The Children Referendum

[Declan]

stopped just short of rejecting the Supreme Court decision

Still jealous of not getting his silks no doubt.

[boojangles]

I attended a Q and A in my college during the week on this referendum. There were 2 speakers, 1 from the Childrens Rights Alliance and the other from Spunout.ie. Both advocated a 'Yes' vote.  It's a Teacher training college so it didn't surprise me but the fact that it is a state institution I was slightly disappointed that the No side was not represented.

A few points I took from it. A few of us made the point about the State's record regarding child protection in the past and why should the State be trusted with more powers. Their response was that in most of those cases such as the Kilkenny or Roscommon cases the State's hands were tied by existing legislation whereby they couldn't intervene as much as they wanted.

To back up Billy Boots point, both speakers emphasised that this referendum if passed is only a step in the right direction towards fully protecting children and thatfuture legislation could sort out the difficulties if this was passed.

[Itchy]

Jesus christ its a simple yes. It gives kids the same rights as any other citizen. Its so straight forward that every party is in favour even the ones that normally go against everything. The only ones that can be dug up to argue against are right wing religious fruit cakes like Dana. Stop looking for a hidden agenda that's not there.

[rrhf]

Without belittling the topic if kids do get the vote could we see Barney and Iggle Piggle as the next Taoisige

[rrhf]

Itchy - Leave Dana alone.  O Neill will take that personally.

[BennyCake]

Don't let the politicians fool you. If they say it's a good thing, then it's bad. Surely you should all know that by now. They f**ked you over with the Lisbon thing, now they're doing it again. Vote No.

[Billys Boots]

why the hold up?

Em, the constitution. 

[Hardy]

I've informed myself as best I can (starting with throwing the Government booklet in the bin).

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
I think it's impossible to anticipate the unexpected or unintended effects of something like this, but I can't see anything specific to be concerned about, given that the clauses protecting the rights of the family and the position of parents as educators stay in place.

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
Uncertainty remains. I have no answer to this one.

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.
As a measure apparently designed to facilitate adoption, rather than institutionalisation of children, I don't think this amendment in itself necessarily increases the number of children who will be subjected to the tender mercies of state institutions unless there was a deliberate, bloody-minded intention to accomplish this, which I don't think exists.

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
This danger exists and we are reliant on the goodwill of the institutions of state to make sure it doesn't happen, which is not a healthy situation. However, the danger exists even without this amendment - the state can already forcibly remove children from their families, therefore it's not a reason in itself to reject this amendment.

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
I think I'm persuaded by the argument, as pointed out by Billy's Boots, that those who know the situation intimately, including virtually all organisations involved in child care, believe this amendment is needed to facilitate protective legislation and to allow the adoption of kids who are effectively in limbo because the current constitutional status of the family doesn't allow legislation to provide for it.

The argument about facilitating protective legislation that isn't possible without this change is the clincher for me. With all the reservations, I don't see a good enough reason to stand in the way of this. I know this amendment facilitates forced adoption, but I think the language of "exceptional circumstances", etc. is a  safeguard and, unfortunately, forced adoption is necessary in some cases.

It's tempting to give the government a good kick in the arse for their arrogance and presumption in how they've handled the campaign, but that wouldn't be right. So it's Yes for me.

[The Biff]

It's tempting to give the government a good kick in the arse for their arrogance and presumption in how they've handled the campaign, but that wouldn't be right. So it's Yes for me.

How ironic is it that the "good kick in the arse" came from Donegal, who show so little interest in kicking a football as opposed to slapping it around the field.   

From Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1112/1224326473352.html?via=rel

Jeez, the country lets them win an All-Ireland and they're still not happy up there.  Must be the weather.

My own view on the low turnout is that perceived confusion is no excuse for not voting.  If you did not vote, you have declared by your own actions that your own opinion does not count.  If anyone voted No as a "bash against the government", then it was a bad choice of Issue to choose as the weapon.

[AZOffaly]

Personally, I didn't vote because I was away from home, but in my opinion if you do not understand the issue, and by all accounts a lot of people found this confusing, you would have been right to not vote, or else vote no. It is the proponents' job to explain the proposal, and to explain why they are advocating the 'Yes' side. It appears to me that the strategy here was 'Ah sure look, it's for kids, who could vote against kids?'.

If we are changing the constitution, should there not be a quorum before the change? If the proponents have done such a bad job in explaining, or motivating people to vote, should we assume a simple first past the post is enough to change the constitution? I would think we should be looking at at least a 45% turnout before the result could be deemed conclusive.

[Hardy]

Donegal is just showing its true Ulsterness. Donegal says "NO!" Again. Somebody on the radio yesterday suggested they should secede.

[Hardy]

Anyway, once again, Gaaboard stands out as bizarrely unrepresentative of the community at large, returning a "Yes" majority of 10-1  among those entitled to vote who expressed a preference, while the electorate voted only 1.3-1 in favour. Interestingly, Gaaboarders who didn't have a vote were unanimously against the amendment. It was all based on a very small sample, though, which was the only point of convergence between Gaaboard and the wider electorate - the low turnout.

[magpie seanie]

I voted no because (1) I don't see what is so wrong with what is in he costitution in the first place; (2) I do not trust the people putting forward the proposal; (3) the Supreme Court ruling which underscores (2) should have meant a deferral of the referendum if democracy and the integrity of the process were important to everyone. There are only minor concerns to the powers that be. (4) I would assume this referendum result is open to legal challenge following the Supreme Court ruling that the information circulated was biased and misrepresented certain facts.

Shambles is the only word. How long is this referendum in the planning? Several years and still they fcuked it up. It's no wonder we're Europe's b1tch with these guys "fighting our corner".

[The Biff]

In my own opinion, I think that Supreme Court ruling in the so-called McKenna Case is a bit stupid.

Whether we like them or not, we elect politicians to become our Government.  We expect them to run the country and enact legislation to help in that process.  Of course the Government is supposed to have an opinion and we expect them to govern based on the majority who shares that opinion.

Isn't it a bit contradictory to expect any Government to promise to bring in an Constitutional Amendment, then put it forward for Referendum, and then have their own hands tied and not be able to tell us why we should vote for it?  On this occasion, I read some reports that many local radio stations had to avoid doing any coverage of the debate because they could not get anyone to represent the "No" side.

Constitutional Law is never going to be easy to understand.  That's why I expect those familiar with these areas to give guidance when decisions are required.  So when the most familiar Children's Charities (Barnardo's, ISPCC, Children's Rights Alliance) and The Children's Ombudsman all campaigned for a Yes vote, and all of the Main Political Parties, then I don't feel anyone can justifiably claim that they were not properly informed about this referendum.

[Hardy]

I disagree, Biff. The government is not precluded from promoting one side or the other in a referendum. It's just not allowed to spend state funds to do so. I think that's reasonable. The constitution belongs to the people, not the government. In fact, its purpose is to protect the people from bad government.

An obvious example of bad government would be a decision by government to amend the constitution in its own interest and against the interests of the people. There are examples of this - FF's serial attempts to abolish PR and the recent Oireachtas Enquiries referendum, for instance. It's not  hard to imagine worse examples being proposed by a government with a large majority.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a safeguard in law against such a government allocating large amounts of taxpayers' money in promoting such measures in opposition to the interests of the same taxpayers. Campaigns do work. If they didn't, politicians wouldn't be spending huge amounts of money on them and it would be quite easy for a government to ensure the passage of an undesirable constitutional amendment given unlimited recourse to public funds.

That arrogant imbecile, Shatter was attacking the McKenna judgement again yesterday, giving as an example of the problems with McKenna the hypothetical case of a referendum on paedophilia, where there would be no opposition. That's just about as stupid an argument from the particular to the general as it's possible to imagine. It's like saying no jury would convict a father for killing a potential killer who was attacking his child, therefore no killing should ever be considered a crime.