|
Post by April on Nov 4, 2012 17:46:43 GMT
Has anyone read the information regarding the children's referendum....? Is it just me or is it impossible to understand?
|
|
punch
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by punch on Nov 4, 2012 18:03:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joepublic on Nov 4, 2012 18:42:57 GMT
Even if you think you have the gist of it and it gets voted into the constitution then something will always come up to surprise you afterwards. Like all changes there will be advantages and disdvantages and only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Nov 4, 2012 20:30:47 GMT
Let's sum it up. There are two parts to this "Children's Referendum". The first part is to allegedly give children rights that they have apparently been denied right? Well not according to RETIRED JUDGE HUGH O’Flaherty. He states in the article below that all – or nearly all – of the objectives of the Amendment are to be found in our existing Constitution and that ordinary legislation or in court judgements, and the one that isn't can be dealt with by amending legislation. He is stating that the Constitutional changes are NOT needed to implement what is already provided for. They can simply make legislation to fix the issues that are outstanding right now. The Children's Rights are NOT enforced and that's a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM. Nothing at all to do with the Constitution. www.thejournal.ie/readme/no-campaign-childrens-referendum-649534-Oct2012/The second part is to do with adoptions. Now we have learned that there has been an Adoption Agency set up PRIOR to this referendum being passed, should it be passed. Don't you think that it's a lot of expense and hassle to set something up in the likelihood it doesn't pass? Why would they so confidently assume it would pass without risk and WHY is the YES side focussing on the red herring of the first part and not this? www.98fm.com/2011/category-news-sport/new-adoption-agency-being-set-up/Now think about the court challenge by Mark McCrystal today. He alleges that €1.1m of public money is being used to distribute material that is designed to influence the electorate to support the upcoming vote to amend the constitution. Why would this be allowed to happen? To swing the vote in favour. www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-told-referendum-material-is-persuasive-towards-yes-vote-572324.htmlSo what is the ultimate goal here? To save the state from having to support these children and allow them to be adopted by a private firm for a fee. It's a cost cutting exercise to save the state cash and possibly make some back at the same time.... Cllr Pat Kavanagh said that she is concerned there is an element of cost-cutting about the proposal.much in her interview with RTE. www.rte.ie/news/2012/1030/cllr-calls-for-no-vote-in-childrens-referendum.html You really need to put the pieces together folks. There is more here than is being let on...
|
|
|
Post by April on Nov 4, 2012 20:38:40 GMT
thanks for that sum up localy.... i did kinda smell a rat.... i was erring on the NO side but now I have made up my mind....
|
|
|
Post by joepublic on Nov 4, 2012 22:44:39 GMT
At the moment what happens to children who need protection from their parents? or who end up with no relatives to care for them?
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 4, 2012 22:49:17 GMT
Queenie. Hugh O'Flaherty is completely wrong. The supreme court had to forcibly return a 3 year old toddler to it's birth parents because the constitution places the rights of the "married parents" above those of the child. The parents had abandoned and abused the child when a baby. She was fostered and raised by the foster parents for three years. She flourished and regarded the foster parents as her parents. The birth parents then wanted her back because they had reformed. The cheif justice stated he could not consider the trauma to the child or any psychological damage to her as a result of it's forcible return to the birth parents because he had to consider the status of the birth parents in the constitution(ie. married). The child was subsequently returned to them. NO legislation can change this situation.The constitution has to be changed. Are you seriously telling me that in a modern society the horrific treatment of that toddler should be acceptable because of what the constitution says. If it is not passed many more such cases will happen. Think of a three year old you know. Imagine them being taken and given to someone they don't know. Horrific isn't it? www.barnardos.ie/ What ulterior motive do you think these guys have for a yes vote? www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/yes-for-childrens-rightsThese? www.onefamily.ie/press-releases/one-family-supports-yes-vote-call-with-childrens-rights-alliance/These? www.ispcc.ie/campaigns-lobbying/ispcc-campaigns/childrens-rights-referendum-nov-10th-2012/2013What about these? Are these all "up to something"? With regard to Mr. O'Flaherty. He's a retired judge. Do you suppose he went his entire career passing judgements and interpreting law without his decisions ever being appealed and over turned? You'd be very wrong if you do. He is not correct just because he's a judge. With regard to the set up of the new adoption agency you are way, way off the mark. It is a Hague convention adoption agency with the express aim of making inter country adoption easier. Got that? Inter country ie. Irish couples adopting FOREIGN children. It has NO bearing on Irish adoption. Your "pieces" all belong to different jigsaws. If you care about the vulnerable children in this country vote yes. Please think of that little child I wrote about earlier and when you do think of a three year old you know.
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 4, 2012 22:58:34 GMT
Oh, and one more thing. Ireland, through it's current constitution, is in blatant contravention of the UN Charter of Human Rights to which we are signatories. That is one of the the Govs major motivations for this.
|
|
|
Post by joepublic on Nov 4, 2012 23:51:44 GMT
Thanks eff80, nothing better than a real life example of how the law works at present.
In the e.g. you mention above there will always be people who will argue for both sides and depending on how good a case they put forward it can be very difficult for someone to decide one way or the other. The child in the middle is the important person but who can say for sure which result is best for the child in the long run. The parents might have reformed but if they were bad for the child before then there's a higher chance they will go off the rails again. It's never easy! I presume if the new legislation is adopted then in this same case the courts could decide to leave the child with adopted parents or send back to the natural parents. If so then some court cases could become very tedious. Any idea what the scenario would be if the law is changed?
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 5, 2012 0:31:15 GMT
Joe, if the proposed change is made, the Judge will be able to consider the the welfare of the child over the rights of the birth parents or vice versa. Tedious, maybe but considerably fairer to the child. If we get a yes then in the case I cited, the Judge would not be bound by the constitution to act in a manner detrimental to the childs welfare, he we would be bound to act to protect the child.
|
|
forester
Full Member
''yipee'' i'm through
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by forester on Nov 5, 2012 8:18:17 GMT
read this proposed change countless time's. will this effect separated parents.
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Nov 5, 2012 11:10:00 GMT
Both sides are very interesting to read... the no is not my opinion per se, it's something I was sent and I've sent it on.. but, it's going to take more than one opinion of each side to convince me what is the right choice.. nobody wants a child to suffer, but our states record to date is abysmal when it comes to protecting children. but, then again, not all parents are fit parents, so what do you do?
|
|
|
Post by joepublic on Nov 5, 2012 11:11:28 GMT
If we get a yes then in the case I cited, the Judge would not be bound by the constitution to act in a manner detrimental to the childs welfare, he we would be bound to act to protect the child. The judge can't look into the future and know the current ruling is detrimental to the child's welfare or not. The new ruling would give more options to the judge and hopefully a better outcome depending on the decision taken. The film Evelyn is loosely based around a real life story and the struggle with courts and children. In that case the wife left and being unemployed he struggled to look after the children. What chance would the father have had if the new law was in place then?
|
|
|
Post by sugarloves on Nov 5, 2012 12:38:21 GMT
still reading it, i on my second try but listening to radio talks and it does help a little.
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Nov 5, 2012 16:53:53 GMT
All you hear on the radio and tv is the Yes side.. so I don't think there is a good balance of information.. they are supposed to give equal funding to both sides, but they most certainly have not.. you'd have to wonder why?
|
|