New Events


no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

offsite link Formal complaint against Robert Watt Anthony

offsite link RTE bias complaint Anthony

offsite link Fergus Finlay and the maternity hospital ‘gotcha’ trap Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link MIT Expert on Drug Safety Calls for Immediate Withdrawal of mRNA Vaccines: ?Clearly the Most Failing... Mon Jan 30, 2023 14:00 | Will Jones
Covid mRNA vaccines are "clearly the most failing medical product in history" and should be withdrawn immediately as they cause "an unprecedented level of harm", a top drug safety expert has said.
The post MIT Expert on Drug Safety Calls for Immediate Withdrawal of mRNA Vaccines: “Clearly the Most Failing Medical Product in History, Causing Unprecedented Harm” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Misinformation and Hate Speech Have Been Rife in the Past Three Years, But From Defenders of the Cov... Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:03 | Toby Young
Laura Dodsworth has published a fascinating Q&A with Toby Green and Thomas Fazi, who?ve written a book criticising the global pandemic response from a left-wing perspective.
The post Misinformation and Hate Speech Have Been Rife in the Past Three Years, But From Defenders of the Covid Consensus, Not Dissenters appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Are Robots Better at Churning Out Woke Gobbledegook than University EDI Officers? Mon Jan 30, 2023 09:00 | John Staddon
A psychology professor has had a bright idea: take the key words that appear in your university's 'vision' statement, ask chatGPT to write a sentence with them in and see if it can do better. Not surprisingly, it can.
The post Are Robots Better at Churning Out Woke Gobbledegook than University EDI Officers? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Jonathan Sumption Is Wrong About Excess Deaths Mon Jan 30, 2023 07:00 | Nick Rendell
Jonathan Sumption was very sound on the issue of lockdowns, but he is wrong about the cause of excess deaths in 2022, writes Nick Rendell.
The post Jonathan Sumption Is Wrong About Excess Deaths appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link News Round-Up Mon Jan 30, 2023 00:21 | Nick Dixon
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the virus and the vaccines, the ?climate emergency? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Pfizer modified Covid virus ahead of pandemic Mon Jan 30, 2023 13:28 | en

offsite link The Kremlin classifies its economic statistics Sun Jan 29, 2023 15:22 | en

offsite link Voltaire International Newsletter N°25 Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:36 | en

offsite link Two European Union states poised to sever diplomatic relations with Russia Thu Jan 26, 2023 16:09 | en

offsite link The Whole of Europe Turned Into a Battlefield, by Manlio Dinucci Tue Jan 24, 2023 07:26 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Children's Rights Referendum ?

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis author Friday September 28, 2012 20:01author by Sonya Oldham - People's Association Watchdogauthor email irelandpaw at gmail dot com Report this post to the editors

It is a child's right to grow up safely and to reach their own potential. Unfortunately this does not always happen, so will this constitutional change provide the impetus and the framework to allow the betterment of children's circumstances?

We eagerly awaited the wording of the children's rights amendment as we all want what is best for our children, and for all children. It is a child's right to grow up safely and to reach their own potential. Unfortunately this does not always happen, so will this constitutional change provide the impetus and the framework to allow the betterment of children's circumstances? I do not believe so. After reading the amendment, some questions and observations come to mind:

The wording in relation to the intervention level at which children may be adopted without consent from the parents is ambiguous and widely open to interpretation.

The express rights of children are not included.

With this in mind, before voting please ask yourself:

- Are the provisions what you envisioned? Are they implicit in safeguarding children's rights?
- Are children's rights sufficiently covered by this amendment?
- Do you believe that the state intervention threshold is clear as to circumstances and duration of time as to when a child will be adopted without the parents consent?

If you are not completely satisfied with the provisions, please consider voting No. This does not mean you are voting against children's rights but that you want their express rights to be included and you want an unambiguous threshold for their adoption against their parents wishes .

Indeed, instead of an emphasis on children's rights, the object of the suggested constitutional change seems to be to provide for greater eligibility for adoption and would seem, at first reading, to be an adoption amendment, with the majority of the substance being concerned with the process of enabling adoption.

The present legal position under the Adoption Act 1988 allows the adoption of children without the consent of married parents when a court determines they have been abandoned. The test for abandonment is high and rightly so. If it cannot be established, then parental contact exists and the focus should be on promoting rather than extinguishing it. This balances both parents’ and their children’s rights to know and have a relationship with each other.

The Constitution currently states in Article 42.5, viz. “In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”

This referendum disappointingly focuses less on the rights of a child than on a lowered threshold for state intervention. This lowered threshold seems ambiguous and it's wording indeterminable.

Dr Oran Doyle, a law lecturer in Trinity College said, “The real source of contention in current debate, and the likely focus of any referendum proposal, is the question of when the State may intervene and take children into care or start making decisions on behalf of children that override the wishes of the parents.

“To call this a children’s rights issue is somewhat misleading; the issue here concerns who exercises for children the rights that they cannot exercise themselves.''

New Wording:

- *2.1°* In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
What does this mean, prejudicially affected?

By definition Prejudicial can mean harmful, damaging, undermining, detrimental, hurtful, unfavourable, counterproductive, deleterious, injurious, inimical, disadvantageous.

This encompassing and indeterminate word has a wide variation in it's interpretation from being harmed to being at a disadvantage. Would this definition, as it is being proposed for the constitution, include a child whose welfare is at a disadvantage?

Vague terms that leave interpretation wide open are not in the best interests of our children, if we are to change our constitution to the advantage of our children, the meaning must be precise and not open to varying degrees of interpretation. This is especially important when it is allowing for the adoption of children whose parents are not consenting.

- *2. 2°* Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
This raises concerns; What period of time and What duty? As parents, we have many duties to our children, from providing emotional security to the basics of them having breakfast on the table and what does the 'best interests' of the child mean? Who decides?

As has been noted by several commentators, including Professors William Binchy and Gerard Whyte of Trinity College Dublin, any such failure under this wording, need only be temporary and could even be of extremely short duration.

- *3. * Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

- *4. **1°* Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings:
- * i* brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
- * ii* concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
- *4. 2°* Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

Again, the bar seems to be set as 'prejudically affected' and in the 'best interests' of the child, but what do these mean? These ambiguous statements leave the amendment dangerously open to interpretation.

Constitutional law expert and high court judge, Professor Gerard Hogan of Trinity College Dublin also appears to be skeptical about the need for an amendment and expresses reservations about the concept of a child’s ‘best interests’ because it leaves open the question in many cases of who get to decide what is in a given child’s interests, the parents or the State? For example, with regard to a child's best interests he is quoted in the report as follows: “it is all very well to say that children's interests must be safeguarded. But who is to decide this and what does it mean?"

According to Mr Hogan the phrase, “best interests of the child”, is ambiguous. He has also raised concerns that a children's rights referendum might lower the threshold for State intervention in an excessive way.

A constitutional amendment where provision is being made for the adoption of a child against the parents wishes should be clear on what circumstances, degree of failure and time period.

*So What about Children's rights*

Both the* *Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children (*JCCAC*) and Children's Ombudsman recommended the amendment should include the express recognition of children’s rights whilst also expressly recognising that the primary and natural carers, educators and protectors of the welfare of a child are the child’s parents.

They also recommended that the proposed wording specifically requires the State, by proportionate intervention, to support the family so as to ensure that a child is only removed from his or her family where no other appropriate action can be taken which will ensure the protection of a child at risk and/or to protect the child’s welfare and best interests.

Ten years ago, the Constitution Review Group recommended that an express guarantee of certain rights of the child should be added into the Constitution as well as an express requirement that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

According to the children's ombudsman, the failure of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution to recommend that express rights for children be included in the Constitution is a retrograde step in strengthening and protecting children's rights. This means that children will not be recognised as individual rights holders.

Children's Ombudsman: the current proposal to refer to the rights of children falls short of what is required. The proposal states: “The State acknowledges and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children” [Article 42(A)1 of Twenty-Eighth Amendment Bill]

The recommendations of the Children's Ombudsman:

Specifically, I recommend the inclusion of a provision setting out express rights for children to include:

- The right to participate in matters affecting the child.
- The right to freedom from discrimination.
- A right to participate and to be heard.
- The express provision for the right to family or appropriate care, together with an express duty on State to support families. I recommend the inclusion in the Constitution of a State duty to support families and a duty to act in a proportionate manner.

To clarify, I fully support the proposal that provision be made for the adoption of children in long-term foster care, but we must not assume that this is in the best interests of all children in this situation

Related Link:
author by Sonya Oldham - People's Association Watchdogpublication date Thu Oct 04, 2012 09:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Apologies, but i made a mistake in my research, i asked several sources about the previous wording of the amendment and i was told that all the education bit was being omitted but since then i have realised this isn't the fact. I dont know how to delete the article above.

To clarify: Provisions of the Bill A new Article 42A is to be inserted as a new Article after Article 42.4

The provisions for education will be unaffected.

author by serfpublication date Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Since most governments with constitutions (ourselves, the US etc.) continue to ignore them or ride roughshod over them, I can't see how inserting more aspirational statements into an already largely ignored document helps children in any practical way and that it is anything but a cynical political ploy to distract people from other more pressing matters.

For example, the austerity measures currently being systematically implemented in parallel to these lip service amendments , do far more harm to children's daily quality of life on a wide scale than anything. Being cash strapped pressured, stressed and overworked and without adequate community support structures does not help parents to perform optimally to say the least! And good parenting is key to children being safe and being looked after the way they should be.

In many cases, rigorous compulsory parental education and licensing before being allowed to conceive might be a better approach!! Too many parents treat their kids as inconveniences or must have fashion accessories. A small societal barrier that forces potential parents to learn, consider and reflect on the mammoth task they are about to undertake, both social and financial, and elucidate how their actions will deeply affect this person in the future might pay some dividends. Perhaps linking failure to not receiving a "license" to have children or financial penalty (loss of tax breaks?, reduced welfare?) might provide a healthy incentive to take it very seriously indeed!!. After all, it IS the hardest job there is to do right. So It really makes little sense that it remains probably the only such job absolutely anyone at all can undertake without any proper training whatsoever!!

To be honest, even ratifying the Aarhus convention might help children far more than adding some new ignored platitudes to the constitution, in that it might at least help us to protect the environment they will be inheriting from us from total exploitation and destruction.

Having the balls to print and control our own currency and limiting banks from lending money they don't actually have would be a far more effective way of securing the futures of our children than anything else! But there is too much to be gained by our lords in masters and their elite friends by selling our kids into complete debt serfdom to do that. That fact alone puts all this talk of children's rights into perspective.

How about this wording?:
"For the purposes of political expediency and distraction of the masses from their impending slide into total economic debt slavery, We believe children should have certain aspirational rights which we will ignore while we are busy condemning them in perpetuity to debt serfdom and a future where they are nothing but a desperate pool of cheap obedient labour (and that's if they are lucky!)".

Lets state it like it is folks! Because despite all the words, life is cheap and getting cheaper every day and the fact of the matter is our lords and masters really don't give a shit about the grubby children of the great unwashed.

© 2001-2023 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