View Poll Results: Children's Rights Referendum: What way will you vote?

Voters
452. You must be logged in to vote on this poll. Please login or register.
  • Yes

    206 45.58%
  • No

    141 31.19%
  • Don't Know

    76 16.81%
  • Will Abstain

    29 6.42%
Register to Comment
Page 31 of 74 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 41 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 733
Like Tree509Likes
  1. #301
    Bannatyne123 Bannatyne123 is offline
    Bannatyne123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    212

    This film is an eye-opener on this issue. It may only appeal to believing Catholics / Christians. Secularists may become offended. You can watch it here...http://www.overruledmovie.com/
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #302
    Mitsui2 Mitsui2 is offline
    Mitsui2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    23,448

    Quote Originally Posted by Bannatyne123 View Post
    This film is an eye-opener on this issue. It may only appeal to believing Catholics / Christians. Secularists may become offended. You can watch it here...http://www.overruledmovie.com/
    Not saying you're a sick puppy or anything, but you might be well-advised to speak to your new owner about a possible visit to the vet sometime in between the early vaccinations and the old Six Month Inevitable.

    Woof!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #303
    Gal Gréine Gal Gréine is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    257

    Quote Originally Posted by storybud1 View Post
    I have posted before about this, this has ZERO to do with Children as it does not address the problems within the HSE and all the missing children or the responsibility of the state to children. This is simply the removal of the protection the mother/father/child description of family has within the constitution.

    So with the traditional family written out of the constitution the liberals can get busy breaking down the rest of society into individuals. The family will be known in the future as the single mother with 3 kids from 3 different fathers, the Gay couple with donor eggs/sperm or what ever else goes, anything but a man and woman having childen and living together, so 20th Century,,

    So they have mangled the word marriage, they are currently working on the removal of the Family in the constitution and then the abortion issue will be next.

    Meanwhile the insiders that destroyed the Country are still not in prison and the Labour eejit can only extinguish 1 allowance from 1,100 allowances in the public sector from whence his votes come from? Labour are having a riot and pissing down our backs.
    Very well put. Thats exactly what it says on the tin. The government have no interest in protecting the rights of the child. They are interested in protecting the rights of bondholders alright though.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #304
    Omaha Omaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    272

    Quote Originally Posted by storybud1 View Post
    I have posted before about this, this has ZERO to do with Children as it does not address the problems within the HSE and all the missing children or the responsibility of the state to children. This is simply the removal of the protection the mother/father/child description of family has within the constitution.

    So with the traditional family written out of the constitution the liberals can get busy breaking down the rest of society into individuals. The family will be known in the future as the single mother with 3 kids from 3 different fathers, the Gay couple with donor eggs/sperm or what ever else goes, anything but a man and woman having childen and living together, so 20th Century,,
    Quote Originally Posted by EUrJokingMeRight View Post
    Fathers do not get treated fairly in Irish family law as it is....so I'd be surprised if any father with half an ounce of sense thinks that this amendment is a good idea.
    Indeed the passing of this referendum is a major stepping stone towards breaking the link between biological parents and their children.

    The same woman, Catherine McGuiness, spearheading this referendum launched the following 2010 Law Reform Commission (LRC) document:

    LEGAL ASPECTS OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

    While it puports to grant unmarried fathers guardianship of their children you can see from the very outset the true aim of the law reform sought, it's "Guiding Principles" at page 4 says:
    The Commission also acknowledges that both the Constitution and the UNCRC place the rights of children against the background of responsibilities and rights of parents. Therefore all recommendations made in the Report require due respect for these competing rights and responsibilities.
    The rights of every child to know and be cared for by both parents is completely thrown out of the window, instead we now have competing rights between parents and children vying with each other.

    While it talks about the need for automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers, something called for since 1982, what it actually does is to redefine legal guardianship into an entity called "Parental responsibility" which greatly weakens the legal standing of the link between parent and child in the following ways:

    1. On page 45 at section at section 4.05 it states that consultation between parents is to be done away with except for consenting irreversible non essential medical procedures. Consultation between parents has been the backbone of guardianship law for the past 50+ years and forms the basis of how the courts treat parents before them. It goes back to the Supreme court case B v B 1975 which fleshed out the fact that even though parents may be separated that this still does not mean that one parent can act unilaterally when deciding on important welfare decisions regarding their children i.e. education, medical treatment, where the child lives, religion. Rewriting the constitution to put parental rights in conflict with children's rights effectively abandons the guiding case law in this area.
    .4.05 The Commission recommends that a general statutory requirement to consult should not be included in legislation concerning parental responsibility. The Commission recommends that the consent of all parties exercising parental responsibility be required for the purpose of consenting to irreversible non-essential medical procedures on behalf of the child. [Paragraph 1.19]
    2. Allowing anybody and everybody with a claim of "interest" in the child become a legal parent to the child, see section 4.15 page 47:
    4.15 The Commission recommends that the term in loco parentis be defined in general terms as a person who is not the parent of a child but who, acting in good faith, takes on a parental role in relation to the child. [Paragraph 3.07]
    By abandoning consultation between parents and allowing anybody with a claim to become a legal parent this sets the stage for the dilution of the existing legal powers parents currently hold and brings about a situation of "Parenting by committee". No longer will the mother and father only with a legal right to a say in their child's life but the partners of those parents will now having equal legal standing or indeed any human being on the planet who comes along with some claim of interest in the child. In practice what this will mean of course is that it will be a 2 against 1 vote in the family courts, with mother and mothers partner against father; as the mother will continue to be the person granted custody in the overwhelming majority of cases.

    There can be no doubt about it; with McGuiness at the helm this referendum change is designed to be the pathway for breaking the link between parents and their children along with the full and final legal castration of all fathers in this country.
    Last edited by Omaha; 20th September 2012 at 07:32 AM. Reason: Typo
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #305
    pippakin pippakin is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9,821

    Quote Originally Posted by The Field Marshal View Post
    2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

    The state merely pass a law saying that the child is being taught unsuitable political theories and then a state quango plus goon squad sweep in and have the child placed for adoption.
    What you mean instead of grabbing them off the street and placing them in industrial slave camps/schools, changing their names, raping and otherwise brutalising them?

    You are at it again.

    Vote early, vote often but most of all VOTE YES!!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #306
    ger12 ger12 is offline
    ger12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    21,722

    Quote Originally Posted by The Field Marshal View Post
    2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

    The state merely pass a law saying that the child is being taught unsuitable political theories and then a state quango plus goon squad sweep in and have the child placed for adoption.
    Do you believe that Irish children are being taken away from their parents for reasons that are unfair/unjust to the child?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #307
    Johnny Boy Johnny Boy is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,171

    Quote Originally Posted by The Field Marshal View Post
    As predicted a state takeover of all parental rights.

    Also as predicted forced adoptions where the state take a view that a child is not being politically indoctrinated in a suitable manner.

    VOTE NO.
    In any civilised society the rights of the child not to be exposed to serious harm because of bad/neglectful parenting far outweigh any right a parent may have to look after their own child. That is what this referendum is really about. Only an idiot would vote against that.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #308
    Johnny Boy Johnny Boy is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,171

    Quote Originally Posted by Gal Gréine View Post
    Very well put. Thats exactly what it says on the tin. The government have no interest in protecting the rights of the child. They are interested in protecting the rights of bondholders alright though.
    Jaysus, arguing against the rights of children by conflating them with the rights of bondholders.....................
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #309
    Neutron Neutron is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5,131

    Quote Originally Posted by ManUnited View Post
    So the government will take your children if you don't pay your tax.What do you think they are going to do with all the kids? Sell them on the slave market? maybe grow them up a bit and harvest their organs?
    That there is the problem.

    Some Kid Social Worker wont care about that, they will just place your child with foster parents.
    We may well see Child Centres being opened up to hold all these kids.

    Thats how vague this law is, there is nothing to stop that happening.

    Under this law Michael Collins would have had his children took of him had he had any.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #310
    Cato Cato is offline
    Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    33,833

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutron View Post

    That there is the problem.

    Some Kid Social Worker wont care about that, they will just place your child with foster parents.
    We may well see Child Centres being opened up to hold all these kids.

    Thats how vague this law is, there is nothing to stop that happening.

    Under this law Michael Collins would have had his children took of him had he had any.
    How soon after this passes do you expect to see such centres opening up?

    Say in the fifth full year after this passes, how many children do you expect to see removed from their parents by the state? What percentage increase over current figures will that represent?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 31 of 74 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 41 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment