Children Referendum (4 Viewers)

[rettucs]

And progress that to the point that every children's charity thinks its a good thing so just get out and vote yes rather than not bothering.It'll only take a few minutes.
The greatest fear is that everyone will assume that everyone else is voting yes so they needn't bother,the no voters will get out and vote,its important that apathy doesn't let them win it.

this is fair enough but I think my point is being missed. While you might sway me and convince me to vote, the general apathy that exists is a bigger problem. If I'm apathetic I think I'm in the minority in that I'll still usually make the effort to vote. In this case I'll stay with the majority of the apathetics. Its the reason for the apathy thats the problem here.

 

[magicbastarder]

the main argument with the referendum, from what i understand, is that it's actually not needed.
i've seen a lot of comment that the way the constitution is currently being interpreted (primacy of the family unit, etc.) is not necessarily how the constitution should be read.

but if this helps to clarify that issue, even if it's technically not necessary, it's probably a good thing.

 

[maims bond]

The whole point of my post was that I didn't know what the referendum was about, and that I am typical of a lot of others. However I think the onus is on the government (via the supposedly independent referendum commission, who its fair to say are neither independent or neutral) to get information out there. In general, because of the poor job they do I tend to vote No as I feel they are being sly to favour their own agenda. But in this case I won't vote No as it seems that might be the wrong thing to do based on the subject matter. I don't have kids, so its not a topic I am very familiar with and I don't understand the issues. In this case I am happy to leave the voting to those that know better than me.

In summary, in other referendums I vote against the govt to punish them for not being open. In this case, though I still feel they are not being open, I won't vote against them.

Which I think is fair enough.

There's not much that gets me angry these days but, man, that post is something else. You say there's no information about the referendum? Every house in the country got an explanatory leaflet. Try taking ten minutes to read that. Listen to the radio and TV ads. If you're still unsure, watch the TV3 debate on Vincent Browne last week between Fergus Finlay & Frances Fitzgerald vs Cathy Sinnott & John Waters. If you're still unsure, read all the newspaper coverage from various voices for and against.

You say the referendum commission do a poor job. Again, leaflet to EVERY house, always on radio and TV. You say they're biased. Explain how please. They would be hung out to dry if they were thought to be biased. You may be confusing this with the high court (now before the supreme court) challenge of a man who thinks the Government are improperly spending public money on their own information campaign:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1102/1224326035370.html

extract: THE SUPREME Court will next week hear an appeal against the High Court’s rejection of a man’s claim that the Government is spending €1.1 million of public money on a one-sided information campaign about the children’s referendum.

The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, ruled yesterday the Government’s information campaign – which is separate from the work of the Referendum Commission – contained material that was “neutral and balanced” with the primary aim of informing the public about the forthcoming referendum.

He ruled that nothing in the Government’s information campaign “plainly favoured a particular outcome that was unconstitutional or wrongful”, a claim made by Mark McCrystal in a High Court challenge.


I, for one, think the guy actually has a point. The Govt information campaign leaflet and website is full of kid friendly imagery. It's almost like they did it in crayon with smily kid faces (have a look: http://www.childrensreferendum.ie/). However, that is immaterial. The Ref Comm have done a good job of getting the information out there in an impartial manner and nobody has a valid excuse for not being aware of what's on the table.

There may not be the same level of interest in this as in past referenda/elections, but there's a simple answer for that: the vast majority of people want this. There are some loony commentators like John Waters who think it's a bad idea but, in the main, people think that placing an explicit acknowledgement of children's rights into our legal framework is a positive step.

 

[rettucs]

You say they're biased. Explain how please.

I can't remember the specifics but it was during the Fiscal Treaty referendum. Their wording of the actual title of the referendum on the literature they sent out was incorrect in a way that could be, and was, construed as scaremongering.

They would be hung out to dry if they were thought to be biased.

yes, they were, but because it was by Shinners and some lefties, and because it was taboo to be against that treaty (which I was) , it didn't seem to matter.

I have no faith in the referendum commission following that.

The rest of your post reinforces my own opinion to myself. If there is a referendum that can have wide-ranging implications (different things to different people, etc), you hear a range of arguments on both sides. You can listen to some or all, take whatever sticks or resonates with you personally, then decide. That is the part thats missing. The only people against this referendum are these so-called loony commentators.

In fact the best argument I heard against this referendum was that it didn't go far enough to addressing some of the issues it needed to (I can't recall who - they argued that the proposed constitutional changes certainly had merit, but there was more needed), and that is whats resonated most strongly with me thus far.

Sorry for making you angry dude.

 

[Unicron]

There's 2 aspects to the referendum really, the first is a bunch of touchy feely nebulous stuff about respecting the rights of children as people too and all that. Self-evident stuff really, kids are mostly nice and vulnerable so we should be nice to them. Basically what magicbastarder said above. I don't really think it's needed if we just treated every person as a person regardless of being a child or an adult, but I wouldn't vote against it.

The really important stuff is to do with adoption law reform, adoption in this country is a bit of a mess and this won't fix all the issues including what I'd view as the most backwards and troublesome aspects ...

- The fact that non-married couples aren't allowed to adopt jointly even if they've been in a long term relationship and to all intents are purposes are hitched save for the bit of paper. If they want to adopt one of them can apply to adopt as a single parent but though the other partner will be raising the kid as their child they'll have no legal parental rights. Also it's pretty difficult to get approved for adoption as a single person.
- The fact that gay couples can't adopt, because gay couples can't get married, and unmarried couples can't adopt.

But it does bring in some changes, like the state can intervene in "certain situations" (basically if the family unit is utterly fucked and dangerous for the child) and push the adoption of a child through without the consent/against the wishes of the biological parents and there is probably some scope for that provision to be mishandled by over-zealous social workers or abused (think magdaline laundries as a worst case scenareo) but I imagine the thinking behind it is that in cases where a child is in long-term foster care and there is no possibility that the child will be returned to the biologicals the facility would be there for the foster parents to adopt the child. This might encourage more people to foster kids if they viewed it as a path to adopting.

Personally I think there's the portential for more good than harm to come from the new provisions.

 

[maims bond]

yes, they were, but because it was by Shinners and some lefties, and because it was taboo to be against that treaty (which I was) , it didn't seem to matter.

The Shinners and Lefties would have had every avenue available to challenge the Ref Comm if they thought they were out of line, just as the guy in the Irish Times snippet is doing. SF had no problem (rightly so) taking the Govt through the courts to force a by-election in Donegal. You can say what you want about the Govt but our courts system is highly regarded and completely independent of any meddling.

Would you not suspect that if it is only loony commentators coming out against this ref then, perhaps, that it would be loony to vote No?

I'm not angry any more. I've moved on to stage 2: despair.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

this is fair enough but I think my point is being missed. While you might sway me and convince me to vote, the general apathy that exists is a bigger problem. If I'm apathetic I think I'm in the minority in that I'll still usually make the effort to vote. In this case I'll stay with the majority of the apathetics. Its the reason for the apathy thats the problem here.

I don't think it's apathy over the issue so much as people thinking "well everyone is voting yes so I need not bother"
If that happens the whole exercise could be in serious danger of failing.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

In fact the best argument I heard against this referendum was that it didn't go far enough to addressing some of the issues it needed to (I can't recall who - they argued that the proposed constitutional changes certainly had merit, but there was more needed), and that is whats resonated most strongly with me thus far.

In that case surely a small step in the right direction is better than doing nothing?

 

[rettucs]

Would you not suspect that if it is only loony commentators coming out against this ref then, perhaps, that it would be loony to vote No?

Probably, which is why I'm not voting No.

I'm not angry any more. I've moved on to stage 2: despair.

Sorry for making you despair dude

Oh, and I remember what the referendum commission did. They called the Fiscal Treaty referendum the 'Stability Treaty'. That was bang out of order IMO

 

[rettucs]

I don't think it's apathy over the issue so much as people thinking "well everyone is voting yes so I need not bother"
If that happens the whole exercise could be in serious danger of failing.

I can only speak for myself with any degree of certainty and I'm explaining my own apathy - not that its a case of I want it to go through, its going to go through, hence I don't need to vote. Its a case of I don't really know for sure. It seems good. It seems right. But there are plenty of people out there more informed than I am, so they are better placed to decide than I am.

I guess another niggling worry/doubt that I have is that this was a piece of govt business outstanding for quite a while, and there could be an element of 'box-ticking' (no pun intended) about the whole thing. The government have been incredibly lazy about campaigning for certain referendums, relying on the assumption that their position would be carried by the media and would do the campaigning for them (Nice 1).

I know from discussing other issues on here before that maims bond may have an interest of sorts in this (still waiting for my notification leaflet about the Household charge). But I'm sure as hell not afraid to say that I don't trust the govt. And now, nor do I trust the referendum commission. And I sincerely hope, despite slight indications otherwise, that maims will at least allow me hold an opinion on the matter.

 

[rettucs]

In that case surely a small step in the right direction is better than doing nothing?

So now the most convincing thing I've read on the matter is Unicron ; s post above. If its a small step in the right direction, the box is ticked, so lets never revisit it again, then no, its not better than doing nothing. But if they remain open to going further and covering some of the areas Ian mentioned, then Yes, absolutely.

 

[rettucs]

There's 2 aspects to the referendum really, the first is a bunch of touchy feely nebulous stuff about respecting the rights of children as people too and all that. Self-evident stuff really, kids are mostly nice and vulnerable so we should be nice to them. Basically what magicbastarder said above. I don't really think it's needed if we just treated every person as a person regardless of being a child or an adult, but I wouldn't vote against it.

The really important stuff is to do with adoption law reform, adoption in this country is a bit of a mess and this won't fix all the issues including what I'd view as the most backwards and troublesome aspects ...

- The fact that non-married couples aren't allowed to adopt jointly even if they've been in a long term relationship and to all intents are purposes are hitched save for the bit of paper. If they want to adopt one of them can apply to adopt as a single parent but though the other partner will be raising the kid as their child they'll have no legal parental rights. Also it's pretty difficult to get approved for adoption as a single person.
- The fact that gay couples can't adopt, because gay couples can't get married, and unmarried couples can't adopt.

But it does bring in some changes, like the state can intervene in "certain situations" (basically if the family unit is utterly fucked and dangerous for the child) and push the adoption of a child through without the consent/against the wishes of the biological parents and there is probably some scope for that provision to be mishandled by over-zealous social workers or abused (think magdaline laundries as a worst case scenareo) but I imagine the thinking behind it is that in cases where a child is in long-term foster care and there is no possibility that the child will be returned to the biologicals the facility would be there for the foster parents to adopt the child. This might encourage more people to foster kids if they viewed it as a path to adopting.

Personally I think there's the portential for more good than harm to come from the new provisions.

Thanks for that. I know from things you've said on here before that this is an area that I expect is close to your heart. Thats the best, and most sincere, explanation I've read thus far.

 

[rettucs]

the main argument with the referendum, from what i understand, is that it's actually not needed.
i've seen a lot of comment that the way the constitution is currently being interpreted (primacy of the family unit, etc.) is not necessarily how the constitution should be read.

this. Was there not an element to Nice 2 that meant we no longer had to hold a referendum to change the constitution? Or did I just imagine that?

 

[maims bond]

Oh, and I remember what the referendum commission did. They called the Fiscal Treaty referendum the 'Stability Treaty'. That was bang out of order IMO

Wrong. It was the Govt that got into hot water for how they named the treaty. www.stabilitytreaty.ie was their website on the campaign. The ref comm had this site: http://www.refcom.ie/en/News-Media/...eferendum-on-the-Fiscal-Stability-Treaty.html

and called it the fiscal stability which seemed logical to me. Bottom line: you can take whatever the Govt says on referenda with a pinch of salt but the Ref Comm are beyond reproach.

 

[Unicron]

So now the most convincing thing I've read on the matter is Unicron ; s post above. If its a small step in the right direction, the box is ticked, so lets never revisit it again, then no, its not better than doing nothing. But if they remain open to going further and covering some of the areas Ian mentioned, then Yes, absolutely.

I may be wrong but I'm not sure if there is any constitutional barrier to fixing the issues I outlined in the earlier post (maybe there's something related to the whole special place for the family in society provision but that's sort of just an aspirational thing really isn't it), it's probably just a matter of revisiting some archaic legislation and someone having the courage to to face up against the objections of the moral crusaders who wouldn't be happy at the notion of letting unmarried couples, or even worse, the gays adopt.

 

[ann post]

has it been spun by the mentellers that 'family' now means 'homphobic, stone age abortion policy catholics' by any chance?

 

[Unicron]

this. Was there not an element to Nice 2 that meant we no longer had to hold a referendum to change the constitution? Or did I just imagine that?

I think that just related to Nice itself, in that the terms of that treaty could be altered without referendum. That provision was actually my main reason for voting no (twice*) as I don't trust the EU not to roll things into altered versions of Nice that weren't related.

*Well it was the first time, I voted no the second time as I voted that way the first and resented the way that it was being presented to the people again.

 

[rettucs]

*Well it was the first time, I voted no the second time as I voted that way the first and resented the way that it was being presented to the people again.

I was out of the country for the second vote so didn't get a chance to vote No, but I would have, for the exact reason you outlined there.

 

[magicbastarder]

this. Was there not an element to Nice 2 that meant we no longer had to hold a referendum to change the constitution? Or did I just imagine that?

i think you must have as it would have negated the need to hold any more referenda; but here we are.

 

[maims bond]

I can only speak for myself with any degree of certainty and I'm explaining my own apathy - not that its a case of I want it to go through, its going to go through, hence I don't need to vote. Its a case of I don't really know for sure. It seems good. It seems right. But there are plenty of people out there more informed than I am, so they are better placed to decide than I am.

I guess another niggling worry/doubt that I have is that this was a piece of govt business outstanding for quite a while, and there could be an element of 'box-ticking' (no pun intended) about the whole thing. The government have been incredibly lazy about campaigning for certain referendums, relying on the assumption that their position would be carried by the media and would do the campaigning for them (Nice 1).

I know from discussing other issues on here before that maims bond may have an interest of sorts in this (still waiting for my notification leaflet about the Household charge). But I'm sure as hell not afraid to say that I don't trust the govt. And now, nor do I trust the referendum commission. And I sincerely hope, despite slight indications otherwise, that maims will at least allow me hold an opinion on the matter.

Ah here, would never have a problem with you expressing an opinion. But if I feel your opinion is factually wrong i'm gonna challenge you on it. You have twice accused the ref comm of being biased but cannot give a reason as to how you've come to this conclusion. You seem to have mixed them up with the Govt information campaigns.

Kind of reminds me of this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies