waters saying you couldn't squeeze a cigarette paper between shooting somebody in the head and taking their child from them.

robindch

ShooterSF wrote: »

Water should not be free.

Agreed. Though water itself is free, it does require infrastructure and maintenance to supply it fresh and potable to people's houses.

Can't believe the heat that a couple of friends of mine generated over the idea of water charges recently, especially the heat from a friend who lives in a rather splendid house in Dalkey...

ShooterSF wrote: »

Tim Robbins wrote: »

[...] you could also charge them for boards.ie?

Boards? That's just silly.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/payments.php

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fisgon wrote: »

the charity organisations (a new one that one),

I take it what he means is the activities that groups like Barnardos undertook in leafleting and erecting posters. The issue at stake is that the voluntary sector in Ireland tends to be heavily funded by the State. If the State is giving you two-thirds of the funding, and you engage in political campaigning, it can be hard, if not impossible, to establish the extent to which that campaign is being funded by the taxpayer.

fisgon wrote: »

I laughed out loud when he accused the media and politicians of putting out misinformation, of not giving the whole story. This from the editor of lying, misinforming, propagandist Alive. Truly contemptible.

I've never read his publication. Is it the one you see sometimes in the supermarket with the freesheets?

Anyway, whatever about that, can I remind you that the Supreme Court found on last Thursday that the Government had unlawfully spent State money producing a biased and inaccurate booklet. So it is simply a fact that the Government did misinform the public.

That doesn't change the result - the Courts have already decided in previous cases that it does not have the power to look behind the vote in a referendum. But it is perfectly in order to note some facts.

I'm actually surprised that the No vote is so high. It's quite remarkable, when you consider that Dana alone seems to be responsible for convincing many to vote Yes. It highlights the extent to which the opinion of authorities in Ireland is not trusted. Even with every significant political group in favour of this Amendment, they could only produce a 58% majority from a low turnout.

There's scope for a strong political force out there, if anyone can figure out how to mobilise that disaffection. I've a feeling Sinn Féin lost an opportunity. If the No campaign had any experienced political organisation involved, it could have won this one.

Anyway, I'm just off to put my children up for adoption; after all, it's the will of the people. I suppose it's better than medical experiments.

EURATS

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I take it what he means is the activities that groups like Barnardos undertook in leafleting and erecting posters. The issue at stake is that the voluntary sector in Ireland tends to be heavily funded by the State. If the State is giving you two-thirds of the funding, and you engage in political campaigning, it can be hard, if not impossible, to establish the extent to which that campaign is being funded by the taxpayer.I've never read his publication. Is it the one you see sometimes in the supermarket with the freesheets?

Anyway, whatever about that, can I remind you that the Supreme Court found on last Thursday that the Government had unlawfully spent State money producing a biased and inaccurate booklet. So it is simply a fact that the Government did misinform the public.

That doesn't change the result - the Courts have already decided in previous cases that it does not have the power to look behind the vote in a referendum. But it is perfectly in order to note some facts.

I'm actually surprised that the No vote is so high. It's quite remarkable, when you consider that Dana alone seems to be responsible for convincing many to vote Yes. It highlights the extent to which the opinion of authorities in Ireland is not trusted. Even with every significant political group in favour of this Amendment, they could only produce a 58% majority from a low turnout.

There's scope for a strong political force out there, if anyone can figure out how to mobilise that disaffection. I've a feeling Sinn Féin lost an opportunity. If the No campaign had any experienced political organisation involved, it could have won this one.

Anyway, I'm just off to put my children up for adoption; after all, it's the will of the people. I suppose it's better than medical experiments.

I believe it may be a better idea to sell them...before the state can. I believe they are worth €200k if they are in reasonably good condition . Minus tax (23%)to keep the state afloat of course and pay off OUR DEBTS!!!

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Decisions like this are bizarre.

I said there was an element of protest voting in my decision. And when I said protesting, I meant not protesting on bailing out the banks but protesting on how children have been treated by the state and how the government were promoting this amendment.

Effectively, they made a tiny change regarding adoption and dressed it up that it would somehow stop child abuse. It won't stop any child abuse and it was insulting to pretend it will. The state is no more accountable for its failures than it was without this amendment. Ok to protest against that?

I reckon I knew more about that referendum than 95% of yes voters. I even stopped a yes campaigner in the street for a debate about it but she was pretty useless and ignored me after I had discredited barnardos as a credible reference. I also came on here and was prepared to have my opinions challenged and didn't really see any strong arguments for yes.

Political decisions are not decided by the scientific method. There is always an element of bias in them. So, you have some bias just as I or anyone else has. The thing to do is to try and challenge your own opinions and respect the fact that when you think you see someone else's bias you are probably forgetting your own.