What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

Ozymandius2011 · 17-10-2012 12:54AM

The problem now is the lofty, aspirational and vague terminology in Paragraph 1 about the "imprescriptible rights" of "all children". I won't vote to insert vague language into the Constitution only for unelected judges to decide what it means. The remaining paragraphs are fairly detailed so I would vote for them but Paragraph 1 is unacceptable. It will be invoked in asylum-cases and to stop parents disciplining unruly, anti-social teenagers.

oscarBravo · 17-10-2012 05:21AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

...Paragraph 1 is unacceptable. It will be invoked... to stop parents disciplining unruly, anti-social teenagers.

That presumes that children have an imprescriptible right to be unruly and anti-social. What makes you think they have such a right, or - more accurately - that judges (of all people) will decide that anyone has a right to be unruly and anti-social?

Ozymandius2011 · 17-10-2012 05:30AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That presumes that children have an imprescriptible right to be unruly and anti-social. What makes you think they have such a right, or - more accurately - that judges (of all people) will decide that anyone has a right to be unruly and anti-social?

No it assume that judges will interpret using corporal punishment to stop them being anti-social and unruly as a violation of their inprescriptible rights. As for what makes me assume what I have just said: the judiciary's string of suspended/soft sentences smacks of a soft-on-crime attitude to me, an the failure to impoe ASBOs which were supposed tackle the problem as likewise hardly a harbinger of good tidings ahead if we increase the power of the State over children.

oscarBravo · 17-10-2012 05:34AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

No it assume that judges will interpret using corporal punishment to stop them being anti-social and unruly as a violation of their inprescriptible rights.

So your argument is predicated on the assumption that the only way to prevent children being anti-social and unruly is to hit them.

We might have to agree to differ.

Ozymandius2011 · 17-10-2012 05:50AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your argument is predicated on the assumption that the only way to prevent children being anti-social and unruly is to hit them.

We might have to agree to differ.

I'm not saying that but I am saying that for the worst examples of anti-social behaviour corporal punishment should be allowed. I was a victim of anti-social adolescents for 3 years when in lived in a flat in town. I wondere where the parents were, and if the prevailing culture was deterring them to exerting reasonable chastisement to bring them under control.

When I say anti-social behaviour, I feel I need to be specific. I am not talking about children dropping sweet wrappers. I am talking about years of damage to private property by the same runts again and again who are emboldened because they are getting away with it. Where there is no deterrent anti social behaviour increases. Where is the deterrent to anti social behaviour at present? I think liberalism has gone far enough and perhaps too far. We don't want to return to parents thrashing their children, but neither do we want them out at all hours engaged in anti-social behaviour.

oscarBravo · 17-10-2012 05:55AM

I agree with you that anti-social behaviour is a problem; I disagree that corporal punishment is a requirement to prevent it. Preventing anti-social behaviour isn't best served by beating teenagers (or, as is increasingly the case, pre-teens) as punishment for what they've done wrong. It requires responsible parenting from a young age, including the setting of boundaries.

The bottom line is: if your major objection to this amendment is that it might prevent parents from beating their children, then it's possible you've missed the point of the exercise in a spectacular way.

Ozymandius2011 · 17-10-2012 05:57AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I agree with you that anti-social behaviour is a problem; I disagree that corporal punishment is a requirement to prevent it. Preventing anti-social behaviour isn't best served by beating teenagers (or, as is increasingly the case, pre-teens) as punishment for what they've done wrong. It requires responsible parenting from a young age, including the setting of boundaries.

The bottom line is: if your major objection to this amendment is that it might prevent parents from beating their children, then it's possible you've missed the point of the exercise in a spectacular way.

I'm not talking about thrashing their children but rather reasonable levels of force such as slapping.

You mention the setting of boundaries. This is part of that as far as I am concerned because the liberal culture is not addressing the problem. We have gone from being too culturally conservative to too culturally liberal. Part of the problem is that many of the parents are children themselves.

