Women begin legal action over referendum

rodento

Its shaping up to be a perfect storm for the Government, abortion, childrens referedum and Budget:D

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/childrens-referendum-challenge.html

It's the legal challange nobody wanted

Nodin

It's the legal challenge that was bloody inevitable given the finding on information just before the referendum.

Dirk Gently

rodento wrote: »

It's the legal challange nobody wanted

To be fair I think it's a legitimate and neccessary challange. For me it's not about the childrens referendum (I was and am in favour). It's about democratic standards for future referenda. This Government in particular has been very active in taking liberties with supposedly impartial information. It's disapointing that the referendum result could potentially be in jeopardy but the integrity of the referendum process is at stake here. I know there's some nasty characters like John waters who are using this to advance the no campaign cause but regardless of the motivations of some involved, it is the bigger picture which is important here, i.e that referenda are carried out in a legitimate and impartial way, free from manipulation of supposidly impartial information by government or others.

mitosis

Good for them. Apart from anything else, there should be no way that 18% of the electorate can force a change in the constitution.

Ironic that it will be the very women who elected Kenny that will bring him down.

Manach

Having voted No and holding John Walters in the highest regard
I believe there should be a focused, efficient and independent inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney General for sanctioning a breach of the McKenna Supreme court judgement.
However, the people have essential voted and the referendum result should stand as I would have concerns about the judiciary overturning the clearly express will of the people.

H3llR4iser

mitosis wrote: »

Good for them. Apart from anything else, there should be no way that 18% of the electorate can force a change in the constitution.

Ironic that it will be the very women who elected Kenny that will bring him down.

Well, the 82% that didn't vote clearly clearly don't care at all what changes are made or not made to the constitution, therefore they should accept whatever result comes out - agree with it or not. Otherwise, they can always get off their arses and go vote.

Lelantos

Dirk Gently wrote: »

To be fair I think it's a legitimate and neccessary challange. For me it's not about the childrens referendum (I was and am in favour). It's about democratic standards for future referenda. This Government in particular has been very active in taking liberties with supposedly impartial information. It's disapointing that the referendum result could potentially be in jeopardy but the integrity of the referendum process is at stake here. I know there's some nasty characters like John waters who are using this to advance the no campaign cause but regardless of the motivations of some involved, it is the bigger picture which is important here, i.e that referenda are carried out in a legitimate and impartial way, free from manipulation of supposidly impartial information by government or others.

Actually, a point is being missed here. It's the judicial system in this country that needs looking at, not the referendum. The govt had their lawyers stamp of approval on the wording. The High Court said it was ok, but the Supreme Court objected to some wording. Now this is ridiculous in the extreme. There should be no grey areas in written law. What if it was the other way around & the Supreme Court agreed with the wording?
The court system is way too arbitrary in these matters & that's where the reform needs to start.

Ellis Dee

How much money is going to be wasted on this exercise in these times of straitened circumstances?:(:(

GCU Flexible Demeanour

rodento wrote: »

Its shaping up to be a perfect storm for the Government, abortion, childrens referedum and Budget:D

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/childrens-referendum-challenge.html

It's the legal challange nobody wanted

This bit is clever.

The second petitioner is Nancy Kennelly, a resident of Abbot Close Nursing Home, Askeaton, Co Limerick, who voted Yes by post before the Supreme Court ruled some information distributed by the Government during the referendum campaign was not impartial.

But are there enough postal votes to change the outcome? If not, I don't see how they'll be able to say this was material, as the overwhelming majority of votes were cast after the Supreme Court decision.

JustinDee

If a critic didn't bother their keyster to vote, they've dissipated any credibility or voice on the matter, including slamming those who voted and how they voted, as far as I'm concerned.

If 33% of the electorate turned out then they are the people who matter here. Not the apathetic out there who had their chance and couldn't be pushed.
Would love to know who is lurking in the background of this legal challenge.

Solair

Is that Supreme Court judgement actually available yet?

I'd like to see what exactly they were pointing out was biased in the material issued by the Government.

