User Preferences

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

Blog Feeds

forward

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link SYRIZA: Was capitulation inevitable? Fri Jul 17, 2015 14:14 | Sami El-Sayed

offsite link The four contradictions of liberalism Fri Jul 17, 2015 13:52 | yeksmesh

offsite link Between Ideology and Public Discourse Tue Jul 14, 2015 15:07 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Commentary and Discussion to the Syriza Victory in the Greek Referendum Mon Jul 06, 2015 01:10 | Jerome Nikolai Warren

offsite link Trotsky and TTIP: how secret diplomacy serves elite interests Tue Jun 09, 2015 16:02 | yeksmesh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Corruption: Feeding off the carcass of Irish democracy

offsite link Denis O’Brien gets yet another contract…on another planet Anthony

offsite link Government making Irish Water too big to fail? Anthony

offsite link Is that baby an Irish citizen? Anthony

offsite link David Begg and ‘Jobs for the boys’ Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link Good news out of Russia - even the "non-system" opposition refuses to blame the Kremlin VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link Nemtsov murder: Putin warned about exactly this type of "false flag" two years ago VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link DPR PM Zakharchenko presser 27/02/15 Economical and political future of DPR VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link Breaking news: FALSE FLAG IN MOSCOW! VINEYARDSAKER:

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link Depoliticising Policing at MacGill Summer School Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:59 | Vicky Conway

offsite link Conference Announcement. Victims? Rights: An Agenda for Change. Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:32 | Sinead Ring

offsite link Legal Gender Recognition in Ireland Fri Jul 17, 2015 01:34 | Peter Dunne

offsite link The IMF?s strange role as the voice of moderation Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:05 | Aoife O'Donoghue

offsite link The Commission of Inquiry: Israel?s Obligations as Belligerent Occupant in the Gaza Strip for Post C... Tue Jul 14, 2015 07:45 | GuestPost

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'?

 
© 2001-2015 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