Originally Posted by Con Gallagher

Who is the author? (I assume by the complete absence of case law that he is not a lawyer)

There can be no case law from a prospective viewpoint, which looks at possible consequences of an 'amendment' rather than an existing article from the Constitution.

Originally Posted by ppcoyle

There can be no case law from a prospective viewpoint, which looks at possible consequences of an 'amendment' rather than an existing article from the Constitution.

There could and should still be an analysis of current precedent and statutes, and the implementation thereof, both to throw light on the current status quo, the need for change, and the possible interpretation of any new laws.

Originally Posted by ppcoyle

There was a 'straw' poll of sorts on thejournal.ie which suggest that the public is not as unanimous on the issue as our politicians are. 35% No, 30% yes, 16% undecided, 11% won't vote, 6% can't vote

A Yes of 43% on p.ie means an extremely high Yes in the real world. The p.ie default vote is NO and journal.ie polls AFAIK still don't track who votes so you can vote as many times as you want. As is oft said around these parts don't mistake p.ie for the real world.

Originally Posted by Howya

My issue with the referendum is that the State through the HSE has failed our children so miserably why on earth would we want to give the State more power and responsibility?

Good point. Another reservation I have is with the possible trend of legislation by way of the Constitution, at best a cumbersome process, and at worst an over-expansion of what is meant to be a basic legal document.

idiots and those who are a menace to society will be voting yes.

Their stupidity is only surpassed by their arrogance.

And as much as some of you may find this confusing, I'll be voting No, in spite of the above comments.

The state has as bad a record as priests in childcare.

Originally Posted by mr. jings

There could and should still be an analysis of current precedent and statutes, and the implementation thereof, both to throw light on the current status quo, the need for change, and the possible interpretation of any new laws.

But didn't Hugh O'Flaherty say there was no need for a referendum on the issue, and that adoption could be dealt with by legislation. Wasn't his view consistent with the 'comments in passing' that Adrian Hardiman made in the Baby Ann case when he categorically said that children's right are more than adequately catered for under the Constitution as is, and that the Constitution does not give preference to parents over children?

And isn't adoption allowed under the 1988 Adoption Act when married parents abandon their children? So adoption of the children of married couples is allowed for under certain conditions. For this reason I would agree with Hugh O'Flaherty when he says that voluntary adoption of married couples children can easily be catered for by legislation.

If correct, the arguments mentioned in the OP look like a case for accepting the referendum rather than rejecting it.

Personally I feel the proposed wording is so vague that it does not substantially alter any philosophical principle which is not already contained within the Constitution.

Have to admit I'm confused about this proposal. The lack of proper debate here doesn't help me.

The Facebook page of the Alliance of Parents against the State says:

When a child is in "Care", their family can do nothing about it. I mentioned the case of a 15 year old girl raped in "Care" and the mother cannot do anything about it. If the mother walks into a Garda station she could be arrested for trying to report a crime under the In Camera Rule. The mother can only complain to the HSE and only the HSE can investigate.

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now where a couple are trying to get the in-camera rule eased, just to allow a Garda to investigate perjury in a District Court to be investigated.

Does the in camera rule cover all events connected to cases of children in care or does it apply only to what is said in court?

Originally Posted by davidcameron

The Facebook page of the Alliance of Parents against the State says:



There is a case before the Supreme Court right now where a couple are trying to get the in-camera rule eased, just to allow a Garda to investigate perjury in a District Court to be investigated.

Does the in camera rule cover all events connected to cases of children in care or does it apply only to what is said in court?

I'm not sure. I do know that Appendix 5 of the Report of the Inquiry into the Roscommon incest case was redacted in the version of the report in the public domain. Yet at the same time details of the criminal trials of both parents were in the public domain, with anonymity preserved.

Jonathan Swift, if he were alive today, would not have to conceive of an imaginary land of Lilliputians - he would just have to look around him for the bizarre!