|
Post by joepublic on Nov 5, 2012 20:25:24 GMT
The Catholic Alive magazine claims the children will end up with too many rights and parents will lose much control. E.G. -> Teenager - "Mammy/daddy I'm joining the Scientology group". parents - "like fcuk you are". teenager - "there's f'all you can do about it as it's allowed in the constitution". ( I made up that example so don't fully blame Alive but it's what they indicate ) Another E.G. is to do with freedom of expression to say and write what they like. The magazine claims it will make children easier targets for paedophiles due to uncensored internet access etc.
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 6, 2012 0:26:01 GMT
Joe. The same rag contained the attached "kids section". Disgraceful muck of a rag. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by joepublic on Nov 6, 2012 0:46:53 GMT
That's a "lovely" story for the kids section. If it was picked up in some obscure part of the internet then I'd pay no attention but in the context of this magazine that's a bit gross.
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 6, 2012 0:48:17 GMT
Alive magazine?! Are you serious Joe? If I must.... Children will have EQUAL rights, not more. Your example would not arise. It does not concern the welfare of a child. Freedom of expression has absolutely fcuk all to to with the proposed amendment. Alives version of freedom of expression is to peddle disgusting crap to children ( see above). Uncensored internet access? What planet are these people on. We already have this. Again, it has fcuk all to do with the proposed amendment. I say it again. Why are all the children's charities calling for a yes vote? Queenie, the reason you don't hear much in the media for no is because most of the available commentators want a yes vote. If you actually read the referendum commission info you would see they simply state the facts, as they are bound to do in law.
|
|
|
Post by joepublic on Nov 7, 2012 0:10:11 GMT
I do agree the Alive magazine can over dramatise things a bit and see angles that are off the scale. It's up to us to wade through the murky waters and seek out reality or just common sense. The courts don't follow common sense where the law gets in the way so we have to make the best stab we can given the facts and non facts presented.
|
|
|
Post by April on Nov 8, 2012 18:10:12 GMT
well....... that just proves my thoughts on this referendum.... government illegally using taxpayers money for the Yes vote.....
I am definitely voting NO.... this country is wants total power over every thing and every one.... no way....
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Nov 8, 2012 18:21:02 GMT
No matter who wants what eff80, they are supposed to give the same amount to both sides of the argument... when they don't you have to wonder why..
|
|
howya
Junior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by howya on Nov 8, 2012 21:01:10 GMT
Catholic Alive magazine warning against pedophilia? Yeah, I hear you. My weekly subscription to Hedgehog's Monthly arrived, and it warned me to steer clear of porcupines, due to their prickliness. A poor attempt at humor, but it's just an effort to disguise my disgust (or disgust my disguise?) at this publication's distorted view of reality.
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 9, 2012 0:11:06 GMT
Ah now. Well holy moley. The high court said it wasn't, the supreme court says it was. Well, the supreme court ruling renders all arguments, for or against, moot. The referendum commission info stands but it is now tainted by this judgement. In my opinion the gov should make emergency legislation to post pone the referendum. If they do not, and it is passed, I would bet my house it will be struck down in a constitutional challenge taken on foot of todays ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Nov 9, 2012 9:45:23 GMT
the civil servant responsible for all that should be fired.. So, in a referendum no information for or against should be given.. just the bald facts.. told you they were hell bent on a yes vote.. Every last one of them are lying thieving crooks to the very core.. I wouldn't trust them to do anything by the book Nobody should vote tomorrow, and then redo the whole thing in the new year
|
|
june
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by june on Nov 9, 2012 11:10:42 GMT
the civil servant responsible for all that should be fired.. So, in a referendum no information for or against should be given.. just the bald facts.. told you they were hell bent on a yes vote.. Every last one of them are lying thieving crooks to the very core.. I wouldn't trust them to do anything by the book Nobody should vote tomorrow, and then redo the whole thing in the new year I'm sure it wasn't one particular Civil Servant that was responsible. But when Dana came out and recommended a 'No Vote', that made up my mind for me I'm voting 'Yes'.
|
|
eff80
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by eff80 on Nov 9, 2012 13:18:55 GMT
Lol, love it June. Queenie. Read what I wrote again. The referendum commission info is clear an un-biased. It was that to which I referred. As for your civil servant. The govs own info was drafted by civil servants, cabinet ministers and thier advisors, all in conjuctuction with the AG. The high court disagreed. Upshot? It is far from cut and dried and is largely subjective. Are you saying the attorney general is a dishonest crook?
|
|
june
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by june on Nov 9, 2012 13:58:27 GMT
From what it said on the News (9pm), Francis Fitzgerald herself was involved in drawing up the wording. I don't doubt her sincerity. She is a former social worker and a mother of three.
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Nov 9, 2012 15:41:20 GMT
Are you saying the attorney general is a dishonest crook? The state recognises the rights of all children... what rights? we are not told. Who will decide on these rights? the state.. parents will have no say, so it will deprive the parents of the right to protect their children from danger. In cases where the parents fail in their duty to protect their children, the state will try to take the place of the parents!!!!! The lack of clarity in all this is deliberate, it means a social worker can invade any home at any time with total authority and remove a child for it's own welfare, with full state backing.. Considering all the past examples of State care, I think I'll pass thank you.
|
|
|
Post by vanessa on Nov 9, 2012 16:13:13 GMT
Are you saying the attorney general is a dishonest crook? The state recognises the rights of all children... what rights? we are not told. Who will decide on these rights? the state.. parents will have no say, so it will deprive the parents of the right to protect their children from danger. In cases where the parents fail in their duty to protect their children, the state will try to take the place of the parents!!!!! The lack of clarity in all this is deliberate, it means a social worker can invade any home at any time with total authority and remove a child for it's own welfare, with full state backing.. Considering all the past examples of State care, I think I'll pass thank you. Now this is really scare mongering - drawing everything out of proportion. Why are you referring to the AG as a 'He'. Please this is not a political website. Your comments are more appropriate to www.politics.ie
|
|