Register to Comment
Page 1 of 28 123 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 280
Like Tree176Likes
  1. #1
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    A Critique of the Proposed Amendment – Here’s why it Should be Rejected

    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
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    emulator emulator is offline
    emulator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    7,805

    That's a YES from me so.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Quote Originally Posted by emulator View Post
    That's a YES from me so.
    Clearly a speed reader then.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    The Field Marshal The Field Marshal is offline
    The Field Marshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    26,716

    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.]
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Omaha Omaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    272

    Quote Originally Posted by ppcoyle View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Quote Originally Posted by The Field Marshal View Post
    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
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    davidcameron davidcameron is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,618

    Quote Originally Posted by emulator View Post
    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
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    Omaha Omaha is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    272

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaha View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    sultan sultan is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    36

    Quote Originally Posted by ppcoyle View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 28 123 11 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment