What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

oscarBravo · 20-09-2012 09:57AM

donaghs wrote: »

I think the problem is that the "the welfare and best interests" are quite open to interpretation.

Anything written in English is open to interpretation. That's (among other reasons) why we have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the Constitution.

donaghs · 20-09-2012 10:25AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Anything written in English is open to interpretation. That's (among other reasons) why we have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the Constitution.

Of course, but somethings are more "open" than others.

e.g. if Roman Catholicism had been explicitly made the official state religion in the 1937 Constitition, rather than the vague and rather meaningless "special position" text.

walshb · 20-09-2012 02:25PM

If helps children stuck with scum parents then I am all for it.

James Jones · 21-09-2012 08:52PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

donaghs wrote: »

I think the problem is that the "the welfare and best interests" are quite open to interpretation.

Anything written in English is open to interpretation. That's (among other reasons) why we have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the Constitution.

Its not as simple as that. There is no definition of "the best interests of the child" as stated by the Freedom of Information Commissioner in NMCK and the HSE.

I note that the term "best interests" is not defined or clarified in FOI or other legislation.

.
That means that no one knows what the outcome of this referendum will be because the best interests will be defined afterwards.

James Jones · 21-09-2012 11:20PM

walshb wrote: »

If helps children stuck with scum parents then I am all for it.

The problem with a Constitutional amendment is that it has a bearing on us all, not just the "scum parents". Such parents can already be dealt with under current legislation but the HSE have failed miserably in their Statutory duty.

oscarBravo · 22-09-2012 02:20AM

James Jones wrote: »

Its not as simple as that. There is no definition of "the best interests of the child"...

I'm unconvinced that that's a good argument against the proposed amendment. If the choice is between the best interests of the child not being a consideration, or the best interests of the child being a consideration but not being defined, it's hard to see an argument for the former being the better situation.

The Constitution is full of terms for which there is no concrete definition. For example, Article 6 mentions "the common good" without defining what that means. Article 9 talks about "fidelity to the nation" - highly open to interpretation; Article 38.2 talks about "minor offences" but doesn't elaborate on what makes an offence minor.

If you were told that you had to take the best interests of a child into consideration when making a decision, would you really be at a complete loss as to what that meant?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 22-09-2012 10:57AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

However, there seems to be an almost overwhelming consensus that a referendum is necessary, particularly if we are to improve adoption opportunities.

The last time there was a political consensus like this was when the Dáil approved the bank guarantee.

There is no substantial need for this referendum. As pointed out, the Roscommon incest case did not have to do with some block in the Constitution. The HSE were already engaged with the family. Case law has already set a correct balance between the right of the State and the right of parents to determine what is in a child's interest.

That's the element I don't see present in this thread so far. The point at issue is not substantially "childrens' rights", in the sense of rights that children will exercise. The issue is who has the capacity to determine rights for children without the maturity to decide for themselves. The choice is between parents and the State. This referendum would be more correctly termed the "Reduction of parental rights" or "Increase in State rights".

Sometimes both parents and the State fail in deciding on children's rights. My feeling is the legal balance between this is correct at this point. I don't see why we would increase the rights of the State to make a hames of children's lives, given the denial over decades regarding abuse of children in State-funded care, which seems to be the intention in this amendment.

I support the retention of the balance of rights established at present - including the right of adopted children to be re-united with their natural parents, as established in the Baby Ann case, and the obligation on medical staff to engage with rational parents with respect to procedures performed on their children, as established in the PKU case.

I'm against this amendment. I cannot see one single positive reason for it.

_Kaiser_ · 22-09-2012 01:22PM

Some very good points in this thread and I would tend to agree that were we just to enforce the laws we have rather than inventing new ones, we might actually make more progress in resolving these issues and - in this instance - making a REAL difference to children who need help.

However, I fear that the general electorate who care more for the happenings on Eastenders or in the Premier League will simply equate this as "Children's rights = good = yes" leading to nothing more than political grandstanding and backslapping when it's inevitably passed.

Meanwhile life (such as it is) will go on unabated for most of these children

gizmo555 · 22-09-2012 02:40PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The point at issue is not substantially "childrens' rights", in the sense of rights that children will exercise. The issue is who has the capacity to determine rights for children without the maturity to decide for themselves. The choice is between parents and the State. This referendum would be more correctly termed the "Reduction of parental rights" or "Increase in State rights".

+1

As serving Supreme Court Justice Hardiman put it in his 2006 judgement on the "Baby Anne" case:

There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.

If the prerogatives of the parents in enabling and protecting the rights of the child were to be diluted, the question would immediately arise: to whom and on what conditions are the powers removed from the parents to be transferred? And why? (my emphasis)

Certainly, even though she is in favour of the referendum, if we take this recent comment of the Children's Ombudsman at face value, it's extremely hard to answer why this amendment is claimed to be necessary:

My office has never examined a case involving a conflict between parents’ rights and children’s rights. And if there is one thing that has become confirmed by the eight years of this office’s operation, it is that parents are by far the strongest and most tenacious advocates for children.

oscarBravo · 22-09-2012 06:23PM

Justice Hardiman paraphrases Article 42.5. Article 42 deals with the right of children to an education. It's notable that that right is the only explicitly enumerated right of children anywhere in the entire Constitution, apart from vague references to not being forced to work at a young age and being provided for in the event of divorce.

It would be much more useful in any debate on this topic if those opposed to the amendment would point to the specific wording in the proposed Article 42A that they feel would be detrimental to children's rights, rather than the sweeping dismissals that we've seen so far.

gizmo555 · 22-09-2012 06:36PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Justice Hardiman paraphrases Article 42.5. Article 42 deals with the right of children to an education. It's notable that that right is the only explicitly enumerated right of children anywhere in the entire Constitution, apart from vague references to not being forced to work at a young age and being provided for in the event of divorce.

So? As barrister and Constitutional law expert Paul Anthony McDermott put it recently:

"If you look at the constitution, it doesn’t have a particular section protecting elderly people for example, or disabled people. It is generally regarded as protecting everybody . . ."

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would be much more useful in any debate on this topic if those opposed to the amendment would point to the specific wording in the proposed Article 42A that they feel would be detrimental to children's rights, rather than the sweeping dismissals that we've seen so far.

On the contrary - it behooves those who claim this amendment is necessary to make a coherent case for it, otherwise voters would be justified in deciding not to fix what isn't broken.

Personally, I haven't heard any such case yet.

oscarBravo · 22-09-2012 06:52PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

So? As barrister and Constitutional law expert Paul Anthony McDermott put it recently:

"If you look at the constitution, it doesn’t have a particular section protecting elderly people for example, or disabled people. It is generally regarded as protecting everybody . . ."

So Article 45.4.1 is completely redundant and unnecessary, and you would be perfectly content to see it deleted in a future referendum?

On the contrary - it behooves those who claim this amendment is necessary to make a coherent case for it, otherwise voters would be justified in deciding not to fix what isn't broken.

Personally, I haven't heard any such case yet.

If your only quibble with the proposed Article 42A is that it's completely unnecessary and redundant, then that's a fair enough perspective. My point was directed more towards those who have argued - notably without reference to the text of the proposed amendment - that it would be actively harmful.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 22-09-2012 11:01PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's notable that that right is the only explicitly enumerated right of children anywhere in the entire Constitution, apart from vague references to not being forced to work at a young age and being provided for in the event of divorce.

Why is it notable? In principle, children have all the rights that any other citizen enjoys. Would you feel there is any issue in children, along with other people under the age of 35, being ineligible for election as President?

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would be much more useful in any debate on this topic if those opposed to the amendment would point to the specific wording in the proposed Article 42A that they feel would be detrimental to children's rights, rather than the sweeping dismissals that we've seen so far.

Ah, here. The burden lies on Yes supporters to produce a positive case for this change. You don't just amend the constitution for entertainment. You do it because of some serious omission. There is no serious omission - the Constitution already provides a reasonable balance, proven in the Courts, between the rights of parents and of the State in promoting the welfare of children who lack the maturity to exercise their rights independently.

I actually have cited some cases, although there is no onus on me to do so. What's actually lacking on this thread is any positive case whatsoever form Yes supporters, who seem to have swallowed the spin wholesale.

Identify even one case where the Courts have struck the wrong balance in favour of parents. Just one. The Courts have even ruled that a parent cannot refuse a blood transfusion for herself on religious grounds, let alone for her child, if that would deprive the child of his/her natural mother.

Just what is the problem that this amendment solves?

Mario007 · 23-09-2012 12:04AM

Honestly guys? Arguing whether this referendum is even needed or what the 'best interest' of a child is?

Here's an excerpt from an essay I did in first year law. That should clarify a few bits for you:

Introduction
Ever since the controversial decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Re JH (an infant)1 when the court was asked to interpret articles 41 and 42 there has been a strong call for reform regarding children’s right and their place within the framework of the Irish Constitution2. It is the aim of this essay to strengthen the call for this reform and to suggest a wording that would allow for this constitutional change to take place. In order to do that this essay will examine the field of children's rights under the Constitution.

Best Interest:
The greatest difficulty the children face under the current wording of the Constitution is the fact that the courts do not look at the best interest of the child when deciding a case before them. This adherence to the child's best interest, also known as the 'welfare principle' is set out in legislation3, however as such it must submit to the constitutional provisions under the hierarchy of laws.
This is quite clearly shown in the case of Re JH. In this case an unmarried woman gave her child up for adoption right after giving birth. However, as the procedures dragged on she got married and decided she wanted the child back. In the High Court the learned judge looked at the best interest of the child which lay with its new parents, however the Supreme Court overruled this, Finlay C.J. stating:
“[A] constitutional presumption that the welfare of the child … is to be found within the family, unless the Court is satisfied on the evidence that there are compelling reasons why this cannot be achieved, or unless the Court is satisfied that the evidence establishes an exceptional case where the parents have failed to provide education for the child and continue to fail to provide education for the child for moral or physical reasons.”4
It is submitted that this is a clear illustration of the welfare principle being overridden by the Supreme Court. O'Mahony5 points out that the court has created a presumption that the child's best interests are best served within the marital family of its natural parents. Though this presumption can be rebutted, the threshold as suggested in the last two lines of the Chief Justice is a very high one to meet.
That Re JH is still law in this jurisdiction is quite obvious from two quite recent cases, namely. North Western Health Board v HW6 and N v Health Service Executive7 . In the PKU case the court has actually set the threshold of when the child can be taken away from its marital family even higher. Murray J. summed up the court's position promptly when he said that:
‘[T]here must be some immediate and fundamental threat to the capacity of the child to continue to function as a human person, physically, morally or socially, deriving from an exceptional dereliction of duty on the party of parents to justify such an intervention’8
Both the PKU case and Re JH were also strongly approved in the Baby Ann case which mirrored the facts and judgment of Re JH.
It is quite clear that courts interpret article 41 in such a way that they do not look out for the best welfare of the child once the its natural parents are married but rather decide whether the circumstances are exceptional enough to satisfy article 42.5 to take away the child from its natural married parents.9
It is therefore submitted, and supported by academical writing, that this position should be changed10. This author believes that the only way to do this is through the means of constitutional amendment..11 The amendment submitted, taking into consideration all the case law beforehand and the academical writing regarding it should do the following:
insert a provision which explicitly puts the welfare principle on constitutional footing into article
clearly state that in the even of conflict between the best interest of the child and the rights of the family, the best interest of the child takes precedence.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-09-2012 01:27AM

Mario007 wrote: »

Honestly guys? Arguing whether this referendum is even needed or what the 'best interest' of a child is?

Here's an excerpt from an essay I did in first year law. That should clarify a few bits for you:

All it does is confirm what I already knew.

....the court has created a presumption that the child's best interests are best served within the marital family of its natural parents.

I'm comfortable with that presumption.

You seem to have some idyllic picture of the life of a child in the care of the State. Can I remind you that the HSE actually aren't sure how many children have died in their care in the last ten years, but are willing to admit that they number at least 200.

The decision to remove a child from its family should be a serious move, because the alternative is so bad that the situation would need to justify making a hames of the child's life through such a move.

Do you want to raise the adoption hare, such as the Baby Ann case? This requires us to suspend our critical faculties and consider the short-term disruption that might occur if the natural parents of a two-year-old put up for adoption sought her return. We're not meant to wonder how to explain to that same two-year-old, when she becomes an adult, that she could have been brought up by her natural parents.

Anyone who would seek an amendment that would cause a different outcome in the Baby Ann case has a grotesque concept of human relations.

apache · 23-09-2012 01:41AM

What about scumbag kids -16/17 yr olds who used to be locked up in st pats but now go to places where there is no authority and staff can't handle them? They need a lot of convictions to get locked up at that stage so worst of the worst talking about here.

They should not have so liberal a system to give them so many rights while their victims have none!

just a flipside of the coin....

monument · 23-09-2012 02:05AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

....the court has created a presumption that the child's best interests are best served within the marital family of its natural parents.

I'm comfortable with that presumption.

And you seem to have some idyllic picture that keeping a child with its natural parents is always the best option for a child.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The decision to remove a child from its family should be a serious move,

And what makes you think it'll not be a "serious move" if the referendum is passed?

apache wrote: »

What about scumbag kids -16/17 yr olds who used to be locked up in st pats but now go to places where there is no authority and staff can't handle them? They need a lot of convictions to get locked up at that stage so worst of the worst talking about here.

They should not have so liberal a system to give them so many rights while their victims have none!

just a flipside of the coin....

What about them?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-09-2012 03:18AM

monument wrote: »

And you seem to have some idyllic picture that keeping a child with its natural parents is always the best option for a child.

That's just a grandstanding distortion of what I've said, that I'm not entertaining.

The point I'm making is clear. Engage with it, and I will respond.

James Jones · 23-09-2012 10:30AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you were told that you had to take the best interests of a child into consideration when making a decision, would you really be at a complete loss as to what that meant?

The decision made by the HSE and backed up by the Freedom of Information Commissioner in NMcK v the HSE was supposed to be "in the best interests of the child" but the FoI commissioner admitted that "I note that the term "best interests" is not defined or clarified in FOI or other legislation". The decision was overturned in the High Court and so the decision makers made a decision on their own interpretation of the best interest principle which was found to be wrong.

This will happen again because mostly, these decisions will be made by young, inexperienced, just-out-of-collage social workers with an "I've got something to prove" attitude. If the families challenge them, they will do so in front of District Court Judges who are mainly old men that did not spend any time looking after their own children. Most disturbingly, these decisions will the made in secret

monument · 23-09-2012 02:24PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's just a grandstanding distortion of what I've said, that I'm not entertaining.

The point I'm making is clear. Engage with it, and I will respond.

I've made my point.

What you think of my point; if you're entertaining it or not; and your wish to engage with it or not is your business.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-09-2012 07:40PM

monument wrote: »

I've made my point.

Well, you've made a post, certainly.

I think the point is the continued absence of any positive reason for voting in favour of this amendment.

oscarBravo · 24-09-2012 11:28AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the point is the continued absence of any positive reason for voting in favour of this amendment.

