Electioneering with Children's Rights

by F.E.M. - F.E.M. Wed Nov 08, 2006 17:02

The governement is not doing anything for children abducted in Ireland.
The ministers claim they can do nothing and have no say in garda matters.
The gardai " lost " files on children who were abducted and brought abroad.
Because of this the the hague convention cannot go into action to bring these children home to Ireland, instead they remain abroad in the hands of the abductor.
These children are exploited for monies.
The Irish governement wants to change the current laws and bring in the following law: "a child has the tight to be taken from its parents. " they printed this in a folder and use it for information to health and social workers even though it is not a law yet.
This is done because of the "mistakes" made by gardai and politicians so that they can say the parents have no rights to get their children back under the the hague agreements. This is also a very dangerous law allready printed that will give the governement all the rights to take your children! I reckon that will happen on a grant scale after this is made law. Protect your children and stop this from becomming the law!

by Hanshiro - The Tara Foundation Wed Nov 08, 2006 22:39

The collaboration between groups which claim to have the interests of children at heart (Barnardos, ISPCC) and the Government has, for reasons best known to themselves, been declared openly with Monday's duet between FF (Fergus Finlay) and Mr. Cowen. A position paper analyzing Barnardos/the Government's actual proposals will be posted shortly.

by Stuart Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:45

My tuppence worth of ill-formed unease:

This left-field missile appears to capitalise on a whole range of dissatisfactions - inequitable educational opportunities, underfunding of special needs, bias in family court proceedings, child sexual abuse, the age defence - to exploit legitimate issues for political gain.

The difficulty of enhancing rights is that there is no simultaneous (or indeed preceeding) strengthening of responsibilities. If a child has "the right" to some specified service, then who is failing when the child is unable to exercise that right? In all likelihood, the net effect is to widen inequality and worsen disadvantage by casting guilt on negligent parents and delinquent communities. Stressing the responsibility of providers also stresses the provision of supports that enable the fulfilment of responsibilities - but it is politically far less palatable to require the fulfillment of (for instance) the parental responsibility to provide adequate education, and to ensure all parents are supported in meeting that responsibility.

Those who have the intellectual, social and economic means to provide for children are already doing so. Those who lack the means will be punished.

The future effects of this kind of legislation is visible in tough love, three-strikes-and-out, ASBO, parental conviction, school-parent contract land.

by Miriam Cotton Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:34

Remeber too that Finlay is a dedicated Labour Party moderniser, still involved in determining aspects of party policy according to one Labour TD that I spoke to. He is incredibly testy about his politics as I found out when I unwittingly trod on his political corns in an article I wrote about him on Indymedia last year. His response to the observation that, 20 years ago, he had probably been the chief architect of what I called 'Pragmatic Labour' was astoudning - particularly for the experienced and tough PR pro that he is - a guy who has made and broken a number of political careers, by his own admission. He accused me of having 'an agenda'. I sure do - real rights for people with disability. I realised that Finlay's is by no means a dormant political career. He was furious and, in the same vein, announced that he would not work with me again on the issue of disability - a promise he has stuck to. As a result, another prominent figure in Irish life - a friend of Finlay's and whose involvement would have been a major boost to our efforts and would have guaranteed it the prominence it deserves -also withdrew his support for the DEPA campaign.

In contrast to his response to this activist mother, the same Fergus Finlay was at pains to describe Bertie Ahern as an honest broker after the revelations that he had accepted payments from colleagues in dubious circumstances - again in his column in the Irish Examiner. Between himself and Terry Prone, Bertie had PR that money could not pay for - almost certainly a significant factor in the inexplicable polls showing an increase in Ahern's popularity. And here we have now, entirely by coincidence of course, the public love in between Barnardos and FF over 'rights' for children. What a merry old game they all play. Does Fergus Finlay wear his Barnados and Labour Party hats separately?

FF's presentation of this constitutional initiative should leave people cold as ice. It is impossible to square it with what they have done with disability legislation under which the rights of children have been ripped up. They badly need a 'feelgood' issue to help disguise their track record on social policy right across the board. This is the perfect locus for it - the policy equivalent of the photograph of the politician with the baby in his arms. With the endorsement of an institution like Barnardos, Finlay is giving them a substantial leg up, imo, something which he could not fail to realise.

