• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Are there any actual reasons to vote no?


Con Gallagher

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
2,413
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.
 
Last edited:


davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,768
Catherine McGuinness wrote that the Constitution inhibited social workers in the Kilkenny Incest Case but ignores the fact that Article 42.5 allows for intervention in such cases. Given that the supporters of the amendment are lying about the issue of whether or not the amendment is necessary, it must be asked:

What else are they lying about?

In other words, the Yes side cannot be trusted.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,407
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?
I'm voting No for a simple enough reason: I view this amendment as a pathetic attempt by the State and the establishment, media included, to somehow to be seen to make high brow amends for their gross collective failure to protect children in the first place.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,621
Devil's advocate. If this is passed, there will be few calls in the future to bring in more reforms such as the right of children to have their unmarried father to be a natural legal guardian.
 

wilting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
353
I'm voting No for a simple enough reason: I view this amendment as a pathetic attempt by the State and the establishment, media included, to somehow to be seen to make high brow amends for their gross collective failure to protect children in the first place.
The motives behind the amendment are irrelevant to the content of the amendment itself though. Either the amendment is good, and you should vote yes, or it is bad and you should vote no. Everything else is immaterial.

What if you just don't like children?
I've been greatly disappointed by the lack of 'no to children' posters.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,910
When a law is rushed through and everybody seems to be in favour of it then its a good reason to oppose simply because the herd mentality in making laws always suck.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,407
The motives behind the amendment are irrelevant to the content of the amendment itself though. Either the amendment is good, and you should vote yes, or it is bad and you should vote no. Everything else is immaterial.
Wrong. The abuse of children was wrong but it was ulterior motives that governed how it was dealt with, or not, in this case.
 

blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
23,287
I don't have a vote, of course, but if I did I would be inclined to vote "no" simply on the basis that I feel that if an amendment to a Constitution is proposed, the onus is on the people promoting the amendment to tell me why it is necessary, not that of the "no" side to tell me why it isn't.

I have yet to see a coherent argument which gives me specific reasons why this is needed - and what protections will be available for children after this amendment is passed that are not available now, and why they need a Constitutional amendment to make them instead of simply a new law.

If in doubt I would vote "no" and so far I am in doubt.
 

Tea Shark

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,090
The fact that the yes campaign is built on lies and gives the last thing on earth we should believe more power.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
The last AG rejected the wording of the proposed amendment put forward by Mary O'Rourke amongst others

Why?

Because it did not contain safeguards against abuse by Asylum Seekers

Can anyone point out to me where such safeguards are written into the current proposal?

Because I can see NONE!:shock:
 

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,520
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..
Asking somebody to predict unintended consequences is pointless, as they will only crop up on a case by case basis. Considering society's views on suicide and abortion in the 1980s, it is understandable that the facts which gave rise to the X Case were given no consideration.

There is also a question to be asked whether such short term policy should be implemented in foundation documents? As things stand, that which is not mentioned in the constitution is within the gift of the legislature. Legislation can be amended in a manner far easier than the amendment of the Constitution. Thus, if legislation is insufficient, or incapable of covering prevalent circumstances, the legislature can rectify that. On the other hand, once something is enshrined in the Constitution it is a far more cumbersome process to remove it (as should be the case), hence why the problems created by the X Case remain as relevant today as they did in 1992.

It is also to be stated that existing protections and safeguards within the Constitution are completely sufficient,and that it is the institutions and entities which have failed children which need to be scrutanised to a far greater degree. Would the current wording of the amendment have prevented these failings?

Essentially, I am asking you to demonstrate how this amendment will actually bolster the rights of Ireland's Children.

BTW, I am simply playing Devil's advocate.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
The last AG rejected the wording of the proposed amendment put forward by Mary O'Rourke amongst others

Why?

Because it did not contain safeguards against abuse by Asylum Seekers

Can anyone point out to me where such safeguards are written into the current proposal?

Because I can see NONE!:shock:
How would such abuse work? Asylum seeker family abuse their children with the aim of having the state take them into care?
 

ScreeOrTalus

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
4,036
Some Roma child will be caught shoplifting in a shop on O'Connell Street and will run out in front of a Luas Tram or other vehicle and be killed and there'll be hand wringing about the rights of such children.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
Some Roma child will be caught shoplifting in a shop on O'Connell Street and will run out in front of a Luas Tram or other vehicle and be killed and there'll be hand wringing about the rights of such children.
Jewy Jewy Joo joos!
 

wilting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
353
Wrong. The abuse of children was wrong but it was ulterior motives that governed how it was dealt with, or not, in this case.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Either the amendment itself is good or bad.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,768
How would such abuse work? Asylum seeker family abuse their children with the aim of having the state take them into care?
The parents might be able to argue that deportation would cause psychological harm to the children.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top