TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Oireachtas committee cancels ‘Yes’ photocall over potential legal breach

The Joint Oireachtas Committee was going to run a ‘Vote Yes’ photocall – which may be a breach of the McKenna ruling.

Children's minister Frances Fitzgerald was due to attend tomorrow's launch, which has now been cancelled over legal concerns.
Children's minister Frances Fitzgerald was due to attend tomorrow's launch, which has now been cancelled over legal concerns.
Image: Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland

AN OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE, which has formally called for a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum on children’s rights, has called off plans for a formal campaign event tomorrow after fears were raised that the event could breach a Supreme Court ruling.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, which last week unanimously voted a Yes vote in the referendum, had planned a photocall tomorrow morning where members would be joined by children’s minister Frances Fitzgerald to advocate a Yes vote.

The event has been abandoned, however, after Oireachtas authorities acknowledged that the event may have been in breach of a Supreme Court ruling.

The court’s ruling in the so-called ‘McKenna Case’, in 1995, found that it was unconstitutional for the government to use public funds to campaign for a particular vote in a referendum, as this was “an interference with the democratic process and the constitutional process”.

Though the case did not specifically deal with actions of the Oireachtas or its committees, the role of constitutional bodies in advocating a Yes or No vote was discussed.

In his ruling, then-Chief Justice Liam Hamilton wrote: “Once the Bill has been submitted for the decision of the people, the people were and are entitled to reach their decision in a free and democratic manner.”

Word of the photocall was distributed by the Oireachtas shortly after noon – but quickly met with queries from the Irish Times’ David Cochrane, and others, asking whether an Oireachtas-run event ran contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In response, Oireachtas head of communications Mark Mulqueen agreed that the photocall was “potentially in breach” of the rulings and would therefore be cancelled.

A spokesman said the Oireachtas had nothing to add to what Mulqueen had tweeted.

Legislation to establish an impartial Referendum Commission was set up in the aftermath of the McKenna ruling, taking over the responsibility for publicising each referendum and outlining the main arguments for and against each proposal.

Read: Children’s Rights Referendum: One day left to register for your vote

Read next:

Comments (16 Comments)

  • There is so much more to the Referendum than the average Parent is aware. I’m not suggesting a No Vote and i do believe the protection of children of the state should be protected at all costs but do i believe that the states role in raising a child should supersede that of the parent , which is a really worry.

    I really think people should be informed and look at all the information but sadly they Will get a very one sided view of the referendum from the current government who are quite firmly in the Yes camp.

    As most are aware of the positive aspects of the referendum , it would be advisable to look at all the permutations possible in the future to a YES vote as well as the no vote.

    This might be worth a quick view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzMpbvCc-io

    Reply
    • niall there are mothers from britain on the run here in ireland because the social services are trying to snatch their children.the family courts in britain are so corrupt that they will make up any excuse to deem the parents unfit.passing this referendum could potentially be dangerous as the state has more powers to intervene.

      Reply
  • Alangb 22/10/12 #

    I was a fathers rights campaigner in the 2007 General Election, the slogan was “putting fatherhood back into the neighbourhood” the campaign was to promote positive participative and responsible fatherhood. Barnardos, Children’s Rights Alliance and the ISPCC didn’t do anything then and they wont and aren’t doing anything now.

    Under the UN convention a child has a right to the society (to be reared by two parents) of both parents, this right is abused daily in the secret In Camera family law courts in this country. Currently mostly fathers are affected by this however with the forthcoming children’s referendum this will allow the state to take children into care aided and abetted by the legal profession, social workers and basically any state agency that feels it wants to flex its muscle and which will impact on mothers and women who at the moment under the constitution have a special position in the family. Make no mistake about it, this is wide open for abuse and abused it will be. Bye Bye Mammy hello Children’s Rights!!!

    Reply
    • In custody battles in these family courts, both parents encouraged by their solicitors put down the other parent in order to gain favour themselves. Two perfectly normal people get suddenly described as deeply disturbed individuals with character flaws, addictions etc. who will surely neglect the children. If this is passed I cannot see the judges in certain cases being able to decide to give custody to either parent with allegations against them until the allegations had been disproved. No unsupervised access given to either of them.

      Reply
  • VOTE NO to protect our children from a failed system and a failed state

    Reply
  • is anyone pushing for a no vote??? Costly referendum ahead that only has one side.

    Reply
  • Barnardo’s CEO, Fergus Finlay, has a listed salary in 2010 of €113,315. Barnardo’s is a registered charity and receives circa 80% of it’s funding from the State. Not concerned with photocalls Mr. Finlay is openly promoting a yes vote on radio, tv and news print at every available occassion. From a funding perspective one could state strongly that around 80% of Mr. Finlay’s salary is paid for by the State. If this is the case, and that he is not availing of annual leave etc, could his activities be deemed to be in breach of the Supreme Court ruling known as the McKenna Case i.e. that it is unconstitutional for the government to use public funds to campaign for a particular vote in a referendum, as this was “an interference with the democratic process and the constitutional process”?

    Reply
  • I’m voting No. Children are already protected under the constitution. Let the courts decide. As in recent cases with the Jehova witnesses the courts came down on the side of the child. (blood transfusion) Giving social services the right to take your child into state custody because they might not like your political beliefs or what ever is Orwellian. The state has proven as much as the church to be a disaster when it comes to the care of Children. AGAIN..leave it to the courts. Vote NO.

    Reply
  • This pitting one side versus the other resulting in a lose-lose-lose situation for the family. Our constitution protects the child already and the State’s role had been as poor as the Church. The family is sacred even if it has become divided between the parents. Wedging the State in matters won’t help but will compound an already frought scenario. The State needs to overhaul its own handling of children in its care.
    As for Fergus Finlay’s salary, State contributions to Barnardos and his right to promote a Yes vote, huge questions need to be asked. I’m voting No.

    Reply
  • Watch theDebate of The Childrens Referendum Coming up Soon on Wed 31st Oct Holloween Evening at 10pm on TV3 with Vincent browne, Watch. listen, Learn, Vote no

    Reply

Add New Comment