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 54 of 74 FirstFirst ... 4 445253545556 64 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 733
Like Tree509Likes
  1. #531
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38,676

    Quote Originally Posted by ppcoyle View Post
    Judge Hardiman was very clear about this in his comments in the Baby Ann case:
    Do you think this ammendment goes further in principle than Hardiman's comments?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #532
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,049

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Do you think this ammendment goes further in principle than Hardiman's comments?
    This amendment is designed to break the link between biological parents because of the Baby Ann and McD v L Supreme Court case outcomes . That is going much much farther than Art. 42.5
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #533
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38,676

    Quote Originally Posted by ppcoyle View Post
    This amendment is designed to break the link between biological parents because of the Baby Ann and McD v L Supreme Court case outcomes . That is going much much farther than Art. 42.5
    How so?

    What will the state be able to do after this ammendment is passed, if it is passed, that it cannot do at present?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #534
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,049

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    How so?

    What will the state be able to do after this ammendment is passed, if it is passed, that it cannot do at present?
    In the Baby Ann case the child would not have been restored to her natural parents because of "as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected".

    Catherine McGuinness was unrestrained in her view of the SC's decision which is why she is heading up the 'yes' campaign.

    It would be disingenuous not to admit that I am one of the “quarters” who have voiced criticism of the position of the child in the Constitution. ..................................... With reluctance and some regret I would allow this appeal.
    This attitude of hers can be seen in her comments on Wednesday last to the media complaining about the nuisance of a long campaign and how it would allow 'irrelevant issues' to be brought up. Catherine seems to have problems with democracy in her attempt to get her own way
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #535
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38,676

    Quote Originally Posted by ppcoyle View Post
    In the Baby Ann case the child would not have been restored to her natural parents because of "as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected".

    Catherine McGuinness was unrestrained in her view of the SC's decision which is why she is heading up the 'yes' campaign.



    This attitude of hers can be seen in her comments on Wednesday last to the media complaining about the nuisance of a long campaign and how it would allow 'irrelevant issues' to be brought up. Catherine seems to have problems with democracy in her attempt to get her own way
    I'm not familiar with the Baby Ann case. Can you explain precisely why the child would not have been returned to her biological parents, were this ammendment in place? The ammendment suggests that the interests of the child must be paramount. Are you suggesting that the interests of the child would have been better served had it not been returned to its biological parents? If that is not what you are suggesting, then I don't understand why you say the outcome would have been different.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #536
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,049

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    I'm not familiar with the Baby Ann case. Can you explain precisely why the child would not have been returned to her biological parents, were this ammendment in place? The ammendment suggests that the interests of the child must be paramount. Are you suggesting that the interests of the child would have been better served had it not been returned to its biological parents? If that is not what you are suggesting, then I don't understand why you say the outcome would have been different.
    N. & anor. -v- Health Service Executive & ors.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #537
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38,676

    Quote Originally Posted by ppcoyle View Post
    Thanks for the link. Are you going to answer the questions I asked?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #538
    cathalbrugha cathalbrugha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,152

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    My only recommendation for you is that you re-read my earlier comments in order to get a better understanding of what I am claiming and what I am not claiming.

    I can't decide whether this is supremely creepy ("I disagree with your opinion on this referendum, so I hope I get to vote on whether or not you can marry and raise children") or just plain stupid. Possibly the two are not mutually exclusive.
    On the other thread you said you supported the right of the State to take a young child away from the extended family. You then said that the Social Workers were in the right to remove access away from the biological grandparents. Because they were homophobic. That imho, is very extreme. The only reason I can see that gay people would want to get married is so they can adopt kids. Under those circumstances I would be oppossed to gay marraige. As I explained on another thread I'm oppossed to marraige full-stop. But I'm not an extremist. I wouldn't for example favour the State, or Social Workers having the power to remove my ex-partners children because she's bi-sexual. Get it?

    I don't think the State or Social Workers should have the right, above the letter of the law, in deciding what's best for my child. In some peoples eyes that would make me hetrophobic. Call it what you may. Imo, and in my experience, the child, as I've already explained to you, should remain with its natural family, unless there is sexual abuse, or extreme physical abuse. I fear those who are supporting the yes side in this referendum, will have the power to define abuse in any which way they choose.

    If the State amended Article 43 I don't think we'd be having this referendum.

    Social Workers as agents of the State will have more power than the Law. That is dangerous. It's very dangerous. It could mean that in five or ten years time, hypothetically speaking, my biological grandchildren could be taken away and handed to someone like Cathal Ó Searcaigh, if he was married and wanted to adopt kids. Or worse, some other pervert like Erza Nawi. In short I'm against Classical Paedeatrists having any rights when it comes to children. I think each and every child should have their rights defended by a barrister/lawyer or a solicitor in family law courts. As I've already stated, several times, this is an entitlement, but not on obligation offered by the State.

    I've already written an honest account of what family law courts were like for me in another thread. It was removed and judged to be libelous. We can't even tell the truth.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #539
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38,676

    Quote Originally Posted by cathalbrugha View Post
    On the other thread you said you supported the right of the State to take a young child away from the extended family. You then said that the Social Workers were in the right to remove access away from the biological grandparents. Because they were homophobic. That imho, is very extreme.
    It's not extreme. Based on the facts as reported, the grandparents were not in a position to act as the primary carers of the child. That's not especially unusual when dealing with elderly people - this is why we don't generally allow elderly couples to adopt, for example. So, given that the child could not be placed with grandparents, the authorities had to find a suitable adoptive couple which happened to be a gay couple in this case.

    Suppose instead that the couple happened to be a mixed race heterosexual couple and that the grandparents were racist. It would not be in the interests of the child to have their grandparents undermine their relationship with their adoptive parents due to their grandparent's racism. The same principle applies to homosexuality and homophobia. The interests of the child being of paramount concern, it is more important for the child to have a good relationship with its adoptive parents than with its natural grandparents.

    Quote Originally Posted by cathalbrugha View Post
    The only reason I can see that gay people would want to get married is so they can adopt kids.
    Many gay couples who marry are too old to have children, adoptive or otherwise. Why do you think they get married?

    Do you think that the only reason heterosexual people would want to get married is so they can have kids?

    Quote Originally Posted by cathalbrugha View Post
    I don't think the State or Social Workers should have the right, above the letter of the law, in deciding what's best for my child.
    That's not really saying very much, since what is up for debate is precisely what the law should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by cathalbrugha View Post
    In some peoples eyes that would make me hetrophobic. Call it what you may. Imo, and in my experience, the child, as I've already explained to you, should remain with its natural family, unless there is sexual abuse, or extreme physical abuse. I fear those who are supporting the yes side in this referendum, will have the power to define abuse in any which way they choose.
    The concern that the state may define what counts as abuse in overly broad terms is always a legitimate concern, but it applies regardless of this referendum. There will always be a threshold, beyond which the state can intervene, and it will always be up to the state to decide what that threshold is (and, if legislators go too far, it is up to us to vote them out and change the law).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #540
    White Horse White Horse is offline
    White Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    14,848

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    It's not extreme. Based on the facts as reported, the grandparents were not in a position to act as the primary carers of the child. That's not especially unusual when dealing with elderly people - this is why we don't generally allow elderly couples to adopt, for example. So, given that the child could not be placed with grandparents, the authorities had to find a suitable adoptive couple which happened to be a gay couple in this case.

    Suppose instead that the couple happened to be a mixed race heterosexual couple and that the grandparents were racist. It would not be in the interests of the child to have their grandparents undermine their relationship with their adoptive parents due to their grandparent's racism. The same principle applies to homosexuality and homophobia. The interests of the child being of paramount concern, it is more important for the child to have a good relationship with its adoptive parents than with its natural grandparents.
    I think you'll find that the decision was made in the interests of the two homosexuals and not the child.

    State sanctioned experimental social engineering.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment