I just came across this critique of the amendment and the possible implications of the wording - Gerry Fahey (GerryFahey) on Scribd | Scribd .

Essentially it seems to be saying that the amendment may well end up pitting children against parents, with the courts intervening to deal with parent/conflict outside of those ‘exceptional’ situations to which Article 42.5 of the Constitution currently applies.

Therefore, the amendment introduces a new dimension to law in that it provides explicitly and for the first time that children’s rights are justiciable even when the family unit is intact and fully functioning.

It apparently does so by giving children specific rights without parents having any specific rights other than indirectly arising from Arts. 41 and 42, so that the courts could be routinely intervening between parents and children in order to determine what parents must allow their children to do.

The analysis seems to suggest that it is likely to bring about a fundamental change in Irish society that is much broader in scope than the simplistic children’s ‘rights’ rhetoric of some commentators suggests.

It also points out that parents are explicitly excluded from taking action against the State even when the State gets it wrong in any individual case arising out of intervention by the State.

Finally, and anomalously, this clause explicitly excludes proceedings brought against the state from the list of proceedings that are to have the BIC as the paramount consideration. In fact, the state is one of the primary offenders in relation to the welfare of children. This clause seeks to insulate them from litigation that could otherwise be taken

That's a YES from me so.

Originally Posted by emulator

That's a YES from me so.

Clearly a speed reader then.

The result of this referendum is not a foregone conclusion if the poll on p,ie means anything which is doubtful to say the least.


The nos and undecided account for 47% and the yes,s 43%.


[The previous referenda brought in results totally at odds with p.ie polls.]

Originally Posted by ppcoyle

I just came across this critique of the amendment and the possible implications of the wording - Gerry Fahey (GerryFahey) on Scribd | Scribd .

Essentially it seems to be saying that the amendment may well end up pitting children against parents, with the courts intervening to deal with parent/conflict outside of those ‘exceptional’ situations to which Article 42.5 of the Constitution currently applies.



It apparently does so by giving children specific rights without parents having any specific rights other than indirectly arising from Arts. 41 and 42, so that the courts could be routinely intervening between parents and children in order to determine what parents must allow their children to do.

The analysis seems to suggest that it is likely to bring about a fundamental change in Irish society that is much broader in scope than the simplistic children’s ‘rights’ rhetoric of some commentators suggests.

It also points out that parents are explicitly excluded from taking action against the State even when the State gets it wrong in any individual case arising out of intervention by the State.

An excellent in depth analysis that blows apart all claims that this is a harmless referendum only all about the children.

Truly shocking stuff; even in intact fully functioning families the State can step into the family.

Contrary to all the puff piece rubbish claims about this referendum being completely ionocuous with strong protections for the rights of the family we can now clearly see that it is in fact an all-encompassing power being sought by the state into families and children's lives.

The state as the Super-Parent; truly chilling stuff that we are sleepwalking into.

Originally Posted by The Field Marshal

The result of this referendum is not a foregone conclusion if the poll on p,ie means anything which is doubtful to say the least.
The nos and undecided account for 47% and the yes,s 43%.

[The previous referenda brought in results totally at odds with p.ie polls.]

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

Originally Posted by emulator

That's a YES from me so.

Here's someone who would be in favour of the amendment if she lived in Ireland.
Margot Honecker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dictator's wife defiant over forced adoptions - Europe - World - The Independent

Explanation of the Best Interests of Children (BIC) test from the analysis below. Welcome to the new world of paid "experts" with no accountability or oversight deciding in secret the most important issues in children's lives, instead of their own parents.

The BIC test,in principle, undermines the position of parents, because, in principle, it removes the presumption that parents are better placed to advance the welfare of the child than the stranger who is an expert (professionally) employed in a field of childcare studiesand, instead, espouses a presumption that the welfare of children is something that canlegitimately be determined by a court on the basis of expert testimony. This hugely increasesthe importance that would be attached to the evidence of psychologists and social workerswho are strangers to the child and have at most a temporary professional interest in the
child’s welfare.


It also means that parents would have to re-cast their arguments as arguments that could be supported by expert testimony, and, at best, this would mean that they would have toargue, from a psychological point of view, why their position is a position that the experts could acknowledge as being in the best interest of the child.

Originally Posted by Omaha

An excellent in depth analysis that blows apart all claims that this is a harmless referendum only all about the children.

Truly shocking stuff; even in intact fully functioning families the State can step into the family.

Contrary to all the puff piece rubbish claims about this referendum being completely ionocuous with strong protections for the rights of the family we can now clearly see that it is in fact an all-encompassing power being sought by the state into families and children's lives.

The state as the Super-Parent; truly chilling stuff that we are sleepwalking into.

What's interesting about the debate so far is that it has been based on appeals to the emotions by misinforming the public about the Roscommon incest case, lying about adoption figures and mis-attributing the cause of the Industrial Schools scandals to deficiencies in the Constitution.

This is all the overlaid with an implied accusation of those opposing the amendment that they are all right wing conservatives who are against children's rights.

The critique that I posted firmly and squarely takes the debate away from unsupported false assertions and grounds the debate in a discussion of the possible unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by ppcoyle

I just came across this critique of the amendment and the possible implications of the wording -

Essentially it seems to be saying that the amendment may well end up pitting children against parents, with the courts intervening to deal with parent/conflict outside of those ‘exceptional’ situations to which Article 42.5 of the Constitution currently applies.

Ive had a read of that document. If it's correct then we should be very worried about the implications.



It apparently does so by giving children specific rights without parents having any specific rights other than indirectly arising from Arts. 41 and 42, so that the courts could be routinely intervening between parents and children in order to determine what parents must allow their children to do.

The analysis seems to suggest that it is likely to bring about a fundamental change in Irish society that is much broader in scope than the simplistic children’s ‘rights’ rhetoric of some commentators suggests.

It also points out that parents are explicitly excluded from taking action against the State even when the State gets it wrong in any individual case arising out of intervention by the State.