Register to Comment
Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 162
Like Tree139Likes
  1. #91
    Howya Howya is offline
    Howya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,818

    One reason to vote No is to avoid creating special categories of people under the constitution. We are all equal under the Constitution and don't need carve outs.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #92
    Howya Howya is offline
    Howya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,818

    Quote Originally Posted by Con Gallagher View Post
    Are there any actual reasons to vote no?

    There has been very little debate about the proposed amendment. The no ideas seem to fall into a few categories:


    2. The State is a poor substitute for parents.
    This argument is great because there is a wealth of evidence of where the State has failed eg industrial schools, magdelene laundries, state facilitating illegal adoptions, HSE losing children who die on its watch, and Judge Reilly's report into St Patrick's institute. This argument ignores the fact that a parent or parents had already failed.
    It doesn't ignore the fact that the parent/parents have failed. The argument is that until such time as the State can show that it has the skills, experience and resources to step in to replace parents, then it shouldn't be putting children into an even worse situation.
    Last edited by Howya; 29th October 2012 at 04:33 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #93
    irish_bob irish_bob is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    7,178

    this referendum is nothing but a high brow intelectual vanity project for people like fergus finlay
    vote no , the guards and social workers had all the licence in the world to step in when kids were being abused but since thier salarys were guarenteed regardless , like many public servants , they didnt bother
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #94
    ManUnited ManUnited is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,692

    Quote Originally Posted by rant_and_rave View Post
    Not True.

    Example: Ireland is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Irish authorities are obliged to return children to the jurisdictions of member countries regardless of the wishes of the children even if those children have to be dragged kicking and screaming on to the plane.

    Ergo the courts can and will ignore the wishes of the children even if those children express a wish not to be forcibly adopted.

    The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed immediately before an alleged wrongful removal or retention thereby deterring a parent from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court. The Convention does not provide any substantive rights. The Convention provides that the court in which a Hague Convention action is filed should not consider the merits of any underlying child custody dispute, but should determine only that country in which those issues should be heard. Return of the child is to the member nation rather than specifically to the left-behind parent. The Convention mandates return of any child who was a “habitual resident” in a contracting nation immediately before an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights.[3] The Convention provides that all Contracting States, as well as any judicial and administrative bodies of those Contracting States, “shall act expeditiously in all proceedings seeking the return of a children” and that those institutions shall use the most expeditious procedures available to the end that final decision be made within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings.[4]




    Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    You need to read the whole thing. Article 13:

    The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #95
    eoghanacht eoghanacht is offline
    eoghanacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    29,716

    Quote Originally Posted by kerdasi amaq View Post
    You can be sure that there is an international dimension to this; foreign paedophiles are insisting on this amendment, so, that they can insist that the state concoct grounds to take into care the children that they want to gain access to.

    Jimmy Savile would be drooling.

    Ooh foreign paedophiles? Really......................
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #96
    libertarian-right libertarian-right is offline
    libertarian-right's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,156

    The process of the way Children are handled by the state is what should be changed here, the appalling handling of Children throughout the decades and to save face, the government want to brush that over with a change to the constitution, pretending they actually did something about it and to "protect" children. And we want to just redefine that power for the state?

    It's political puke. Of course it's easy to knock that...you wouldn't vote against children...would you?!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #97
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,392

    I'm voting 'No' because there are several questions requiring a single answer and I can't answer 'Yes' to all of them.

    This referendum should have been broken down into two or more questions.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #98
    ppcoyle ppcoyle is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,052

    Quote Originally Posted by Con Gallagher View Post
    Are there any actual reasons to vote no?

    There has been very little debate about the proposed amendment. The no ideas seem to fall into a few categories:

    1. The Constitutional purist
    The fewer words in a Constitution the better and additional words can have unintended consequences. The beauty of this argument is you don't have to specify those consequences and just refer to x case.

    2. The State is a poor substitute for parents.
    This argument is great because there is a wealth of evidence of where the State has failed eg industrial schools, magdelene laundries, state facilitating illegal adoptions, HSE losing children who die on its watch, and Judge Reilly's report into St Patrick's institute. This argument ignores the fact that a parent or parents had already failed.

    3. It's a power grab by the State
    That's kind of the point, the State has identified a gap in the law, where it believes the laws are deficient and it cannot provide the support it needs.

    4. We don't need the referendum
    Relying on a partial quote by Hardiman J in the Baby Ann case, they ask would its provisions have made any difference to the abuse suffered since the foundation of the State. I don't think a referendum is required for extending marriage to same-sex partners, but Eamon Gilmore insists on going down the referendum route, it would not stop me voting for it.

    5. Cost
    If every child has right to be heard, then failed deportees will rely on their childrens' rights to stop it. Except of course the right to be heard is narrower than that.

    The above doesn't wash for me, but I don't want to misinterpret any legitimate views if those opposing the referendum but are there any actual reasons to vote no?
    Edit
    6. The yes side are lying liars who lie (lie is unspecified)
    7. The yes side have not met the standard of proof to shift the onus to the no side.
    8. Everyone seems to be voting yes, so a no vote provides space to think.
    Just come across this good summary page of the various stands of argument against the proposed referendum. Worth a visit IMO

    https://www.facebook.com/childrens.r...um?ref=tn_tnmn
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #99
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,392

    Quote Originally Posted by libertarian-right View Post
    The process of the way Children are handled by the state is what should be changed here, the appalling handling of Children throughout the decades and to save face, the government want to brush that over with a change to the constitution, pretending they actually did something about it and to "protect" children. And we want to just redefine that power for the state?

    It's political puke. Of course it's easy to knock that...you wouldn't vote against children...would you?!
    The RCC has taken extensive steps to address its sins and failings in the area of childcare.

    The state, also possessed of an appalling record, is holding a referendum to give itself more say over children.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #100
    realist realist is offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,937

    Quote Originally Posted by Lain2016 View Post
    She's in the wrong but she just cant accept that...and she bales with the kid

    Wrong, wrong, wrong...please take a go-to-jail card!
    Why is she in the wrong? She has not broken any law. At present she is entitled to refuse her consent as she has genuine concerns about the side effects of vaccinations and the state have ordered that she must have her child vaccinated. Her ex partner has said the reason he wants the vaccinations to go ahead is because the HSE have recommend it but both he and the court refused to accept responsibility if her child suffers an adverse reaction.

    The deaths of three people, including a newborn baby, may be linked to use of the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix over the past two years.

    Irish Medicines Board data on the top 10 medications for adverse reactions show the drug at the centre of the HSE’s nationwide inoculation programme may have had some role in the fatalities.

    According to statistics from irishhealth.com, since Jan 2010 the IMB — the State’s independent medication watchdog — received reports from doctors that these drugs may be linked to 2,090 reactions, including 139 deaths.

    Pandemrix accounted for 779 of these incidents.
    Swine flu vaccine may be linked to three deaths | Irish Examiner

    At least 779 adverse reactions to the drug have been reported, including up to 30 cases of narcolepsy in young people and it is no longer recommended for use in Ireland.
    HSE writes off €8m in vaccines - National News - Independent.ie

    Would you still willingly allow your child to be given Pandemrix as previously recommended by the HSE? According to the HSE there was more danger in getting the flu than getting the vaccine despite the fact that the government had to sign an indemnity form with the manufacturers absolving them of any liability for damages caused, while knowing that that particular vaccine had never even been tested for safety on 0-3 year olds.

    But, in this case, the state thinks that they know best and is forcing this women to vaccinate her child. If this amendment is passed, the state will have the constitutional right to make that decision.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment