As it happened: Vincent Browne’s Children’s Referendum debate
Emotional language and arguments as Frances Fitzgerald and Fergus Finlay argued for a ‘Yes’ vote as John Waters and Kathy Sinnott argued for a ‘No’.
TV3 Children's Referendum debate
TV3 Children's Referendum debate
TV3 Children's Referendum debate
TV3 Children's Referendum debate
THERE ARE ONLY ten days left until the country goes to the polls on the children’s rights referendum.
Lest you need a reminder what exactly the wording of the amendment that we are all voting on means, we asked two experts – one “slightly sceptical” and one less so – for their interpretations. That was back in September. Since then, we’ve heard a great deal on why we should vote ‘Yes’ and also some reasons why we should vote ‘No’.
Tonight will see the first – and possibly only – long televised debate on the issue. Vincent Browne hosts it on TV3 from 10pm. Children’s Minister Frances Fitzgerald and Barnardos CEO Fergus Finlay will be in the ‘Yes’ corner; former MEP Kathy Sinnott and columnist John Waters are in the ‘No’ zone.
Let’s see what they have to say. And let’s see what you have to say in our comments section.
21.51 – Good evening all. While we wait for Vincent Browne to get his glare in order for the Children’s Rights Referendum Debate on TV3, it’s worth noting that there was a mini-debate on RTÉ’s Prime Time last night.
Kathy Sinnott, who is out for the ‘No’ side again this evening, was arguing points with children’s law solicitor Catherine Ghent. Leo Varadkar, who is Fine Gael’s director of elections, wasn’t pleased with some of former MEP Sinnott’s stats last night… What do you think?
22.01 – There has been a little confusion on the Tweet Machine, as our #vinb would call it, as to how Children’s Minister Frances Fitzgerald will make it to RTÉ in time for the Late Debate radio show on RTÉ Radio 1 tonight. Well we can *reveal (*well, TV3 openly say so) that the TV3 debate went ahead one hour ago and is being shown as a pre-record. But as it’s only an hour ago, we’ll go with the ‘almost live’ tag.
22.05 – Vincent has had all the proposed amendments read out in plain English.
The four debaters are on their podiums and they’re off.
22.06 – Fergus Finlay says that the referendum will be “a statement of intent” towards the nation’s children and will oblige the State to perform “better than they have” towards them.
His thoughts are that it will give children more representation and also help with getting children into more permanent family situations when they are stuck in fostering limbo. (My words.)
22.09 – John Waters fears that the wording shrouds action in “speculation” and “prophesy” where what happens in children’s cases will be handed over to “experts” whose view will count in court.
He has an issue with the word “paramount” which he says will trump any other concepts in Article 41. (the rights of the family)
22.10 – Frances Fitzgerald citing the Kilkenny and Roscommon case, more recently, where children were left in “appalling states of neglect”. She thinks the amendment will give them more protection and listen to the views of the children more than they have been in the past.
She says parents will still have “very strong protection”.
22.12 – Kathy Sinnott believes that the Kilkenny and Roscommon cases actually show that the referendum proposals won’t work because it was the State that failed them, she said.
“This is about taking the rights of families to protect children, good families…” – she says that the rights of “bad families” have already been taken away so it is the rights of “good” families that will be compromised.
22.15 – Frances Fitzgerald says that it is a lot less likely with the amendment that parents who try to put an impediment in place to intervention in the case of abuse or neglect would be successful.
John Waters is enraged by this. He says that in the Kilkenny case for example, that everyone from gardai to social workers were aware the girl in question was at risk from the age of six months of age, and that it was a neglectful State that failed to take up the power they already have under the Constitution to intervene.
Frances Fitzgerald is not going along with this. This will help children in cases like that, she asserts.
Fergus Finlay asks Kathy Sinnott to be “reasonable”, saying that yes, the State had failed, but that this is not what left those children in institutions.
Frances Fitzgerald: This is not about giving the State more power, this is not about taking power from parents. “The best interests are presumed to be with the family, except in extreme circumstances.”
22.18 – Vincent Browne takes up Fergus Finlay on a point, saying he’s wrong to say that children do not have rights under the Constitution as it currently stands.
Fergus says that it is the first time children get an express mention to the right of childhood. Not an implied right, but a stated right.
Vincent says the State has an obligation to vindicate the rights of ALL its citizens, and that goes for children too.
22.20 – Fergus Finlay says that the law provides that a child can be heard at the discretion of a judge. Now it’s explicit that they must.
Frances Fitzgerald says it makes a legal difference.
“What law?” says Vincent.
She’s not getting into specific laws, says the minister.
22.22 – John Waters says that the Constitution should not be “dismantled” to make up for the failings of the State.
Vincent: This isn’t dismantling the Constitution, John, it’s a small amendment.
22.23 – John Waters seems bothered that a judge or another expert who is given discretion here on what will be the best move to protect the child might have an agenda or motivation we can’t guess at.
Vincent is wondering if that’s not the case in all court cases now.
22.26 – Fergus Finlay answering John Waters – or trying to.
John calling in camera courts “secret courts”. Frances Fitzgerald saying that there will be two judges given to the courts to be very alert to the needs of the child in the way they haven’t previously been in terrible cases like Roscommon or Kilkenny.
22.29 – Kathy Sinnott mentions her son’s case – it was a landmark judgement that every child in the country deserves the education they need to learn. It was based around the word “appropriate” which she says is important and will be dropped with this amendment.
Children have “a right to the protection of the family” because it is their “natural habitat”, she says, but if the family breaks down, Article 42 currently obliges the State to fill in with “appropriate” measures.
22.32 – Fergus Finlay says he was one of thousands of parents who supported Kathy and Jamie Sinnott and admired her for this.
BUT, he says that the case has gone into “mythology” and that Jamie “lost” his case. Kathy Sinnott says that this isn’t true and that most of the Supreme Court judgement related to children being entitled to the education they need.
Fergus Finlay said that the tragedy of the Supreme Court judgement was that education was limited by reference to the age of the child and that it is all in the Supreme Court judgement.
This is rather uncomfortable stuff to watch, to be honest.
It appears Frances Fitzgerald thinks so too as she has intervened to try and bring it back to the wording of the amendment and off the subject of the Sinnott case.
22.35 – There’s the halfway point as everyone goes to compose themselves in an ad break.
What are you thinking so far? Has any light been thrown on a question you had?
22.41 – What do you think? This is Senator Jillian van Turnhout’s thoughts on the first half:
22.45 – We’re back and John Waters being asked if the amendment which appears to make clearer the law with regards to being adopted if your parents are married. He reckons it’s a “relatively small number” and that it is already possible to deal with it in law already.
Frances Fitzgerald says that at present married parents can not voluntarily make their children available for adoption. Now they can she says.
There are 2,000 children, she says, who have been living with foster parents for over two years. Only one-third of those are children of married parents. She says the amendment is now making it clear that those children in certain circumstances will be able to get the opportunity to be adopted if it’s appropriate.
22.49 – Kathy Sinnott claims it is “forced adoption”.
Everyone is talking over each other so that makes it all a bit hard to follow but any emotive language is generally making blood pressures rise.
John Waters reads out an ad for a fostering agency in the Southside People paper. He’s making some link to the Government whose management of the country, he seems to be saying, means that they are paying people to foster children because the State is making it impossible for people to properly look after their kids. John Waters says that four children were “taken into care because their house was dirty” by a secret court and that the amendment would terrorise parents and allow the State to do so too.
Fergus Finlay says if he has information on such a case, it’s his duty to reveal it.
Frances Fitzgerald noticeably slumps at her podium and asks that they bring the debate back to children (rather than the Government, presumably).
Er, intervention perhaps, Vincent?
22.51 – And here he is. Vincent says that perhaps there should be a change to the ‘in camera’ (no reporting allowed) rule in children’s cases so that there is more transparency.
Frances Fitzgerald says that actually the Government intends to change it. John Waters says he’s been hearing that for 17 years.
22.51 – Kathy Sinnott says that she wants to say to families that the intention of this amendment is to allow the State to take the “controlling interest” in every family in the country.
22.55 – That’s the last word to Kathy Sinnott (Vincent did promise at the start of the debate to give the last word to the ‘No’ camp, as he opened with Fergus Finlay, who is on the ‘Yes’ side.
Tonight with Vincent Browne is on next where he will look at what people were saying on Twitter. He also wants to know who you think ‘won’ in the debate.
Can’t say it’s easy to say anyone ‘wins’ in a debate about children and who has or hasn’t been protecting them.
So let’s rephrase that: Did you hear anything tonight that helped you decide how you might vote? If you heard something that actually swayed your vote, that would be interesting to know…
-
Column: For foster children like me, the Children’s Referendum is a new chance>
-
Column: Why I’ll be voting No in the Children’s Referendum>
Already a fan? Connect below...
Get breaking news from TheJournal.ie via Facebook.
Just click Like.
Just click Like.
About the author:
Contribute to this story:
Read next:
Embed this post
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
-
Not an enlightening discussion so far, they all seem to be point-scoring off each other tbh. Read the proposed amendment and decide for yourselves seems the wisest approach.
-
I think people can go further than that. Your own opinion is never going to challenge your own opinion.
During this debate VB asked something that suggested much is already accounted for. To me, that’s where the crux lies really. Debate is good – a great thing that people can see the bs point scoring but talking with peers is certainly helpful in making a fully informed decision seeing as you won’t get that from just reading the wording.
-
If one-third of those who are currently being fostered are not eligible for adoption but will be eligible for adoption if this referendum is passed, why are the other two-third not being adopted?
-
Some children are forced to maintain contact despite their wishes. If I had a nickel for every client I had who was so frustrated that her child dreaded contact but was forced to have it anyway, I’d be able to leave this non profit life behind. If “forced adoption” means a child can decide to be adopted out of an unhappy homelife, I’m fine with that.
You previously expressed frustrating with giving a child representation. It would indicate that you don’t think giving children a more consistent voice should be a priority.
-
@ Nick Beard – The courts take the view that it is the child’s right to have access with his/her parents not the other way round. The courts also take the view that it is in the child’s best interests (whether or not the child agrees) to vindicate the right of the child to maintain family relations as per UNCRC principles. The UNCRC is the driving force behind this referendum. Who could argue against the priciples of the UNCRC?
-
Huh. That’s odd. I’ve read the entire CRC and you seem to have a misunderstanding of Article 9, and it specifically says contact is about the child’s best interest. If a child doesn’t want to see an abusive or neglectful parent, there is absolutely no requirement under the CRC to force them to do so.
-
Thomas – I agree it is confusing. Adoption is normally not an appropriate option for children in crisis. The priority is to re-unite the child with it’s family a.s.a.p. The yes side have made a huge issue out of this and in reality even if the referendum is passed no significant increase in adoptions is expeccted.
-
Right. Which is in Article 9, as I just said. Which reads:
“States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”
Notice the “except” part that you’re willfully ignoring. If this amendment gives children a serious voice as to what is best for them, then they should be able to cease contact with biological family members which whom they do not have a healthy relationship. Which I think is a good thing. You do not seem to.
-
Court orders. It is presumed that contact with both parents is in the child’s best interest and this is not always considered to be disproved by domestic violence. If one parent is abusive to the other parent or the child, I personally believe the child should be allowed to refuse contact.
-
No, actually, my personal experience in the system has been their voices are not always taken into account. I’ve had clients threatened with contempt of court if they did not drag their child kicking and screaming to a visitation. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? That every child’s wishes regarding contact are respected?
Supervised visitation is a great thing, but it’s not appropriate for a child who makes the decision that a continuing relationship would not benefit them.
This seems to be a clear distinction between me as someone who would lean towards yes and you as someone opposed. You do not seem to agree that a child should be able to refuse contact, nor does it seem to concern you if they cannot.
-
Nick – I am not willfully ignoring anything I’m just stating things as they stand i.e. The courts take the view that it is in the child’s best interests (whether or not the child agrees) to vindicate the right of the child to maintain family relations as per UNCRC principles. The courts place a very high bar on accepting that this contact is not in the best interests of the child. Are you suggesting that this not the case?
-
@nick beard: Thank you for your reply, so if a child decides that they want no further contact with the parent/s, but the judge decides that it would be in their best interest to continue contact, the child’s decision will supersede that of the judge.
-
Joan – this may also help you understand – John Byrne, a social care worker and lecturer in Social Care Practice in Waterford Institute of Technology, who is advocating a no vote, said yesterday “if the system was working properly children would not need to be adopted out of long term foster care, as they would not be left in such care for extended periods.” It would appear to me that by all accounts the system is a total shambles.
-
I think people tend to assume that fostering should or does lead to desire to adopt.
When my elder brothers went about their careers, my parents fostered. It’s something the whole family need to be able to deal with. I thought I’d have the place to myself and then my parents asked how I felt about fostering.
Fostering, more often than not is about being a safe and supportive place (and people) – as I hope it was for those fostered by my own parents and with whom I am glad to have shared a home. Nobody in our home ever felt that we were supposed to take the place of the families of my foster siblings. After getting to slowly know my fostered siblings I certainly didn’t feel that what they needed was to be taken from nor (what is often ignored in this debate) being offered an opportunity to remove themselves from their family.
What do people see when they hear the word “children”. At what point do you think they are actually capable of giving a mature, balanced view on what is going on? There are some who absolutely should be given a place away from their families but this referendum offers children the chance to say “I want to be adopted” for reasons other than true abuse. I can’t see (and in all honesty, can anyone?) how much weight should be given to a child’s opinion.
I know that last sentence is challenging so please don’t imagine I think that children don’t deserve a voice. -
Proposed voluntary adoptions practical application issues: What happens, in terms of voluntary adoption, if one part consents but another refuses consent to place a child for adoption? What happens if the parents consent, but the child does not wish to be placed for adoption? Presumably the child’s view can be heard (according to Article 42A.4.1.ii) but how will this interact with the parents’ preference to place the child for adoption?
-
I explained all this to my 8yr of and his answer was… Let’s go to to xrtra vision !!
-
What did Waters say about Fnlay’s interest in this?
-
Finley said it wasn’t on their website but I think this is what Waters was talking about.Figures for 2011 is that 66% of funding for Barnardos comes from government.Page 30
http://www.barnardos.ie/assets/files/Annual%20Reviews/Barnardos%20Annual%20Review%202011.pdf -
@floyd, arguable. I mean a lot charities receive funding from the government, so you’re saying that anything a charitable organisation says can’t be trusted even if it directly affects the area that charity covers, so we ignore anything SVP says about the poor, Concern about foreign aid or Barnardos about children?
-
@Thomas – “so you’re saying that anything a charitable organisation says can’t be trusted even if it directly affects the area that charity covers”
Please re-read my comments all I have wrote is the facts I didn’t mention anything about not trusting
-
@Floyd, your right. I apologize, that point really was more as a objection to the conclusion Waters was drawing. But I do disagree that some can consider a person who works in a charitable organisation to having their salary paid by the government just because funding are made to that organisation.
-
I’m trying to understand why the need for this referendum considering the following;
As per the Referendum Commission’s Independent Guide
“What are the proposed changes?
There are four main elements to the proposal
1. Explicit obligation to protect and vindicate rights of children
2. State intervention if parents fail in their duty
3. Adoption
4. Best interests and views of the child”
Looking closer
1. Explicit obligation to protect and vindicate rights of children
This already exists in Article 42.5
“In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”
2. State intervention if parents fail in their duty
This already exists in Article 42.5
“In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”
3. Adoption
“The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.” Hugh O’Flaherty (is a former judge of the Supreme Court)
4. Best interests and views of the child
This already exists in Article 42.5 and legislation for example the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 & Children’s Act, 1997 are used here and numerous Court Judgements
Article 42.5
“In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964
“Welfare of infant to be paramount.
3.—Where in any proceedings before any court the custody, guardianship or upbringing of an infant, or the administration of any property belonging to or held on trust for an infant, or the application of the income thereof, is in question, the court, in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration.”
The Children Act, 1997
“Wishes of child.
25.—In any proceedings to which section 3 applies, the court shall, as it thinks appropriate and practicable having regard to the age and understanding of the child, take into account the child’s wishes in the matter.”
-
Wording is eerily similar to article that allowed thousands of children to be consigned to the institutions by the Irish judiciary. Wording EXPLICITLY removing parental rights from parents who abuse children would be something I would support. Such wording wouldn’t lead to the judiciary re-interpreting what the people voted for. During the era of the institutions (up to the 80s) only one judge resisted the consensus – that shovelling children into those places was in the best interests of the child. We know now that that consensus was badly wrong.
And the institutions era worked because there was a steady supply of children. Many of the children were consigned to institutions at the behest of the ISPCC (Cruelty Man) – there is at least one contemporary account that one of those ISPCC agents was receiving a bounty from the Church for each child taken from their home, arraigned before a District Court judge and sentenced to be detained for – in some cases – 15 years.
The State also targeted the children of Irishmen who left Ireland to fight against the Nazis. Their children were incarcerated in the Institutions and for some of them their incarceration continued even when the war ended.
Only one parent was ever able to challenge his children’s detention all the way to the Supreme in the 40s – they were detained because the marriage broke up and the children’s mother left Ireland – he won his case. His victory should have released most the children in the Institutions but because these children were from poor communities their families weren’t able to challenge their detention – even if they knew about it – because that judgement wasn’t actually published until the late 80s !!!
The balance of power between the State and poor and low-income families is on the State’s side as things stand at the moment. When this referendum is passed any contest between the two will be a one-sided affair and there is not a chance in hell that the judiciary will come down on the low-income families side.
And also bear in mind that the State is, and always has been, a dysfunctional parent. It knowingly abandoned children whom they knew were being abused in dangerous institutions.
And, mark my words, when this is passed it will be poor communities that will be targeted as they don’t have the wherewithal to fight an overwhelming State.
-
This isn’t the 1950’s, we don’t live in a catholic state and the people are not as disconnected as they were. Ireland has television, independent print media, the internet, the journal, twitter and other social media. If such things were to occur again how long do you think it would be until the public outcry? It could be a matter of hours. I think the removal of “moral reasons” from the constitution is one of the best parts of this amendment.
People also seem happy to refer to the state as some kind of kidnapping monster. What motivation would they have? Someone give me one good reason that the state could have for taking children away from competent loving parents and then explain to me how in the hell they could get away with it.
-
Is it contended that where the parents “for physical or moral reasons” fail in their duty to their children this would not encompass circumstances where the safety of the children were at risk? And if, as most people agree, there is a moral obligation on parents to provide for the safety and welfare of their children, what is the point of this part of the amendment? – Vincent Browne
-
Minister accepts adoption eligibility is at most potentially 600, of which only some could be adopted – not the thousands as previously stated by all on the yes side.
-
Whereas I agree that the number small or big doesn’t take away from the seriousness of each case, I do think that the figure is relevant, when for the majority of the YES campaign, they have used the figure of 2000. It was one of the points that made me sit up and think, why would anyone need to exaggerate the figures in such a way? It cast a shadow of doubt for me, especially the way in which Frances Fitzgerald responded.
-
This referendum has too much focus on removing children from family and from foster care into adoption. Mistakes will be made. Lives will be ruined. We have seen what happened before when the state and church had too much control. Please vote no to encourage the Development of more appropriate family and care options.
-
Vincent was right to take Finlay up on his blatant lies – love it!
-
WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT.
I am now confident that the PR-Manufactured Phantom YES Vote has collapsed , because it never was:-)
The Irish people are learning fast how this man’s world works and are to be complimented for it.
These votes are media -driven because they don’t exist.
As Mao Tse Tung said famously , ” The enemy is a paper tiger” . -
I was amazed that foster parents are paid €350 per child per week by the state to care for these children. I thought foster parents did this out of a genuine love of children and were given a basic payment to cover expenses etc. is it just me or is there something a bit wrong about that. If I as a grandparent tried to foster one of my grandchildren because the child’s mother is a bad parent would the state pay me for doing this. Or is it only the chosen people who the states decides are worthy of this bonanza. Just wondering!!
-
My family fosters out of genuine love and the money means nothing to any of us!! To wake up every day and see their happy faces is priceless. I just hope people vote yes to give them stability for thier future, these children need us to make the right decision.
-
Please don’t generalise Alison. Just because foster parents get a payment doesn’t mean that’s the only reason they do it. I know a couple who have fostered kids and like Stephanie’s family they are not in it for money but for a genuine desire to help.
-
Stephanie – Playing Devils advocate here for a moment. You say “My family fosters out of genuine love and the money means nothing to any of us” which is great but if so why not give not the money back to the state so other children in need can benefit?
-
In order to be foster parents you have to accept payment. my parents wanted to give children new starts in life and they had to accpet payment in order to become foster parents. The payment is put into college funds for each child that is fostered so they can follow their dreams
-
-
Wow how come the 2 no guys just kicked the yes side all over the studio, Fitzgerald seriously rattled and the guy with the beard just shut up.
Why am I suddenly thinking about voting no when I was an ab yes an hour ago ? -
10 REASONS
These are the 10 Reasons we believe you should vote no in the Children’s Rights Referendum.As we are not funded as an organization, we are unable to send this pamphlet to every home in Ireland. Fortunately, some concerned citizens have stepped in and volunteered to try to distribute “10 Reasons” nationwide.
Ordinary citizens are so concerned that they will print off our pamphlet at their own expense and take to the streets to hand out leaflets and discuss the Referendum with other parents.
If you would like to become involved, please send an email to Sharon@APS.IE who is co-ordinating the nationwide distribution. A few hours of your time handing out pamphlets or distributing them in your neighborhood could make a huge difference.
Also bear in mind that you need to register to vote so make sure your voice is heard by registering.
10 Reasons to vote No in the Children’s Rights Referendum
1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide “Best Interests” for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.
2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary decision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.
3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.
4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)
5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.
6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.
7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children’s rights.
8/ The “Best Interest Principle” of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the “Best Interests” of the 260 who died in Irish State “Care”, or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that “Best Interests” should be replaced with “to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child” and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.
9/ The UNCRC only gives “Rights” to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their “Rights”. Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.
10/ The question we are being asked here is “do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?” If you are not 100% sure you must vote no.
Please register to vote and vote No, our children are depending on you.
Please also do the research for yourself on our website APS.ie and make an informed decision, our children are depending on you. -
I’m a country man and the country will vote NO. The richer Dublin constituencies of Dun Laoghaire, South County etc will vote YES – but John Waters’ intervention tonight on behalf of the poor and unemployed will see huge swathes of Dublin working class estates s massively voting NO.
Kathy Sinnott’s effect will be every bit as lethal on rural South and West areas.
For those that say here that the Catholic Church is behind the NO – then why has the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin urged a Yes Vote across every parish of his Archdiocese, it doesn’t make sense? The Left and the Liberal Elite must feel very uncomfortable in bed with His Grace.
I can’t see a farmer family in the entire country voting YES not even Fine Gael’s big farmers. Because farmers know the value of children and of keeping their own:-)
I think that Fianna Fail support has broken down already. I can see FF TDs, Senators and Councillors declaring their intentions publicly to vote NO before Polling day – and finally even a half dozen Fine Gael TDs themselves.
This referendum could now shatter the Government – and ,many of us hope so before the Budget cuts can be voted in.
With a Prince of the Church in the leadership of the Yes Vote, it stinks , But it stunk long before that with an elitist like Fitzgerald in charge, once she opened her mouth her accent turned most of the country off – Mary O’Rourke would have seen that immediately, any of the decent old FF campaigners would, ask Mary.This vote is wide open now, ten days before polling – PERFECT :-)
-
On the Governments record on past referendums, what turned out afterwards to be lies and mis-information. I am voting No, because I believe nothing will change in relation to services to protect children and the State!
-
@mary, didn’t watch it,checked out this article to see what the general consensus was. im voting yes,but I’m voting yes based on reading the proposed article that is being removed and what is being inserted,and I don’t have a problem with it.
As for the looney no side or the I’ll equipped to debate yes side,I think people should take a quiet moment to read the proposed amendments,ignore the potential consequences that are being floated by john waters or fergus finlay and reflect,I’m not in any way legally trained nor am I a constitutional scholar but the language is plain and simple.
This is still a fantastic opportunity for people to actively participate in democracy,and they should definitely base their decision solely on the basis of a TV shouting match.
John waters is a complete tool IMHO.
-
-
Wasn’t impressed with the no side. Their argument was very poor and They continuously tried to interrupt and shout down the yes side. As a child I spent time in foster care . I’ve read the proposed amendments and I’ll be voting yes.
-
Tony Im glad you will be voting yes, I have 2 foster girls in my family and my God I dont wish them back to the awful life they came from. I want the best possible future for them. Its people who live with foster children or know of the fostering process that will truely understand why a yes vote is needed
-
Stephanie I will always owe a debt of gratitude to my foster parents. I often look back and think how lucky I was that the state put me into the care of such good people during such a difficult time in my young life and I also feel fortunate that i didn’t end up in an institution run by religious orders.
-
Tony – As you have said the State did it’s duty towards you which is great. I’m sorry your siblings circumstances were not so fortunate. Without divulging any personal details I’m curious as to what you feel is contained in the referendum that would have helped them have a better outcome?
-
Tony, I am glad that the State entrusted you into the care of good foster parents- and there are many out there. But equally, there are many people, in Ireland and abroad, who are grateful for the care they received from members of the religious orders in Ireland.
-
@Stephanie, my parents fostered – I have experience of their lives too and I will be voting No.
Our experiences obviously differ and are causing some level of subjective decision making. Maybe base your vote on a wider need rather than your own experience?
To me, bottom line is that this referendum is not needed. The issue is about the state not taking responsibility and action where there already is significant power to act on issues within the current legislation.
-
TJD & Ian I know many people who did not have good experience in institutions run by nuns and brothers. Some of those people openly condemn the religious for the way they were treated and others actually defend the orders despite their treatment .equally I have known people who defend their own parents despite the fact that they were abused by same. I could never understand how someone who was abused could defend their abuser until I discovered the term “Stockholm syndrome “. I am always sceptical of people when they said they had a great time growing in institutions run by religious orders. Nevertheless I have read the amendments and I am satisfied that they will enhance the rights of children I do not believe they will erode them.
This is a step in the right direction and I welcome it.
-
-
Strikes me that the only legitimate reason these guys have against it (aside from spurious issues over the wording of the amendment, which was put together over nearly twenty years of meetings and with something like 170 submissions) is the fact that unmarried couples, meaning same sex couples, can adopt kids. Given the history of the two particular opponents that’s genuinely the only conclusion I can draw. I wouldn’t believe a word out of Sinnotts mouth. I’ve seen her lie blatantly in serious issues before (stem cell research) because it contravened her religious beliefs. It’s religion with her. Simple as.
-
That might be the impression you got from this particular debate Stephanie but for me and many I have discussed this with it’s much more about the fact that we are presented with an amendment to the constitution. Many voters have been convinced that that is the only way to deal with the issue.
It’s not. The issue is pretty much already dealt with in current legislation. As is usual in this country we have many laws and limited enforcement.
This referendum is simply spending money we don’t have to provide for what we already have and when it (likely) passes FG & Labour will be able to say look at the referendum we gave you that FF never did. When what they should have had the guts to do is legislate and apply. They didn’t want to because they could have fudged it and even if they did a pretty good job there would be a vocal minority who would cast a shadow over that work.
So instead, they have a win-win situation with a lot of people voting Yes because they can’t see the potential harm and don’t see that this can all be done already.
-
Everyone agrees that secret court must go. So why no mention of it in the referendum or proposed legislation?
-
Speak for yourself, I don’t agree with that at all. Family courts should be in camera. You say giving children legal representation would cause trauma, can you imagine if the court case they’re involved in became a political football or the focus of national media? I would venture to suggest that would cause considerably more trauma.
-
-
Voting NO because I believe in the Family and the state should not have more right over me if I had grandchildren that needed a stable home, I do NOT trust this govenment on anything!
-
Jesus.. when is the last time that the Constitution has actually mattered? According to it we’re all still Lemmings following the lad I mentioned earlier.
Load of shite.. When the St. Pat’s report was released a couple of weeks ago there was talk about how members of the judiciary and prison service laughed at the report. And we’re expected to hand them more powers? I think not tbh!
-
A complete set of lies and spin from the NO side tonight.
Kathy doesn’t even know the facts surrounding her own court case.
-
Nick
I know what her case was , I was asking young David hear if he would enlighten us as I do not thyink he knows about it , maybe I am wrong but I don’t see any harm in asking . Thanks Nick . It was my understanding that she did win , but then again I am not in the business of spin doctoring facts :) -
Yes! She doesn’t actually seem to have read the Supreme Court judgement… The government did compensate her after she’d lost, which was lovely of them and all, but… anyone who’s read the case knows it was far from a victory for special needs education.
-
Have you even read the case, Eileen? There’s no real point in lying about something so publicly available. The Supreme Court held he did not have a right to lifelong special needs education (which she had sought.) I found it to be a disappointing result.
-
Yes I did read it . She was awarded compensation to continue with her sons education , which is what she wanted . It was a disappointing result for the general population as in that it was not an across the board decision . That is my understanding of it BUT I do not think it has anything to do with the Childrens Rights ref . I can not understand how her case was brought into the debate.
-
Well, as someone who has studied constitutional law in depth, I am disappointed that she would portray her case as proof that the Bunreacht na hEireann is effective rather than admit that the case specifically limited the right to a special needs education. I’m a supporter of special needs education, I certainly think it’s something Ireland can and should do better on. I’m not sure why Kathy Sinnott disagrees.
I’ve made up my own mind on this one, as I am fairly familiar with the care system. But I do find it disappointing that she’s not being wholly truthful, when I think there could be a very good discussion to be had.
-
I believe that Fianna Fail TDs like Eamon Ui Cuiv will break and join the NO side. I simply cannot see the farmers of Fianna Fail voting Yes because I believe that hardly a farmer in the country will do so, farmers know the value of their children and want to keep them. They look further down along the generations too and see the risk of their great grandchildren being taken off their grandchildren after they’re dead because of a Yes vote.
The farmers associations are not taking part in the yes side and that is a big change indeed in an Irish referendum.
THE TRAVELLING PEOPLE.
And another element that nobody has seen fit to mention probably because they obviously don’t think these people matter, like Phil Hogan – The Travellers of Ireland. Their kids will be forcibly wrenched from Traveller mothers under a Yes vote , but the Traveller fathers and brothers and Traveller women won’t allow it , they will fight pitched battles with the Gardai across the country for their children – and the Irish people will stand with the Traveller Women of Ireland. to protect their kids to be brought up in their unique way of life.
We could never allow the wailing of Traveller mothers to be heard across Ireland with their babies torn from their breasts to be fostered and adopted out , thus I believe that this childrens referendum is actually directed against the Travellers to take their children off them, and I hope Pavee Point is alerted to this before it can be allowed to happen.
This is a big reason for the provision to forcibly offer out the children of married parents for adoption because the vast majority of Traveller parents are married. I would not trust the likes of snobs like Fitzgerald and Shatter an inch in this and will not endanger the rights of Traveller families , so hard won over the years, with my vote , and this is another big reason I am voting NO. -
@ Stephaine Fleming (beneficial) do ur research do u know what ingredients r in these vaccines think the only idiot here is you
-
was yes now I’m no. The comments by John Waters about children being taken and forced into adoption because their parents are too poor sealed it for me.
-
Why people red thumbing want to know? I don’t think John Waters was scaremongering, he was paraphrasing an ad for foster carers! I want to vote yes but I just don’t trust the state given their record, to decide the best interest of children and I don’t trust the state to define the criteria with which a family has failed in the upbringing of their children when it can be the state’s failures that cause and or exacerbate the problems in the first place.
-
The state will have to prove neglect on behalf of the family before any child could be taken into care. Being poor does not amount to neglect. I know lots of people who would be poor but who make sure that their kids are well looked after. This is pure scaremongering by Waters.
-
The state already decides those failures Kevin. If the state was not allowed to decide why are kids ever taken away from parents at all? Frontline organisations who look after the best interests of children such as childline and the ISPCC are in favour of this.
Waters repeatedly implied that financial interest was all that the yes side was interested in. Serious scaremongering. Repeated references to cuts being made by current government while ignoring the fact that this amendment has been developed over 20 years! This referendum was even part of how people decided on their vote in the general election.
This amendment requires that the child’s voice be heard. There is no such requirement in place at the moment. Why would a judge take a child away from a family permanently for a potentially temporary situation like poverty? Waters made it sound like someone gets made redundant and a month later their child is adopted. Realistically such a process would take years and rightly so.
For goodness sake people we’re not talking about a state sponsored child catcher here!
-
Good points Stephanie. the thing is afaik though is the judge cant take the child (within the remits of what were talking about specifically referring to the referendum) permanently for a temporary problem such as poverty (but this isn’t a temporary problem for many people) but the proposed changes could allow that because adoption is permanent.
Many of the worst examples of the abuse of children are down to the state and pillars of society not acting, procrastinating and colluding against the best interests of the child. This referrendum will not change this, but will in fact give the state more responsibilities with which to fail to live up to.
-
Could but won’t. What family, who would adopt a child out of love, would ignore the wishes of the child to stay with their biological family? What makes you think there is no recourse for a family to argue against such a decision? Your last paragraph also does not contain a reason to vote against this referendum. It contains a reason to lobby the government to do its job better. Not to change its job completely. The fact that they’ve historically done a bad job does not mean we should remove it as their job altogether. What you’re talking about is voting a particular way as some sort of expression of disapproval. That’s not what the vote is for. If you want the state to live up to its responsibilities better then you need to get involved in making them do so by speaking to TDs, meeting with them. Making such failures public and bringing it up in election campaigns.
Voting against this referendum will do absolutely nothing to affect the state’s past performance.
-
Childrens voices can be heard already ! Fitzgerald and Finlay are lying .
-
Can be heard but are not always heard. Clearly this is the case. Has been in dozens of cases.
And I’m not sure what you mean in your response to my post “Look at your own posts and don’t correct mine, by your own admittance”? What does that mean? I wasn’t correcting your post, I was arguing with it.
-
Eileen I don’t think children’s voices are heard. In many cases the state and family fight it out while the child is unrepresentated. There own personal views arnt heard.
Yes the state are representing them.
Yes the family are representing them but both of these are biased in their representation. I believe the child should have the opportunity to be represented by a completely outside party.
This amendment gives the child there rights outside of the family -
Proposed ensuring childrens voices are heard practical application issues legal analysis – This is a very popular idea, and it appears at some level to be unproblematic but it is difficult to see how it truly respects the dignity of the child, since it potentially requires the child totestify against his or her parents and potentially against other adults who have been involved in his or her care.
One obvious feature that is missing here is the consent of the child to giving “his or her views” in these proceedings; although the child has natural and imprescriptible rights, here a statute could compel the child to give views in respect of very personal and private family matters, and potentially against the child’s own will.
Traditionally, the law of evidence includes spousal privilege (communications privilege and testimonial privilege) which protects the contents of communications between spouses during their marriage from being disclosed in court proceedings in order to respect the marital bond and encourage marital harmony. Why is it that, if we consider that adults would have difficulty disclosing information against another family member, that we put children in the position where they may do so?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal
-
David Higgins
I reject your assumption of why I would reject this referendum ,and I do not care one whit about Sinn Fein , I object to the fact they are supporting this referendum too. I do not object to everything this government do, only they have YET to do something I agree with , except of course getting jobs .It is the job losses and unemployment I object to.
-
Referendum my arse! I have discovered overnight that the vote on Saturday November 10th is as far as this childrens rights referendum goes. After they count the votes and make all the promises that’s it.
It’s like the manager of the Hamburg Star Club used to shout at the early Beatles, ” Mak Show”, and that’s all the Government is doing , Making Show.
Solicitors do the same with clients cases all the time , they end up as graveyard cases , as they’re called, I have at least one of those that my solicitor sees me very seriously about once every two months over the past eight years.
Got all excited hours ago when I figured that they had made a mistake , but they hadn’t, it is simply that they have never intended to do anything else about this referendum after they have gotten their yes vote – because they can’t, because they would have to legislate separately for the travellers families and they can’t do that. So they have made no provision in the Referendum for Travellers because they can’t, that’s what put me on to the whole empty set-up designed to make them all look as if they are wonderfully committed and about to do something spectacular. What a pity they are not so clever when it comes to economics, industry and particularly banking, anybody can dream up a dogooder referendum like this and let one of the least experienced ministers in the government run it – she only has to be good at putting on an act like the rest of them and they’re all good at that.
AShe makes her name , that’s what she gets out of it , and then she sits back and pretends to legislate but never produces anything final because no Cildrens’ laws can work in ireland without reference to the Travellers unique lifestyle and making provision for that, and this referendum never mentions them so it is designed already not to be able to work , that’s what gave me the hint – but –
It’s not only the Minister Frances Fitzgerald and the government who are stage managing this time, the opposition parties of Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein are in there too, so they must all have decided that no such legislation as they suggest could possibly work, so they’re all together in running this just to get it out of the way and make some of us fools content that something is being done when already they know that nothing will be done , because in the immortal words of Bertie Ahern, it’s all Smoke and Daggers.