The devil, of course, will be in the detail of the proposed ammendment to the constitution - something that will not be announced until after the election, by which time hopefully, from FF's point of view that is, it will be too late to take your vote back if you fell for the confidence tricks, again.

by Miriam Cotton Thu Nov 09, 2006 13:48

"... it gives me great pleasure to be able to report to you here today here today that the past year has been one of very significant advances for children in Ireland. Because of the actions of this Fianna Fail led government; we can now hold our heads high and say that the concerns of children are genuinely at the heart of government. Indeed, two months ago in Geneva, when I reported on behalf of government to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Chairwoman of that Committee said it was clear there was “very real engagement at the highest level in the Irish Government” in making progress for children.

And indeed there is: at that meeting in Geneva, I told the Committee that I had embarked on an article by article examination of the provisions of our constitution as they impact on children. Just six weeks on, the Taoiseach has announced our intention to hold a referendum on children’s rights in the near future. After years of all party discussions and deliberations on this issue, much of it theoretical and aspirational, our leader has taken the ball and is running with it. He is going to bring this issue in all its complexity to the people for their decision. That is what I call serious political commitment. That is what I call purposeful leadership. Other parties pay lip service to the rights of children, we deliver.

Last night’s announcement is the culmination of a year of very significant and far reaching developments for children in Ireland. Last December, within a month of our Ard Fheis in Killarney, the Government took the ground breaking decision to set up the Office of the Minister for Children. This means that key government officials whose job it is to look after children are now gathered in one administrative unit working together in a cohesive and integrated way, as never before, in the best interest of children. Three government departments working together in a strategic manner to deliver the best outcomes for children …. This is joined up government at its best.

But there’s more: when making that important decision, the Government went a step further: the Taoiseach decided that the Minister with responsibility for children should sit at Cabinet and by so doing, he made Ireland one of a very select group of countries that have a Minister for Children at the Cabinet table. That single decision, more than anything else, has changed very fundamentally, the way in which children are treated by Government. No longer an add on to the edges of ministerial responsibility, the interests of children are now very much at the heart of Government and are taken into account across all areas of policy formation.

And it’s working very well. There is a new cohesion in our approach. Take for example, the way in which we deal with children who break the law: serious and persistent youth offending is a relatively small scale problem in this country but it is one that cannot be ignored. Youth crime impacts on families, neighbourhoods and communities and most of all, it is the cradle of adult crime.

The way forward in dealing with youth offending was spelt out very clearly in the Children Act, introduced by Mary Hanafin in 2001. It involves an inclusive approach which takes account of the interests of the victims, of the offender and of the wider community. But the implementation of this Act had been delayed by a lack of effective structures. Those new structures are now in place. Following a detailed review, responsibility for youth justice and the implementation of the Children Act has been given to the new Irish Youth Justice Service which reports directly to me. Under my strategic direction juvenile justice in Ireland will be governed by the principles of prevention, diversion, education and rehabilitation which are contained in the Children Act 2001. The necessary legislative changes have been made and we now have a new coherent structure for both the policy and operational environments of youth justice within the Office of the Minister for Children where it logically belongs. It is my firm intention that the Children Act will be implemented in full before I leave office.

I can report great progress too in the area of childcare, responsibility for which has also moved to my Office. In Budget 2006, the Minister for Finance announced a very significant package of measures to provide affordable childcare for parents while at the same time offering them real choice: this government believes that parents are best place to make decisions about how their children are cared for and that our job is to help them with whatever choice they make.

That is why we introduced the Early Childcare Supplement: this payment of one thousand euros per annum is a direct payment to all parents with children under six years of age which is paid in arrears every quarter. Over the last nine years we have also consistently and significantly increased child benefit: in 1997 the rate was 38 euros a month for the first two children; today that rate has risen to 150 euros. That means that taken together with the Early Childcare Supplement, parents with two children under the age of 6 now get 5,800 euro of non-taxable income per annum directly into their hands. Let me say this quite clearly: that is a significant subvention for parents who enjoy one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe!

We have also made significant progress in the provision of quality childcare places. This is being done through the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme and its successor the five year National Childcare Investment Programme that was introduced in the last Budget. These programmes, with a combined budget of over €1 billion, are projected to create or support over 90,000 childcare places, with almost 30,000 of the new places already in place. These places are provided either through community based childcare groups or by private providers. To date almost 183 million euros has been granted to help with costs of employing childcare workers in community based childcare centres in disadvantaged areas, ensuring that less advantaged parents in those areas have increased access to quality childcare and that they are charged fees which are less than the economic cost of providing the service.