I'm curious about this line of argument. Is it the case that you have no reasons for voting against the amendment other than superfluity, and therefore would vote in favour of it if given one good reason to do so?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 24-09-2012 02:12PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious about this line of argument. Is it the case that you have no reasons for voting against the amendment other than superfluity, and therefore would vote in favour of it if given one good reason to do so?

Just so's we don't end up misunderstanding each other, I'm not saying

if (amendmentProposal.getAnyOldReason() == true ) voter.castVote("Yes");

Any change in a legal wording is disruptive; so there has to be some substantial problem before an amendment is contemplated, as any change must raise some doubt over cases based on the earlier wording . I suspect this proposal falls at this first hurdle - that there isn't a substantial problem that requires a new wording. The Constitution already allows the Courts to take a decent and humane approach to cases where parents need to be overruled and even excluded.

If an issue gets past that hurdle, there is still an issue with the impact of any measure. We're balancing rights - it's not that some absolute can be established to cater for one situation that will have no impact on anything else. For example, consider that case of the adult Jehovah's Witness forced to have a blood transfusion

http://www.independent.ie/health/jehovahs-witness-forced-to-have-lifesaving-transfusion-79512.html
Judge Abbott said there was a risk to the life of the mother and an imminent threat to the genuine welfare of the child and he felt the court could and should intervene in such circumstances. "The interests of that child is paramount in this situation," he said. <….> The Irish courts have previously made similar orders in respect of children whose parents have refused blood transfusions on their behalf, but this is the first time the High Court has made such an order against an adult who is refusing treatment. <….> The Association of Irish Humanists branded the ruling a dangerous precedent. "It is incredible that the decision of a mature adult can be overruled in this way, said its vice-chairman, Dick Spicer. "They are treating her like a child, individual choice has been extinguished."

As can be seen here, the rights of the child (incidently, based on the present wording in the Constitution) outweigh the rights of the mother to refuse medical treatment for herself, let alone her child, on religious grounds.

That's the kind of issue that is in play. It's not just a straight "Yes" or "No", even though ultimately we have to vote one way or another. The question to be answered (for a proposal that gets over the first hurdle) is whether whatever good is achieved is outweighed by whatever damage the change will inflict.

Now, all of the foregoing (apart from my passing reminder that the case cited above is based on our present Constitution) is just to set out the context, as I see it, that needs to be addressed when amending the Constitution in any respect. I've already stated some specifics about the concerns I have with this particular proposal.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2012 09:26AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As can be seen here, the rights of the child (incidently, based on the present wording in the Constitution) outweigh the rights of the mother to refuse medical treatment for herself, let alone her child, on religious grounds.

That's a straw man. A clever straw man, but a man of straw nonetheless.

The High Court doesn't interpret the Constitution. A decision made by a High Court judge isn't indicative of the meaning of the present wording of the constitution. The judge in the case you've cited did what he felt was the right thing to do - he didn't cite any constitutional provisions (that I can see) to justify his decision. The nature of the case precluded a timely appeal, but I'd be fairly confident that the SC would have overruled him.

I'm also far from convinced that the proposed amendment would have any impact on the SC's reasoning in any similar case in the future.

That's the kind of issue that is in play. It's not just a straight "Yes" or "No", even though ultimately we have to vote one way or another. The question to be answered (for a proposal that gets over the first hurdle) is whether whatever good is achieved is outweighed by whatever damage the change will inflict.

Well, yes. And if you want to convince people to vote against the referendum, you need to be outlining the damage you believe will be inflicted by passing it. That was my earlier point.

I've already stated some specifics about the concerns I have with this particular proposal.

Can you point to them? I don't recall seeing them.

gizmo555 · 25-09-2012 10:45AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The High Court doesn't interpret the Constitution.

Art 34.3.

1° The Courts of First Instance shall include a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal.

2° Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised (whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High Court or the Supreme Court.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2012 11:19AM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Art 34.3.

1° The Courts of First Instance shall include a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal.

2° Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised (whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High Court or the Supreme Court.

I stand corrected, thank you.

I still don't believe the judge in that case was interpreting the constitutionality of a law, or invoking a provision of the Constitution to justify his decision, so I believe my point stands.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 25-09-2012 12:26PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The judge in the case you've cited did what he felt was the right thing to do - he didn't cite any constitutional provisions (that I can see) to justify his decision.

[You do know that the Constitution recognises the existence of "natural" rights?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/D5F78352A387D74480257315005A419E?opendocument&l=en

Article 40 provides that all citizens are to be held equal before the law and obliges the State to vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. The term "personal rights", as interpreted by the courts, has led to the recognition and vindication of many rights not expressly provided for in the text of the Constitution.

I’m not saying (because I don’t know) if that was part of the Judge’s consideration; I’m just pointing out that your statements don’t display a grasp of the context.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The nature of the case precluded a timely appeal, but I'd be fairly confident that the SC would have overruled him.

I’m glad that the Supreme Court have taken you into their confidence on this point. However, can you give any comfort to the rest of us that your expertise in legal matters is such that we shouldn’t just dismiss your statement as wishful thinking?

Do bear in mind that, from our perspective, you are the guy who, up to a few minutes ago, was emphatic that the High Court can't interpret the Constitution.We're now expected to accept your insight into how the Supreme Court approaches cases? When you also don't seem to appreciate that the Courts deem the Constitution to recognise unenumerated rights?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm also far from convinced that the proposed amendment would have any impact on the SC's reasoning in any similar case in the future.

What I am saying (and what is simply true) is that changing any wording in the Constitution introduces a doubt into previous case law. All of the cases thus far become moot, as they have to be qualified by the statement "But that was under the old wording; the new wording hasn’t been tested yet".

This is simply a fact.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. And if you want to convince people to vote against the referendum, you need to be outlining the damage you believe will be inflicted by passing it. That was my earlier point.

Unfortunately, my key point seems to be getting lost there. My mistake was probably giving too much comment on how, generally, proposals to amend the Constitution should be approached. I’ll try not to repeat the error.

The discussion of harm only arises once a serious problem has been identified. My point is that the case for this amendment fails at the first hurdle – no-one has identified any serious problem, such that prevents the Courts from promoting the welfare of children.

Can you state what problem this amendment is supposed to be curing? If not, no further discussion is needed.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2012 01:07PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You do know that the Constitution recognises the existence of "natural" rights?

Yes. That's relevant, how?

I’m not saying (because I don’t know) if that was part of the Judge’s consideration; I’m just pointing out that your statements don’t display a grasp of the context.

So you're not claiming to know the context of the judge's decision, but you're berating me for not knowing the context of the judge's decision?

I’m glad that the Supreme Court have taken you into their confidence on this point.

I don't recall claiming that they did, but if you feel that misrepresenting my position is the best way to argue yours, feel free.

Do bear in mind that, from our perspective, you are the guy who, up to a few minutes ago, was emphatic that the High Court can't interpret the Constitution.We're now expected to accept your insight into how the Supreme Court approaches cases?

I've accepted that I was wrong about that, and I haven't asked you to accept anything. You claimed that the High Court judge's decision was based on an interpretation of an unenumerated constitutional right; you've also dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court might have taken a contrary view. Both these assertions seem to me to be based on nothing other than confirmation bias.

Can you state what problem this amendment is supposed to be curing?

It seems to be required for us to fully implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

gizmo555 · 25-09-2012 01:13PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems to be required for us to fully implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Seems to whom to be required? How is it that no similar amendment was needed, for example, to fully implement the European Convention on Human Rights? (This was done by way of an act of the Oireachtas.)

oscarBravo · 25-09-2012 01:44PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Seems to whom to be required?

To the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

http://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/IRLCONCOBS_0.pdf

What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

Comments