So how to get our revenge on them – either don’t vote or vote NO and blow them all out of the water and don’t continue to let them fool you that this is a real referendum and that there is anything at stake here because there most definitely is not :-)Ah didn’t a wise man once say ” There’s one born every minute ” – sorry but he meant US:-)
-
we hear the roscommon case mentioned a great deal,it seems in the uk after the terrible baby P case and other such high profile cases the system/legal profession/social services went into hyper drive in order not to be seen in such a bad light again and tended in many cases to give an impression that they took the kids out of happy families “just to be on the safe side” causing utter heart break to all involved.there ia a abundance of material in the online uk papers available.also married or not surely ANY parent should have the ONLY say in their child being adopted.apart from the obvious that is.
-
This referendum is not now possible to be held. The government will have to cancelled it as I have emailed to my TDs , Minister Phil Hogan and John McGuinness TD overnight for the information of the Government. Please forgive typing as I am a professional Photographer and not a typist.
Re: The Proposed Irish Referendum.
To The Government, via Phil Hogan, Minister.
In the service of the State.
Dear Phil,
The referendum makes no exception for the Travellers and in Law it cannot , therefore it has to be cancelled.
Under the provisions of this constitutional amendment and subsequent provisions of Irish Law we will be in contempt of International law and Human Rights legislation and will be abhorred as a country as we would have to arrange to have their children taken off virtually every Traveller couple.
It doesn’t end there either as most of the Travellers are married as opposed to the settled community , so therefore their children would have to be forcefully set out for adoption.
This can’t happen as the Travellers would not hand up their children and their would be massive battles with the gardai across the state. in fact i do not think there would be enough gardai , the army would have to be called in , and it is doubtful if even they would be able for the Travellers.BUt this is not here nor there as we know this is not what the Government wants to set out to do. I think there has been a serious oversight that will result in this referendum having to be cancelled.Therefore I think you will agree that it is imperative that you contact the government at once and inform them and have this referendum cancelled.
Best Regards,
Michael mcGrath
Photograpgher.
2 Fr. Sherin Place,
Kilkenny City.Mobile 066604894.
-
NOw try it, you just try to run all that is proposed here without reference to the special case of the Traveller families, you can’t , not even with a solid YES vote on Saturday November 10th – and this is why this referendum is a complete and total Confidence Trick because no legislation that will work , without provision for the Traveller families can actually work, and such provision can’t work either as everybody must be equal under law.
So if Frances Fitzgerald gets her Yes Vote she still cannot legislate as laid out for the purposes of this referendum with no mention of the Travellers anywhere, but even if she now produced legislation to make them exceptions to the rule it can’t be done anyway as we all have to be treated the same under law.
Any or all legal eagles here must by now realise that it is all a Sham and a Confidence Trick of being asked to vote for something that can’t be done without that Traveller exception , that can’t be done either!
Come on the Travellng People your existence has not now only shattered the Government but all Irish political parties in Dail Eireann as well and exposed them all as Fakers and Charlatans.
Thanks for your help, Lads:-)
-
we hear of roscommon mentioned so often,in the UK after the baby p and other such high profile cases the cps,social services went into hyperdrive in order not to be seen in such a bad light again with the result that they came across as we’ll take the kids just to be on the safe side,IE absolutley no proof of any abuse but some arbitrary whim of a case worker/state payed pyscologist etc saying there’s the “potential” in the future for….this is happening more and more in the UK,US,Australia,New Zealand and even the possibility of such in Ireland is more than enough to vote no.btw other than an obviously abusive example ONLY parents married or otherwise should have the last word if their child is adopted or not.
Add New Comment
Most Popular
Most viewed articles in the past 24 hours
Most Commented
Most commented articles in the past 3 days
Download our app
Trending Opinions
Most Popular Today
|
1
|
The world’s wealthy ‘could be hiding €707 billion in Ireland’ |
|
2
|
Government shocked by creche claims: ‘It’s every parent’s worst nightmare’ |
|
3
|
HSE and Gardai investigating creches after RTE exposé |
|
1
|
Nissan Ireland warns of ‘loose steering wheel’ glitch in some 14,000 Micras |
|
2
|
Almost 95,000 mortgage holders are in arrears |
Trending Tags
About Us
Corrections
Content copyright © Journal Media Ltd. 2013
Registered in Dublin, registration number: 483623.
Registered office: 3rd floor, Latin Hall, Golden Lane, Dublin 8.
Please note that TheJournal.ie uses cookies to improve your experience and to provide services and advertising. For more information on cookies please refer to our cookies policy.
News images provided by Press Association and Photocall Ireland unless otherwise stated. Irish sport images provided by Inpho Photography unless otherwise stated. Wire service provided by Associated Press.
Journal Media does not control and is not responsible for user created content, posts, comments, submissions or preferences. Users are reminded that they are fully responsible for their own created content and their own posts, comments and submissions and fully and effectively warrant and indemnify Journal Media in relation to such content and their ability to make such content, posts, comments and submissions available. Journal Media does not control and is not responsible for the content of external websites.
Sites: TheJournal.ie | BusinessETC.ie | TheScore.ie | DailyEdge.ie | Boards.ie | Adverts.ie | Daft.ie
Comments (156 Comments)