I read, and re-read the amendment and I can't really see how it's controversial in the slightest.
The previous constitutional situation was actually quite scary.

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.

Is that not the very line that allowed the state to go in and remove kids from perfectly sensible single mothers in the bad old days?

*how is "moral" defined?

The new amendment seemed a lot more sensible and focused on child safety and welfare.

OK, it maybe a technical legal point about the running of referenda, but I don't really understand where the really passionate no side is coming from to be quite honest.

The previous situation gave the state similarly huge powers and it DID exercise them in the past, and not in a very nice way.

To me, this referendum was on a fairly dull technical change to child protection law, no something very fundamentally different and I suspect that's why the turnout was so low. It wasn't a straight forward question.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Solair wrote: »

Is that Supreme Court judgement actually available yet?

I'd like to see what exactly they were pointing out was biased in the material issued by the Government.

The judgment isn't out yet. Their decision is at the link below.

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/1b0757edc371032e802572ea0061450e/6b4d1de136ecb72d80257ab000419d78?OpenDocument

6. The Court is required to give its decision promptly, in view of the pending Referendum to be held on Saturday, 10th November, 2012. The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. The Court will give its ruling today and judgements will be delivered on Tuesday, 11th December, 2012.

7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

nuac

Problem here for Shatter and for government.

Full Supreme Ct judgement awaited with interest

_Kaiser_

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, the 82% that didn't vote clearly clearly don't care at all what changes are made or not made to the constitution, therefore they should accept whatever result comes out - agree with it or not. Otherwise, they can always get off their arses and go vote.

I said this elsewhere but it merits saying again...

1. We've already seen that government holds the Irish electorate in such high regard that they will be made "do it again" like bold children if they don't give the answer wanted. In this case the government wanted a "Yes" vote.

2. The highest court in the land deemed the information given out as biased, yet the government went ahead anyway (HENCE THIS NEW ACTION)


Now, given the above, why are you (or any that thanked your post) at all surprised that most people just didn't bother in the end??

Death and Taxes

rodento wrote: »

Its shaping up to be a perfect storm for the Government, abortion, childrens referedum and Budget:D

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1119/childrens-referendum-challenge.html

It's the legal challange nobody wanted

Somewhat premature bearing in mind that the Supreme Court have only given their ruling yet, their full judgement has yet to be published.
Personally I think the Referndum result was tainted, but before it heads to the courts I would to see the full judgement of the SC.

JustinDee

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

. . . Now, given the above, why are you (or any that thanked your post) at all surprised that most people just didn't bother in the end??

If you have enough of an opinion about any matter involving a referendum, you'll vote in each and every one of the referenda.
If you didn't bother to vote at any juncture in time, then you simply get the result you deserve, regardless of your point of view.

seamus

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

1. We've already seen that government holds the Irish electorate in such high regard that they will be made "do it again" like bold children if they don't give the answer wanted. In this case the government wanted a "Yes" vote.

How many referenda have this government lost? How many have they made us "do it again"? Just in case it's not glaringly obvious to you, the Government always wants a Yes vote. If they wanted the electorate to vote No, they simply wouldn't bother holding the referendum. That's really the biggest surprise for me about this whole thing - that some people don't seem to get that very basic fact.

The whole point of setting up refcom was to have an independent body to produce information because the government will always be on the "Yes" side. It should be taken for granted that any literature from a government dept or government TD will be asking you to vote "yes". The only thing they did wrong in this case was use public funds for it.

2. The highest court in the land deemed the information given out as biased, yet the government went ahead anyway (HENCE THIS NEW ACTION)

There is no way to stop a referendum once called (except to call a general election).

So why didn't people bother again?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I think the SC has already signalled that it's unlikely to entertain a challenge to the result on grounds of the Government issuing an inaccurate publication, funded unlawfully. Their decision states, in respect to the Amendment, The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. Their full judgment will be of interest, and might inform how Government behave in respect of future referendums. But this particular vote is closed.