Skip to content
Support Us

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

The new version of ChildrensReferendum.ie published this evening did not mention the proposed removal of Article 42(5) from the Constitution. ChildrensReferendum.ie

Children’s Referendum website corrected after omitting part of amendment

The government’s scaled-down version of ChildrensReferendum.ie needed amending this evening after it omitted part of the referendum being held on Saturday.

Updated, 21:17

THE GOVERNMENT has published a slimmed-down version of its website on the Children’s Rights referendum, after this morning’s Supreme Court ruling – and amended the text of the revised website after it emerged that the text published on it was incomplete.

The Supreme Court this morning ruled that the ChildrensReferendum.ie website published by the government in September was in breach of the terms of the 1995 McKenna ruling – in that it contained language which implicitly advocated a Yes vote in Saturday’s referendum.

The website was taken offline within an hour of that ruling being published, and was this evening restored with most of its content removed – containing only the text of the proposed new article 42A, which would be inserted into the Constitution if Saturday’s vote is passed.

However, the text displayed on the website upon its return this evening was not a complete version of the referendum text being put to the public – as the single-page website had omitted a reference to the proposal to delete a section of another Article elsewhere in the document.

The edition of the website which returned this evening – shown in the image above – did not include a reference to the proposal which would see Article 42(5), dealing with the removal of a clause which is superseded by a portion of the new text.

Alongside the inclusion of a new Article 42A, the proposal being put to voters on Saturday also includes the removal of Article 42(5), which already provides that the State shall “endeavour to supply the place of the parents” if the parental role is not being fulfilled by the child’s own parents, though always “with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child”.

Though this clause is superseded by the provisions being included in the new Article 42A, the wording of the new article is slightly different – in that it removes a clause which says the State can only exercise this role if the child is being failed for “physical or moral reasons”.

This was not referenced on the new website when it first appeared this evening – and only appeared after the replaced website was amended at about 9pm this evening.

Read: Supreme Court says Government’s Referendum site ‘not fair, equal or impartial’

Reaction: Minister: Government acted “in good faith” on referendum information

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
84 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ashling Fenton
    Favourite Ashling Fenton
    Report
    Nov 28th 2018, 5:17 PM

    The grammar in this article leaves a lot to be desired.

    219
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Fiasco99
    Favourite Fiasco99
    Report
    Nov 28th 2018, 5:22 PM

    @Ashling Fenton: seem to be devoting their time to censoring rather than editing.

    Ahh, the modern “media”.

    157
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Gavin Mckenna
    Favourite Gavin Mckenna
    Report
    Nov 28th 2018, 5:38 PM

    @Ashling Fenton: FFS MC Grammar is here. The poor chap and his family? The incident itself? Ah no. Sure you just let your reading being disrupted rule the roost. Ps was my grammer ok for you? RIP to the man. Awful.

    259
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Fiasco99
    Favourite Fiasco99
    Report
    Nov 28th 2018, 6:00 PM

    @Fiasco99: first thread with 20 posts deleted by journal.ie deleted

    Journalistic integrity.

    Construction in terms….

    28
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Noel Ryan
    Favourite Noel Ryan
    Report
    Nov 28th 2018, 5:42 PM

    A good Christian man has been killed tragically. RIP to the poor soul and condolences to his family. Lay off the above insensitive comments.

    277
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sean Murphy
    Favourite Sean Murphy
    Report
    Nov 28th 2018, 5:54 PM

    After reading the article I’m still at a loss as to what happened. How was the garda dragged along? What was the motive?

    126
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds