User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link Officials and Provisionals Sat Apr 01, 2017 22:54 | James O'Brien

offsite link Interview with Cathal Goulding Mon Dec 26, 2016 17:11 | Cathal Goulding

offsite link Trump, Russia and the CIA Sat Dec 10, 2016 18:23 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Why is my rent so high? Mon Oct 31, 2016 18:51 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Review of Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises by Anwar Shaikh Sun Oct 30, 2016 16:21 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Fitzpatrick decision: A Banana Republic decision

offsite link Mattie McGrath TD: A dangerous ignoramus Anthony

offsite link Religion should have no control over the political process Anthony

offsite link Diarmaid Ferriter: Denial and the language of cute hoorism Anthony

offsite link Fianna Fail liars Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Catherine Austin Fitts interviews the Saker for the Solari Report: The Emerging Multipolar World ? T... Sat May 27, 2017 15:32 | The Saker
Dear friends, Here is the latest installment of my quarterly conversations with Catherine Austin Fitts.  This time the topic was The US U-Turn in the Middle East.   I hope

offsite link SBU cleans-up after Ukrainian air force shoots down MH17 Sat May 27, 2017 01:01 | Scott
Featured image: Since Maidan in 2014, the SBU of Ukraine shares its main building with CIA headquarters. by Scott Humor Part I. SBU orders to destroy all evidence of the

offsite link Syrian War Report ? May 26, 2017: Syrian Army Liberated 5,000km2 From ISIS Fri May 26, 2017 16:03 | Scott
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-rep... If you?re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn?t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or

offsite link Trump: dancing with wolves on the Titanic Fri May 26, 2017 06:14 | The Saker
This article was written for the Unz Review. Robert Fisk put it best: ?Trump Is About To Really Mess Up In The Middle East?. Following his fantastically stupid decision to

offsite link Syrian War Report ? May 25, 2017: Govt Forces Liberate Large Areas In Aleppo And Homs Thu May 25, 2017 21:31 | Scott
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-rep... If you?re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn?t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link Human Rights-Based Integration Policy and the New ?Migrant Integration Strategy? Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:33 | Cliodhna Murphy

offsite link The Citizens Assembly Proposals: A Draft Bill Tue Apr 25, 2017 20:42 | admin

offsite link NUI Galway Announce New Director of Irish Centre for Human Rights Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:50 | Eoin Daly

offsite link Barriers to first trimester abortion care. Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:31 | admin

offsite link Why would any country put abortion in the Constitution? Thu Apr 20, 2017 17:28 | Máiréad Enright

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Children's Referendum? - No

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis author Friday November 09, 2012 17:34author by Nick Folley - none Report this post to the editors

Some of the reasons why I am voting No

Some of the ideological reasons why am voting no and asking others to do so, tomorrow.

Everyone must be aware by now that the Supreme Court decided that the government illegally used public funding to push for a certain vote in the upcoming referendum. That doesn't surprise me, nor the fact that despite this they still consider running the referendum, even if the vote may have been prejudiced and compromised by that government action. I am well used to the disdain the powers-that-be have for the voting public.

However, even websites advocating a Yes vote that are not run by the government don't always tell it straight, and find a way to equivocate.

In the FAQs on one children's rights website, we are told this referendum will not lead to forced adoptions. Reading on it states that children can only be adopted by foster families after a period of 3 years of neglect etc by the birth family. In such cases the State would have the right to intervene and make an order for the children be adopted by the foster families, should they so wish. So this particular website chooses to interpret 'forced adoption' as meaning the foster families are not forced to adopt children, whereas I think for most people, we assume it to mean that parents might find their children taken from them and placed for adoption even if this is against the wishes of the said parents. Thus a Yes vote WILL facilitate 'forced adoptions'.

Another section of the same FAQs says that the UN Charter on children's rights will not be incorporated into the Constitution, which is true. However, when the courts have to decide what those rights are, as one commentator noted, it is highly probable they will refer to the same UN Charter on children's rights as a guide. Thus it will, in effect, become a highly significant document if there is a Yes vote.

One big problem with this referendum is the many and mixed motives of those behind it. I believe there are many who genuinely believe it is the best thing for children and have children's interests at heart. The problem is there are also many who are unfortunately wedded to antiquated Marxist dialectic ideology and see everything in these terms. In this scenario the parents become the 'oppressor' and the children the 'oppressed', to be liberated by Marxists ideologues from their parents. We can find shades of this flawed thinking in another children's campaign website in their policy statement ".... committed and to an Ireland where children are recognized and respected as full individuals within society..."

Now while that sounds very laudable, there is little accompanying explanation of what it means in practice. It is hardly a Constitutional issue, as children here are explicitly recognized as having imprescriptible rights, and even to have that protection extended before birth, something their counterparts in other European (and worldwide) countries would be extremely grateful for, were people willing to listen to their opinions. So children already have all the normal rights every citizen of the Irish state has, as well as extra recognition as children. The only exception is of course children born here after 2004, where the government encouraged another Yes vote, this time to strip those children of automatic citizenship which the Constitution had guaranteed them up to that date. One wonders why an amendment to overturn that amendment is not being included in the current referendum if the intention is really to enshrine children's rights.

So what is the change? I believe it is in the key phrase "... as full individuals..." What does that mean? Since children already have full status as citizens under our Constitution, it can only mean an attempt to place them on a more equal footing with adults, in the sense of being totally free to make their own decisions and choices in life. I can only briefly outline what is flawed in this thinking here:

I am all for children being able to grow and flourish into fulfilled adults, and for parents who provide as best they can the means and opportunities for them to do so. I believe parents should do their best to support children in their chosen career path, study, talents and so on. Yes, choice is important. But it is not a virtue in itself, without reference to what it is that we choose. And there are some important caveats.

Children are not adults. They do not have the life experience of adults. While there is no doubt adults can be manipulated and misled, children are much more vulnerable in this regard. They need the guidance of adults - primarily their parents - as to what the best choices to make are, and the discipline of their parents to support them through the many temptations of life. I'm sure if asked many children would far rather stay in bed and not go to school in the morning, not bother with exams, spend all day on the Xbox, eat only chocolate and pizza, smoke, drink alcohol and never go to bed. At least, until they are grown up enough to realize the serious consequences of those choices and when perhaps it is too late.

Adults - again, primarily parents - have the duty of ensuring that while children are encouraged and supported in growing in the manner most likely to benefit them for when they are adults. They sometimes have to oblige their children to do things those children don't want to do - homework, sleep, proper diet etc., - using encouragement, love and sanctions such as no TV etc., to try and ensure children do what is best for themselves.

Placing children on a more equal footing with adults in this regard is deeply flawed and is NOT in the best interests of the child. In fact it is directly opposed to it. A focus on children's right to make whatever choices they wish without a stronger stated acknowledgement of their parents' right to make important decisions on their behalf with the best interest of the child at heart, is flawed.

But it does fit into Marxist dialectic thinking and leave children far more vulnerable to being moulded by pressures and forces outside the family - ironically, including commercial pressures.

author by bruisedpublication date Fri Nov 09, 2012 23:00Report this post to the editors

I agree with a no vote, but not because adults always have better judgement than children. It's just bad legislation and not remotely good enough to protect the interests of children.

Some adults are batshit insane, cruel and vindictive and should not be let near a child but they can also be clever enough to present a nice interface to the rest of the world while torturing and taking out all their anger and frustrations on their poor defenceless child.

In such cases, the child clearly is the only one who truly understands the real nature of the situation.

I lived through this and it was total hell. However everybody thought my parent was great.

Children SHOULD be listened to carefully in matters of family breakdown.

author by Nick Folley - nonepublication date Sat Nov 10, 2012 00:35Report this post to the editors

Yes, some adults are a bit.... off kilter, shall we say. The majority of parents though will care more for their child in the long run than almost all strangers will.

My issue here is not that some children do need rescuing from their unsavoury parents. Rather, that is in the interest or guise of seeming to do good that some people will use tools like this referendum as a chance to do more harm to kids.

The situation you describe cuts both ways. What if some very nice, plausible people are using kids as pawns in a larger ideological game? What if their real interest is in trying to bring about a second Cultural Revolution (see under 'China' and 'Mao Zedong') to further their own ideological aims, by breaking down the authority of parents? That would leave kids with one less barrier to indoctrination and manipulation. Turning kids into the perfect consumers, for example - to be denied nothing their hearts wish for, and their parents having more limited power to say no, because 'kids have rights', while still having to stump up the cash? An ad man's dream.

Or where a State realizes it can get subservience from adults because now it has a way to access their kids. Adults might go on protest marches, get angry, wave their fist at the government, refuse to pay charges, they might even let themselves go to jail for what they believe in. But how many will stay defiant when the State finds ways to step in and threaten to take their kids because their behaviour and social conscience is deemed to be 'harmful to the welfare of their children'?

 
© 2001-2017 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy