The Children Referendum

[Hardy]

 I haven't made up my mind yet about how I'll vote in the referendum, because I haven't thought about it or read the issues. One thing I do know is that if I don't get the time to do those things, I won't vote. Contrary to the generally held view and the exhortations of the Referendum Commission to vote in any case, I think it's wrong to vote if you haven't informed yourself on the issue.

On the face of it, it seems an obviously positive development. Who could object to safeguarding the rights of children? But, of course, things are never that simple. The conferring of rights on one group can affect the rights of another. And the law of unintended effects stalks all constitutional amendments. There is also the consideration that this may be nothing but window-dressing, deflecting attention from the need to put concrete measures in place for the benefit of children at risk.

At this stage, a few questions have arisen that I haven't considered to decision stage, so I'd be interested on any perspective on offer here.

1. Does the assertion of the rights of the child imply a diminution of the rights of the parent? If so, is this something to be concerned about?

2. There is no definition of "child" in the constitution and, from what I can gather, the law is ambiguous on the matter. Does this create a whole new theatre of conflict in the abortion debate?

3. How does it make sense to strengthen the power of the state to intervene in the lives of children given the state's appalling record in this area, with revelations of abuse and neglect even still being perpetrated?

4. The proposed amendment empowers the state to intervene when (as defined by a law or laws yet to be specified) it decides that a parent or parents have failed in their duty to their child(ren). Is there potential for abuse here? For instance, what if the state were to decide that extreme poverty that prevents a parent from providing adequate nutrition for a child is a failure of parental duty and that the consequence should be removal of the child from parental care, rather than providing the parent with the requisite financial support?

5. Do we need a constitutional amendment? What will it achieve that could not be achieved by effective legislation and, whatever its achievement, would it be outweighed by the potential (and perhaps unforeseen) dangers to rights and liberties that it might introduce?

I've put up a poll. It will be interesting to see how Gaaboard opinion compares with that of the country at large. (I've set the "change vote" option, so you can vote "undecided" now and change your vote if you decide.

[Declan]

My position is scaringly similar to that Hardy and those are the very questions I've asked of those people advocating a "yes" vote. For what it's worth here's my take on it

1. Does the assertion of the rights of the child imply a diminution of the rights of the parent? If so, is this something to be concerned about? I don't know but I'm always wary of defining "rights" to any explicit group because that by it's very nature excludes others

2. There is no definition of "child" in the constitution and, from what I can gather, the law is ambiguous on the matter. Does this create a whole new theatre of conflict in the abortion debate? The unmentionable word but again anyone I've asked gives you a different answer depending on their position on abortion. so again uncertainty abounds

3. How does it make sense to strengthen the power of the state to intervene in the lives of children given the state's appalling record in this area, with revelations of abuse and neglect even still being perpetrated? It doesn't make sense. There is enough evidence to say we should be limiting the state's ability to intervene given their track record in not implementing existing legislation that gives them the ability to intervene.

4. The proposed amendment empowers the state to intervene when (as defined by a law or laws yet to be specified) it decides that a parent or parents have failed in their duty to their child(ren). Is there potential for abuse here? For instance, what if the state were to decide that extreme poverty that prevents a parent from providing adequate nutrition for a child is a failure of parental duty and that the consequence should be removal of the child from parental care, rather than providing the parent with the requisite financial support? That is one interpretation that has been mentioned by those campaigning against the referendum that has been dismissed as scaremongering by the yes side. When people bring up stories from our inglorious past of exactly that happening by over zealous clerics and ably assisted by a kow towing police force and judiciary it's easy to make the argument that the new "elite" would do exactly the same given the opportunity

5. Do we need a constitutional amendment? What will it achieve that could not be achieved by effective legislation and, whatever its achievement, would it be outweighed by the potential (and perhaps unforeseen) dangers to rights and liberties that it might introduce? To me this is the kernel of the issue. I haven't been persuaded by the people who want this referendum that it's actually needed at all hence my inclination today is to vote against it

[Billys Boots]

I understand that the 'difficulty' posed in bringing 'protective' legislation for children, in the recent past, has been stated to have been the 'barriers' posed by the constitution.  I may be wrong, but that's my understanding. 

Mrs. Boots has worked in a childcare environment for the entirity of her career; including a lengthy stint in the inner-city in Dublin.  She had many of the same 'difficulties' mentioned by Hardy and Declan, so she contacted a former social worker she knew that she'd a lot of time for.  He said that he'd the same difficulties as discussed, but that his view was that this removed the constitutional barriers to framing and changing (if it isn't effective) any future 'protective' legislation, so he'd support it 100%.  His view was that (future) legislation could sort out the difficulties if this was passed; it couldn't if this wasn't in place. 

[Jonah]

I saw John Waters on the Frontline show the other night telling us to vote NO so thats good enough reason for me to vote YES.

[Shamrock Shore]

I am quite hesitant to vote yes cos I can see down the road constitutional chaos that could ensue from some of the more vague words in the proposed amendment.

All I can think of is the infamous 1982 referendum on abortion (or was it 1983).

Anyhoo as my 9 year old usually joins me in the ballot box how can I vote 'No' as she was horrified the other day over dinner when I said I might vote 'No'. "How can you be anti-children" she asked.

If I vote 'No' on Saturday I may not be forgiven.

However I do forsee chaos down the road.

On the other hand on the 'No' side at the moment is John Waters, Katy Synnott and Dana.

On the other other hand anything that has Alan Shatter's paw prints on it is bound to end in tears.

[BennyCake]

A definite No.

But it doesn't matter what the people think, cos they'll rig it again. Just like they did with the Lisbon treaty.

[AZOffaly]

I understand that the 'difficulty' posed in bringing 'protective' legislation for children, in the recent past, has been stated to have been the 'barriers' posed by the constitution.  I may be wrong, but that's my understanding. 

Mrs. Boots has worked in a childcare environment for the entirity of her career; including a lengthy stint in the inner-city in Dublin.  She had many of the same 'difficulties' mentioned by Hardy and Declan, so she contacted a former social worker she knew that she'd a lot of time for.  He said that he'd the same difficulties as discussed, but that his view was that this removed the constitutional barriers to framing and changing (if it isn't effective) any future 'protective' legislation, so he'd support it 100%.  His view was that (future) legislation could sort out the difficulties if this was passed; it couldn't if this wasn't in place. 

Jaysus Billy, I think you broke my record for air quotes in a single post

[Declan]

but that his view was that this removed the constitutional barriers to framing and changing (if it isn't effective) any future 'protective' legislation, so he'd support it 100%.  His view was that (future) legislation could sort out the difficulties if this was passed; it couldn't if this wasn't in place.

That's something that I haven't heard before

[magpie seanie]

The State hasn't exactly got a pristine record in looking after Children, has it?

I'm like Hardy, will need to inform myself before I vote. However, I strongly disagree with the assertion that if you are not informed you don't vote. In that scemario you should always vote no to protect the constitution. It is up to those proposing the amendmanet to convince you to accept.

[Billys Boots]

but that his view was that this removed the constitutional barriers to framing and changing (if it isn't effective) any future 'protective' legislation, so he'd support it 100%.  His view was that (future) legislation could sort out the difficulties if this was passed; it couldn't if this wasn't in place.

That's something that I haven't heard before

Well the guy involved has been pushing to put protective legislation in place for children for 25 years.  I'm just the messenger here with no idea if what he's saying is correct. 

[Shamrock Shore]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Government spending of public money on an information campaign on the Children's Referendum was not fair, impartial or equal.

The court held that the information in leaflets and on a website did not conform to the required principles laid down by a landmark judgment, known as the McKenna judgment.

The principles prohibit the use of public funds to promote a particular outcome in a referendum.

The court ruled that extensive passages in the booklet and on the website did not conform to these principles. The material also included a misstatement.

It granted a declaration that the State acted wrongfully in spending public money on the website, information booklets and advertisements in relation to the referendum.

However, it did not grant an injunction as the court assumed the State will stop distributing and publishing the material.

The case was taken by Mark McCrystal of Kilbarrack Road in Dublin who claimed the Government was wrongly using €1.1m of public funds to promote a Yes vote, something which was not allowed under the McKenna Judgment.

The Government had denied the information campaign was biased towards a Yes vote.

The case was given priority by the Supreme Court as the referendum takes place on Saturday.

The full reasons for the decision will be given next month.

The link to the Children's Referendum website, www.childrensreferendum.ie, is no longer active

[Declan]

Can we get anything right?

[Shamrock Shore]

No Declan.

Personally I wouldn't put Alan Shatter in charge of making the tea.

[Billys Boots]

I would have thought that subsequent to the McKenna judgement that this would be the very first thing the Referendum Commission (and in this case the Dept. of Justice) would sort out in their 'plan'.  But I'd forgotten that there were public servants involved - stupid me. 

[Hardy]

No Declan.

Personally I wouldn't put Alan Shatter in charge of making the tea.

Did anyone hear the arrogant tube on the 1:00 news? He couldn't be brought to express even the mildest regret at the debacle, sought to blame everyone but the government for it, said it was the "No" campaign that was disseminating misinformation and stopped just short of rejecting the Supreme Court decision.