To see where I'm coming from I wish to outline some of my experiences of anti-social behaviour in 2005-8:

- being hit in the face by two children throwing fitfuls of stones at me after I confronted them for turning over my motorbike.
- My windows broken by crowds of children turning up outside my door several days a week around 10pm with weapons including knives and hurls.
- The outer pane of my double-glazed sliding door of the back of my flat being smashed in the early hours of the morning by a teenager wearing a baseball cap, sun glasses and a scarf around his mouth highwayman-style.
- The glass of my front door smashed in.
- My motorcycles smashed countless times after I refused to hand it over to teenagers.

All the Gardai would do is talk to the parents. This does not inspire confidence in how the State would exercise the increase powers given to it should the amendment pass.

James Jones · 17-10-2012 02:03PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Boulevardier wrote: »

It may be that the social workers knew that baby Ann was happy with the foster parents and that leaving her with them was in her best interests.

Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

Actually,there is. Judge Hardiman also had this to say about the actions of the social workers dealing with the natural parents:

They [the prospective adoptive parents] also had the advantage of knowing the social worker who was working with the natural parents. This is revealed in the judgment of Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman.

He referred to the fact that the social worker assigned to the natural parents had a connection with the adoptive couple which "clouded their relationship".

Judge Hardiman said: "It transpired that the proposed adopters, and in particular the lady, were known to certain of the social workers involved, including the social worker assigned to the natural parents. Considerations of anonymity make it undesirable to say precisely how this came about, but there is considerable evidence that it came to cloud their relationship with the practitioner [social worker] and others.

A number of commentators speaking in favour of the amendment have talked about a supposed "chilling effect" that the present constitutional provisions on children and the family have on social workers. I would be very fearful that if the amendment is passed, the opposite will become true - that it will be seen as carte blanche for an activist approach for social workers to play God with children's lives in the way which was attempted in this case.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I do not share this fear of social workers. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

A well-resourced and activist social service is, in my view, crucial for child protection in modern Ireland, and if this referendum opens the way to that, then lets have it.

And you still maintain this position even after being told that Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman referred to the fact that the social worker assigned to the natural parents had a connection with the adoptive couple which "clouded their relationship"???
Remember, the entire "YES" campaign hinges on a number of cases such as Baby Ann as well as the Roscommon Incest case where the failings were by the Social Workers involved rather than the restriction of the Constitution.

oscarBravo · 17-10-2012 03:52PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm not talking about thrashing their children but rather reasonable levels of force such as slapping.

I understand your point; I'm disagreeing with it because I think you're wrong, not because I don't understand what you're trying to say.

You feel that corporal punishment will reduce anti-social behaviour, but evidence suggests that corporal punishment is a factor in producing anti-social behaviour.

You mention the setting of boundaries. This is part of that as far as I am concerned because the liberal culture is not addressing the problem. We have gone from being too culturally conservative to too culturally liberal. Part of the problem is that many of the parents are children themselves.

I don't disagree with much of that. I've seen some pretty terrible behaviour from children whose parents refuse to set boundaries for them. I've also seen some pretty terrible behaviour from children whose parents slap them when they transgress instead of putting the effort into educating their kids on how to be better people.

Giving children explicitly-enumerated rights isn't going to make them worse people. It's probably not going to make them better people either; that's up to their parents (and, to an extent, society).

To see where I'm coming from I wish to outline some of my experiences of anti-social behaviour in 2005-8:

- being hit in the face by two children throwing fitfuls of stones at me after I confronted them for turning over my motorbike.
- My windows broken by crowds of children turning up outside my door several days a week around 10pm with weapons including knives and hurls.
- The outer pane of my double-glazed sliding door of the back of my flat being smashed in the early hours of the morning by a teenager wearing a baseball cap, sun glasses and a scarf around his mouth highwayman-style.
- The glass of my front door smashed in.
- My motorcycles smashed countless times after I refused to hand it over to teenagers.

I genuinely sympathise with your problems, but how do you know that (a) the children involved have never been subject to corporal punishment, and (b) that hitting them would make them stop?

You don't think that exposing children to violence from an early age simply teaches them that violence is an acceptable means of achieving their desired outcome?

All the Gardai would do is talk to the parents. This does not inspire confidence in how the State would exercise the increase powers given to it should the amendment pass.

I'm not sure the argument that we shouldn't give the state the power to help children in case it doesn't use it is a compelling one.

Boulevardier · 17-10-2012 03:55PM

I think that prejudice against social workers is being deliberately used by no-voters to turn this into a "parents vs social workers" referendum.

The vast majority of social workers are professional and committed. I have no problem with them being given the powers they have said they need to help children in distress.

I am getting a bit impatient with people who are in effect calling for the constitution to be kept as it is, in spite of the definite views of the overwhelming majority of those involved with the welfare of children, who support this amendment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 17-10-2012 05:34PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I think that prejudice against social workers is being deliberately used by no-voters to turn this into a "parents vs social workers" referendum.

No, we're simply pointing out that the appeal to authority invoked by "Yes" voters is invalid, as the issue is one about the need to contain authority.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am getting a bit impatient with people who are in effect calling for the constitution to be kept as it is, in spite of the definite views of the overwhelming majority of those involved with the welfare of children, who support this amendment.

Should I claim equal impatience? I've yet to come across a "Yes" voter on these threads with the capacity to explain what problem they think this amendment solves.

Whether you like it or not (and it seems that's a "not"), the reasons put forward by your "overwhelming majority" fall apart under scrutiny. That might make you feel impatient. It should actually make you worried enough to think again.

Wexfordian · 18-10-2012 01:02PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem now is the lofty, aspirational and vague terminology in Paragraph 1 about the "imprescriptible rights" of "all children". I won't vote to insert vague language into the Constitution only for unelected judges to decide what it means. The remaining paragraphs are fairly detailed so I would vote for them but Paragraph 1 is unacceptable. It will be invoked in asylum-cases and to stop parents disciplining unruly, anti-social teenagers.

As opposed to the current

"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."

?

Ozymandius2011 · 18-10-2012 01:11PM

Wexfordian wrote: »

As opposed to the current

"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."

?

Different context. The existing wording frames it in the context of the removal of a child from their parents, whereas the new wording does not.

James Jones · 18-10-2012 02:32PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I think that prejudice against social workers is being deliberately used by no-voters to turn this into a "parents vs social workers" referendum.

The vast majority of social workers are professional and committed. I have no problem with them being given the powers they have said they need to help children in distress.

I am getting a bit impatient with people who are in effect calling for the constitution to be kept as it is, in spite of the definite views of the overwhelming majority of those involved with the welfare of children, who support this amendment.

If the vast majority of social workers are professional and committed, why is the "YES" side relying on cases where the Social Workers failed in their duty, namely the Baby Ann case and the Roscommon Incest case?

If the vast majority of social workers are professional and committed, why can't we be given cases where they could not do their job specifically because of the Constitution?

ciarafem · 18-10-2012 06:06PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, we're simply pointing out that the appeal to authority invoked by "Yes" voters is invalid, as the issue is one about the need to contain authority.Should I claim equal impatience? I've yet to come across a "Yes" voter on these threads with the capacity to explain what problem they think this amendment solves.

Whether you like it or not (and it seems that's a "not"), the reasons put forward by your "overwhelming majority" fall apart under scrutiny. That might make you feel impatient. It should actually make you worried enough to think again.

The Yes side have based everything on appeals to authority - Barnardos are for it - and appeals to emotion - wayne dignam's adoption story.

No mention of Daniel McAnaspie http://www.campaignforchildren.ie/theissues/casestudies/daniel-mcanaspie-19932010/ or Tracey Fay http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0621/ireland/tracey-fay-concerns-ignored-198188.html .

In both of these cases where the State was 'parent' they died. Consequently they will never appear at the launch of a yes campaign for a political party.

Once again I would direct you to http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey . It contains the only discussion of what the amendment could entail, and convinced me to vote no.

steddyeddy · 18-10-2012 06:09PM

ciarafem wrote: »

The Yes side have based everything on appeals to authority - Barnardos are for it - and appeals to emotion - wayne dignam's adoption story.

No mention of Daniel McAnaspie http://www.campaignforchildren.ie/theissues/casestudies/daniel-mcanaspie-19932010/ or Tracey Fay http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0621/ireland/tracey-fay-concerns-ignored-198188.html .

In both of these cases where the State was 'parent' they died. Consequently they will never appear at the launch of a yes campaign for a political party.

Once again I would direct you to http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey . It contains the only discussion of what the amendment could entail, and convinced me to vote no.

Well your letting the Irish cycle of doing nothing in the face of abuse continue based on a frankly weak arguement.

oscarBravo · 18-10-2012 06:54PM

ciarafem wrote: »

The Yes side have based everything on appeals to authority - Barnardos are for it...

Waving that aside as merely an appeal to authority is just a way of avoiding an in-depth discussion on the topic.

I've been told there is no reason to amend the constitution in this way. In response, I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required. That question was met with the online equivalent of a shrug and a "dunno", which doesn't exactly suggest an openness to understanding where the other side is coming from.

Once again I would direct you to http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey . It contains the only discussion of what the amendment could entail...

The only discussion?

Seriously?!

ciarafem · 18-10-2012 06:54PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well your letting the Irish cycle of doing nothing in the face of abuse continue based on a frankly weak arguement.

Both of these unfortunate children were in the 'care' of the HSE. Art. 42.5 gave the State the authority to intervene and take these children into care.

The new amendment would not have brought about a different situation in these 2 cases - state intervention.

The problem that children like these 2 face today is not any constitution imperdiment - it is a state that engages in rhetoric but does do anything to provide adequate care for children who need it.

Just as with the Industrial schools the State today takes the unfortunate children and hands them over to the HSE, which has taken over the role of the religious institution when it comes to abuse such as that suffered by Daniel and Tracey.

All the referendum will do is increase the number of unfortunate children who are ordered into state care by the courts.

ciarafem · 18-10-2012 07:04PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Waving that aside as merely an appeal to authority is just a way of avoiding an in-depth discussion on the topic.

I've been told there is no reason to amend the constitution in this way. In response, I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required. That question was met with the online equivalent of a shrug and a "dunno", which doesn't exactly suggest an openness to understanding where the other side is coming from. The only discussion?

Seriously?!

Yes the only serious discussion of the possible unintended consequences of the wording.

Barnardos have a conflict of interest in this matter. Currently 65% of its funding comes from the state - a good proportion of it from is guardian ad litem work. This revenue will increase if the amendment is passed.

As the document http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal points out proposed Art 42A.1 changes everything. Up to this Art. 42.5 allowed the state to intervene, but only following a failure by the parents in their duty of care for 'physical or moral reasons. If A then B.

With a new 42A.1 there is no if A then B. There is only B when it comes to 42A.1 - so the State can then get involved in families that are intact and not dysfunctional (i.e not exceptional cases) by becoming the arbitrator between parents and children in family disputes in in camera courts.

oscarBravo · 18-10-2012 08:19PM

ciarafem wrote: »

With a new 42A.1 there is no if A then B. There is only B when it comes to 42A.1 - so the State can then get involved in families that are intact and not dysfunctional (i.e not exceptional cases)...

42A 2. 1° 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.

This would appear to directly contradict your assertion.

ciarafem · 18-10-2012 08:27PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

This would appear to directly contradict your assertion.

You need to look at 42A.1 and Articles 12 to 17 of the UN Convention on Children's Rights.

Better still read the Legal Analysis and you will understand the point - if there is a conflict between parents and (teenage) children then this may end up being adjudicated upon by a judge in an in camera court.

This is the fundamental problem - it will no longer be 'exceptional' cases. It will be 'best interests of the child' conflict cases in intact and functioning families. That is why people should be very concerned.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal

oscarBravo · 18-10-2012 08:51PM

ciarafem wrote: »

You need to look at 42A.1...

That's a restatement of the sentiment already expressed in the existing Article 42.5. There's nothing radical or new there.

...and Articles 12 to 17 of the UN Convention on Children's Rights.

OK, let's look at those:

12: A child gets to have an input into legal proceedings concerning him or her.

13: A child has freedom of expression.

14: A child has freedom of conscience.

15: A child has freedom of association.

16: A child has a right to privacy.

17: A child has a right to freely access information.

I'm not getting how these are such dreadful things that our children need to be protected from them.

This is the fundamental problem - it will no longer be 'exceptional' cases.

You can keep repeating that, but that won't remove the language from the proposed amendment that explicitly states that only in exceptional cases will the state intervene.

Basically what you're saying is that there's a possible interpretation of 42A.1 that could possibly mean that the state will routinely interfere in families, and that the explicit statement to the contrary in 42A.2.1 somehow doesn't carry any weight.

I'm not finding that a convincing argument, I'm afraid.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 18-10-2012 09:18PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well your letting the Irish cycle of doing nothing in the face of abuse continue based on a frankly weak arguement.

Nope, just requiring that the proposal be related to the solution of some problem. A perfectly reasonable position.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Waving that aside as merely an appeal to authority is just a way of avoiding an in-depth discussion on the topic.

Nope, it is an accurate description of what it is.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've been told there is no reason to amend the constitution in this way. In response, I asked why Barnardos, the ISPCC, the Rape Crisis Centres, Educate Together and a hundred-odd other organisations who concern themselves with the rights of children believe that an amendment was required. That question was met with the online equivalent of a shrug and a "dunno", which doesn't exactly suggest an openness to understanding where the other side is coming from.

This is a distortion of the situation; what you’ve been invited to do is to display some understanding of what the alleged problem is that this amendment solves. The arguments advanced by this coalition of groups have already been exposed as meaningless, earlier on this thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

http://www.yesforchildren.ie/getinformed/voteyes.html

1. It will provide the highest level of legal protection to vulnerable children and their families.

This point is frequently justified by claiming the constitution requires that it be proven that married parents have "failed" before the State can intervene. But, actually, the Courts do overrule Jehovah's Witnesses to allow transfusions for their children, while accepting that the same parents are diligent and are not failing.

2. It will allow the almost 2000 [edit:marital] children trapped in long term state care to be adopted and given a second chance at having a loving stable family.

Adoption of non-family members is quite rare nowadays, so this reason is a complete red herring - the overwelming majority of non-marital children are not adopted either. I'd expect the Children's Rights Alliance would be composed of people who jolly well know this, making this argument particularly cynical and manipulative.

3. This referendum is a statement of intent - it says who we are as a country and how we value children - for too long children have been seen and not heard and their welfare ignored.

Firstly, the Constitution is not an advertising hoarding and should not be used as such. Secondly, the historical problem had nothing to do with Constitutional failings blocking State intervention. The wide-scale abuse of children in State-funded institutions was, lets recall, about the abuse of children already in State care.

4. This referendum will ensure the best interest of children is the primary concern in judicial decisions.

The cases normally cited on this point (I don't know if the CRA use them - but others certainly have) are the PKU case and the Baby Ann case. The PKU case requires doctors to obtain consent from rational parents when administering routine medical treatment to children. That strikes me as a necessary check in the system. Doctors cannot just force whatever treatment they like on adults; there has to be some equivalent for children, and the parents (if rational, as they are in the overwhelming majority of cases) seem an obvious choice. As per Jehovah's Witness, it's already clear that even rational, caring parents can be overruled if they make gonzo decisions.

Baby Ann required the return of a two year old child, put up for adoption, to her natural parents. It would strike me as grotesque if the State refused the return of a child to her natural parents; picture yourself explaining to that same child, twenty years later, that she could have been raised by her real parents.

Sort of illustrates the problem of accepting the demands for a group of service providers to be exempted from liability for their mistakes.

trashcan · 18-10-2012 09:25PM

conorhal wrote: »

The real problem as I see it, is that this referendum is not about the rights of a child, it's about the rights of the state and how much control it is entitled to wrest from parents.

There is in my opinion no requirement for the referendum, it's never been legal to physically, sexually or through neglect abuse a child.
We have a plethora of laws on the statute books that we typically never bother enforcing and if we actually enforced them and were determined fund propper care systems for children (the HSE and it's 9-5 Monday to Friday care services are a joke), 99% of the problems faced by children would dissapear overnight.
I'm pretty sure that if the referendum is passed that not a jot will change on the ground for vunerable at risk children, but, you know, a bunch of self satisfied Laborites will get to feel good about themselves.

Nail on the head for me. Agree 100% So much legislation is just politicians trying to look like they're doing something. Meanwhile we don't enforce half the laws that are actually there.

ciarafem · 18-10-2012 09:42PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

2. It will allow the almost 2000 [edit:marital] children trapped in long term state care to be adopted and given a second chance at having a loving stable family.

There are 6000 children in care - 2000 with married parents, so therefore 4000 with unmarried parents.

According to Adoption Board figures 16 were adopted out of long term foster care - unmarried parents

(6/20)*16 is equal to 5 that could possible be adopted from married parents.

Big difference between the 2000 claim and the reality of 5. Childern's Rights can not be believed.

Parents who adopt want young babies. 90% of children in care are over 12 years old.

oscarBravo · 18-10-2012 10:46PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Nope, it is an accurate description of what it is.

And that's just a repetition of the waving away. I get that it's easier to pretend that there are no arguments in favour of a proposal that you oppose than to engage those arguments, but I don't find that pretence convincing.

This is a distortion of the situation; what you’ve been invited to do is to display some understanding of what the alleged problem is that this amendment solves. The arguments advanced by this coalition of groups have already been exposed as meaningless, earlier on this thread.

Well, no. Some of the arguments put forward have been exposed as ones you disagree with, and I (for one) have disagreed with much of the basis on which you've disagreed with them.

If you want to conflate "I disagree with this" and "this is meaningless", feel free, but don't expect me to join in.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 19-10-2012 12:20AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that's just a repetition of the waving away. I get that it's easier to pretend that there are no arguments in favour of a proposal that you oppose than to engage those arguments, but I don't find that pretence convincing.

This is quite a strange comment. I have engaged with the CRA arguments, and shown how they are deficient. The deficiencies are not just matters of opinion. In the case of their second proposition, the deficiency is even quantifiable - as ciarafem has done for us.

You are actually the one who refuses to engage with the substance of the matter; you are actually the one "waving away", as you put it, through your refusal to engage with any issues. All you say is that you are sure that folk like Barnardos must have some point.

And that's just not good enough.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you want to conflate "I disagree with this" and "this is meaningless", feel free, but don't expect me to join in.

Not waving but drowning.

oscarBravo · 19-10-2012 02:48AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All you say is that you are sure that folk like Barnardos must have some point.

Actually, I used what could be (and has been) described as an argument from authority to point out that it's not a convincing argument to claim that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to amend the constitution when a hundred-odd organisations who are involved, to a greater or lesser extent, with the welfare of children say that there is.

There generally needs to be a pretty convincing argument to go against an overwhelming consensus. Your argument is, in essence, that another consensus was wrong and therefore no consensus can ever be trusted again, and as such the reason why there's such a strong consensus in this case doesn't even bear considering.

forex · 19-10-2012 03:20PM

16: A child has a right to privacy.

I guess the point is that if you have many kids and not every kid has own room you, as a parent violate his right and your child can be taken from you as soon as social worker will find out about it ...

17: A child has a right to freely access information.

If you don't let your child to watch adult movies - you violate his rights and so on ...

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a restatement of the sentiment already expressed in the existing Article 42.5. There's nothing radical or new there. OK, let's look at those:

12: A child gets to have an input into legal proceedings concerning him or her.
13: A child has freedom of expression.
14: A child has freedom of conscience.
15: A child has freedom of association.
16: A child has a right to privacy.
17: A child has a right to freely access information.

I'm not getting how these are such dreadful things that our children need to be protected from them. ......................

oscarBravo · 19-10-2012 03:30PM

forex wrote: »

I guess the point is that if you have many kids and not every kid has own room you, as a parent violate his right and your child can be taken from you as soon as social worker will find out about it ...

Really?

You think the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wants every child who shares a bedroom to be taken into state care?

If you don't let your child to watch adult movies - you violate his rights and so on ...

...and while in state care, they will be fed a steady diet of hardcore porn.

Are we running a competition for the craziest possible interpretation of the CRC, or what?

What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

Comments