• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

"No" campaigns launched


FloatingVoterTralee

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
997
The first was a Christian alliance comprising the Christian Solidarity Party, Parents for Children and the Alliance for Parents against the State, who consider the State would over-encroach on parents' rights. (Kathy Sinnott, who was advocating a No vote in Tralee last night, is presumably in this camp, on the basis of her previous campaigns)

The second group, Two Rights Now, makes the same contention, but from the opposite end of the religious spectrum, their most prominent spokesman, Dick Spicer, being a leading figure in Irish humanism.
 

changeit

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
154
Seriously, has anyone found anyone to even vote against it never mind spend money nominally opposing it ? How much is this (apparently ?) no-brainer referendum costing us ? In these economic circumstances what clueless moron decided to waste so much public money on printing, returning officers, counters, premises hire etc never mind allowing the self-promoting political establishment spend more tax-payers funded expenses “impressing us” with their high moral ground stances.

Surely there are enough real issues (genuine political reform anyone ?) requiring urgent referenda that should have at least been scheduled to coincide with this ? How about ones that would help the economy ?

Reduction in number of TDs to 50
Retrospective claw back of over generous TDs and Minster’s pensions (rather than ask and be ignored)

You get the idea, please feel free to add your own, what referenda would be worth paying tax payers money on ?
 
Last edited:

man-in-street

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
583
Twitter
n/a
Seriously, has anyone found anyone to even vote against it never mind spend money nominally opposing it ? How much is this (apparently ?) no-brainer referendum costing us ? In these economic circumstances what clueless moron decided to waste so much public money on printing, returning officers, counters, premises hire etc never mind allowing the self-promoting political establishment spend more tax-payers funded expenses “impressing us” with their high moral ground stances.

Surely there are enough real issues (genuine political reform anyone ?) requiring urgent referenda that should have at least been scheduled to coincide with this ? How about ones that would help the economy ?

Reduction in number of TDs to 50
Retrospective claw back of over generous TDs and Minster’s pensions (rather than ask and be ignored)

You get the idea, please feel free to add your own, what referenda would be worth paying tax payers money on ?

There was a thread on this recently where I made some comments. The thread seemed to die a sudden death at that point. I would ask people to do the following

1.. Read the Amendment very very carefully and then answer the question.

If this provision had been part of the Constitution in 1940's and 1950's Ireland, would more children or fewer children have been put in institutions.?????????????

2..... Study the Amendment and decide , does it give rights to children or power to the state, and is this a good thing.


One further point.... what law can be written that will give the same rights to a 16-year-old child that has a child??????.

Do not forget that we have a Government that suffers from delusions of competence.
 

scolairebocht

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
932
I don't agree that this referendum is unimportant at all, its clearly a power grab by the state snatching rights traditionally held by parents and possibly with major long term implications. I wonder if what is going on here is similar to what was outlined in this document leaked in Canada and representing the views of some globalists who met in Toronto in 1967:
"In the "Charter", laboriously developed in our "Lodges", we will finally wipe out any parental authority by breaking the family into people fiercely opposed to each other to protect their interests. It will encourage children to report parents who are too authoritarian as being too traditional, too religious. It will thus contribute to subject parents to a "Collective Psychosis of Fear"; this will inevitably give rise, generally in society, to a relaxation of parental authority. Thus we will have succeeded, initially, to produce a society like that of Russia in the 50s where children denounced their parents to the state, and this without anyone noticing.

In thus transferring to the State the "Parental Role", it will be easier, then, for us to grab, one by one, all the responsibilities that had been, to date, the sole responsibility of the parents. So that we can have it considered by all as an abuse against the child, religious instruction of traditional Judeo-Christian origin.

At the same time but at another level, we will include in the highest Laws of Nations, that all Religions, Cults and religious Practices of all kinds, including "Sorcery and Magic", must all be met in the same way as each other.

It will be profitable later to transfer the role of the State in relation to the child to the highest international bodies, such as the United Nations.

Understand this well: "Our goal is not to protect children, or anyone from another, but to cause the collapse and subsequent fall of Nations which are a major obstacle to the implementation of our "New World Order." That is why the "Office of Child Protection" must be invested with absolute legal authority. They must be able, as they see fit, but always under the pretext of protecting the child, to remove them from their original home environments and place them in family backgrounds or foreign government centres that have been established for our internationalist principles and religions. Therefore, it will complete the final breaking of the "Western Family Unit". For without the protection and monitoring of their original parents, these children will be permanently handicapped in their psychological and moral development, and consequently represent natural prey, easily adaptable to our global aspirations.

For success to be achieved by such an enterprise, it is essential that staff working in these 'Offices" in the service of the state, are young people without experience, imbued with theories that we know are empty and ineffectual, and especially, are obsessed with the missionary spirit as great protectors of children at risk. For them, all parents must represent potential criminals, potential hazards to the welfare of the child, here considered a "God."

An "Office of Child Protection" and a "Charter of the Rights of the Child" have no reason to be without children at risk [i.e. there can be real examples to justify them]. In addition, exceptions and the historical examples used in their [i.e. the Office and the Charter] creation would sooner or later disappear if they were not constantly fed with new cases occurring on an ongoing basis. In this sense, we must infiltrate the "Education System" of Nations to make disappear, under the cover of "Modernity" and "Evolution", the teaching of Religion, of History, and Good Manners, while diluting at the same time, under an avalanche of new experiments in the milieu of Education, that of language and mathematics.

In this way, by depriving the younger generations any grounding in and any frontier to morals, any knowledge of the past (and therefore any national pride), all respect for others, power through knowledge of language and science (and thus of the reality), we will help build a youth largely prepared for all forms of delinquency. In this new world fragmented by fear of parents, and their abandonment of any responsibility for their children, we will open the way to train in our own way and according to our primary objectives, a youth where arrogance, contempt, and humiliation of others, will be considered as the new basis of "Affirmation of Self" and "Freedom"."
(A leak of the real plan of the Globalist Elite? The Toronto Protocol)
 

Mrs. Crotta Cliach

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
7,195
I am trying to figure out the meaning behind 3.1 in Article 41:
"The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
To me that sounds like a preliminary attack against gay marriage, and I would hate to see that ingrained in law. Who now is attacking marriage? Why does marriage have to be guarded?
For this provision alone, I think I will be voting No.
 

changeit

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
154
I made some comments. The thread seemed to die a sudden death at that point.
With all due respect, are you genuinely surprised ?

The points you make are worthy, valid, and (despite some noise from empty vessels since) largely incontestable, but you can relax, nothing will defeat this referendum. The point being discussed in this particular thread is not about that, it is attempting to discuss any possible organised opposition to it. I’ve attempted to hijack that somewhat because I do not believe there can be a (genuine) opposition to it. At the same, I still think it is ludicrous that so much (scarce) public money is being spent on this when there are so many at least as-urgent changes needed in our constitution, never mind affording the opportunity to our parasitic political classes to self promote, claim progress, and distract from the very pressing issues.
 

lying eyes

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
4,417
I think the turnout will be the lowest in the history of the state.

I would be greatly surprised if the turnout was anything but very low. This is not a child friendly Country, The evidence is all around us. to our shame.....
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

I'm still very mixed about this question. Currently about 55/45 in favour of a No.
 

changeit

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
154
I would be greatly surprised if the turnout was anything but very low. This is not a child friendly Country, The evidence is all around us. to our shame.....
What is this, a guilt trip to go out and vote and make it seem like our useless politicians are trying to change things ? This (while a worthy cause in its own rights) is no more than a smoke screen to hide lack of leadership, direction and action.

As for MrFunkyBoogaloo, I guess you need to return to this planet shortly, try 93/7 in favour ?
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,717
I'm still very mixed about this question. Currently about 55/45 in favour of a No.
I started out with a wary 'wait and see' but I'm veering towards a No.

There are several questions in this referendum, which really should be separately addressed.
 

changeit

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
154
Any of ye (IMO) politically motivated mischief makers trying to make a dead horse distraction interesting, care to comment on the red sea poll showing only 4% of those intending to vote, intending to vote no ? This thread started quoting extremes from both ends in opposition, what better endorsement can you have ?
Please stop trying to make it into a seemingly worthwhile priority above more substantive issues requiring genuine (and all so lacking) leadership. I'd agree it may be rushed and badly worded, but distractions are often like that !
 

socmonster

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
2,365
Any of ye (IMO) politically motivated mischief makers trying to make a dead horse distraction interesting, care to comment on the red sea poll showing only 4% of those intending to vote, intending to vote no ? This thread started quoting extremes from both ends in opposition, what better endorsement can you have ?
Please stop trying to make it into a seemingly worthwhile priority above more substantive issues requiring genuine (and all so lacking) leadership. I'd agree it may be rushed and badly worded, but distractions are often like that !
I suggest if you don't like this thread you remove yourself from it.
 

1982BCE

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
155
I am trying to figure out the meaning behind 3.1 in Article 41:
"The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
To me that sounds like a preliminary attack against gay marriage, and I would hate to see that ingrained in law. Who now is attacking marriage? Why does marriage have to be guarded?
For this provision alone, I think I will be voting No.
What are you talking about? Article 41 is already in the constitution and has been since it was first written. The referendum is about a proposed article 42A link here to the full wording. You seem to be basing your decision to vote no on an article which is not being voted on.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
I am trying to figure out the meaning behind 3.1 in Article 41:
"The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
To me that sounds like a preliminary attack against gay marriage, and I would hate to see that ingrained in law. Who now is attacking marriage? Why does marriage have to be guarded?
For this provision alone, I think I will be voting No.
That's not the new amendment. That is what is currently there. The new amendment is nothing to do with marriage or Article 41. It doesn't touch that article. It creates a new article, article 42A.

1The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
2In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, to such an 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.
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.
3Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
4Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—
ibrought 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
iiconcerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
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.
Article 42A
 

changeit

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
154
I suggest if you don't like this thread you remove yourself from it.
As soon as anyone (for or against) convinces me that this referendum is anything more than a wasteful tax-payer funded politically fuelled distraction from other (more ?) pressing issues, I will gladly leave your ably demonstrated witty, rapier like commentary to you and your fellow inflationists.


The bottom line is that its futility is demonstrated by the fact that there could be no organised opposition to it, it is just a political distraction !

Actually, scratch that, I am leaving this thread, it is well past my (and a lot of yours ?) bedtime.
 

Milton John

New member
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
1
One cannot but agree that the voice of the children should be heard. To insist upon this by way of a constitutional amendment may have unforeseen consequences. Children of divorcing parents, where the divorce is sanctioned and approved of by the State, will in growing numbers, insist upon independent representation before the Divorce Court. “It is our constitutional right” they will say. It is conceivable that the State may well have to fund their legal representation, their respective solicitors and barristers. Almost certainly the first few years after the referendum, if it is passed, will be taken up with lengthy and expensive constitutional challenges exploring the full spectrum of the legal rights we are about to approve of.

Tthe issue in child protection is and always has been, one of resources. It is highly likely that huge or substantial sums of money, which could and should have gone to the funding of social workers and social services for children, will instead go to the lawyers.

If you wanted a reason to vote No, check out the pockets of the lawyers who are about to enjoy another windfall of fees.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,546
I'm still very mixed about this question. Currently about 55/45 in favour of a No.
Really? where did you hear this information?
What is this, a guilt trip to go out and vote and make it seem like our useless politicians are trying to change things ? This (while a worthy cause in its own rights) is no more than a smoke screen to hide lack of leadership, direction and action.

As for MrFunkyBoogaloo, I guess you need to return to this planet shortly, try 93/7 in favour ?


Jays, this Children's Rights referendum shuts people's brains down.
MrFunky is the one at 55/45 in favour of a No. Tis nothing to do with the rest of the electorate, it's his ratio of decision.

I'm not 55/45 in favour of a No, I'm 100/0 in favour of a No.

Though neither of the two groups linked to in the OP had anything to do with my decision.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
I am going to vote no unless I hear a convincing argument for a yes. This is my default position on referenda. As far as I can see the amanedment is schmaltzy nonsense to give the impression that Labour got "something done" and distract from their total failure on the issues that matter.
 
Top