I have also recently published new childcare regulations which, among other things require the service provider to ensure that each child’s learning, development and well being is facilitated within the daily life of the service. This amendment received widespread support during the Review process and is a significant step in the development of the early education aspect of pre-school facilities.

As you see from all of these measures, the Government is taking a serious and long-term approach to childcare based on the continued development of sound policies and substantial programmes of investment. No one can doubt we are giving childcare the priority it deserves.

Another area of high priority for Fianna Fail in government is health. We know that this is an area of serious concern for people all over the country. I want to tell you directly: there are no glib answers but what we have done is committed ourselves to a programme of reform which aims to put the interests of patients at the heart of the health service. We want to change the way in which resources are managed, the way in which doctors and nurses are regulated, the work practices of health professionals so that patients are better served in our hospitals, in our doctors’ surgeries, in our nursing homes and in our out patient clinics.

We have a distance to go in this reform programme but it is already showing dividends. The recent improvement in waiting times in our A&E departments is down to the HSE working with staff on a hospital by hospital basis to address the problems causing delays and reporting back on a daily basis. The result is that fewer people are awaiting admission to ward beds and they are waiting shorter times. The figures are down between 30 and 50 per cent, month on month, week on week compared to the same time last year. In nearly half of all A&E’s around the country people are admitted to wards without any delay at all. Of the 3,300 people who turn up in A&E every day, about three quarters are treated and return home. A majority of those needing admission - that is more than two thirds -wait for less than six hours for a bed.

It is the aim of the government and our colleague, Mary Harney, the Minister for Health to ensure that this downward trend persists throughout the winter months. Gains have been made and we want to consolidate them by providing more long term care beds, - we have provided 500 beds so far this year; and more home care packages so that people can be discharged from hospital and cared for in their own homes. Progress has been made: it should be recognised and built upon.

And what have the opposition offered. Nothing but negativity. They want reform but they criticise every specific reform we have undertaken without offering an alternative. They have no new ideas, no new plans. Fine Gael’s timeframe of solving the A&E problem within two and half years of a general election has been dropped. So has Enda’s famous drunk tanks proposal. They have no specifics, no policies, and no ideas.

But we are clear on one thing: Labour and Fine Gael are totally at odds on the issue of private medicine.

Labour it seems are against private hospitals, and Fine Gael are in favour of private hospitals, so long as they are kept miles away from any public hospital. Labour have said they will end tax breaks to build hospitals yet two years ago, their then health spokeswoman, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, said private provision and competition was ‘the direction in which we must go’ in health. That seems to have changed under Dr Twomey … or has it, we don’t know.

What we want is a better deal for public patients. We will free up new beds for public patients at 10 public hospitals. And we will purchase services for public patients to continue to reduce waiting times for operations, dialysis and MRI scans. Our policy is to achieve the best possible care for all people, using the mix of public and private finance and provision that has been a long standing feature of our health services.

Finally, there is much about our health services that is very good. The great majority of patients are satisfied with the care they receive in hospitals, including in A&E departments. There is a good story to tell:

• waiting times for patients for elective operations have been reduced from 2 to 5 years in some case to 2 to 5 months for most now.• three quarters of patients used to wait more than a year for heart operations and cardiology. The majority are now treated within months.• more than 300,000 more people are being treated in our public hospitals now compared to 1997• in cancer alone, about 35,000 more patients were treated in 2005 compared to 1997• infant mortality has fallen by 17% since 1997

We have put in place about 1,500 more acute hospital beds since 1997. Think of it: that is almost the equivalent of 4 new hospitals of the size of Tallaght (with 406 beds). Overall, at approximately 3 beds per 1,000 persons, we have a similar ratio of bed numbers per head of population as many European countries. When we include 1,800 private acute beds, we have an even higher number. Our growth in health spending is one of the fastest in the developed world.

But if we have learned anything in recent years, it is this: pumping money into services does not automatically lead to better experiences for patients. We need to change the way we do things in the healthcare quite radically so that the focus becomes the patient. We have embarked on the road of reform: there is a distance to go but in the interests of patients we will persist. That kind of practical leadership is what the people want and I believe the people look at the big picture. They will see that our way is the right way and they will support us when it comes to the test early next Summer."

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 09, 2006 15:19

A very important article.

The upcoming referendum (probably in March) has nothing whatsoever to do with granting rights to children. It has everything to do with nullifying the rights conferred on Irish citizens by the Constitution (mostly by Article 40). It has been noticed by the powers that be, that folks have been standing up for their rights as of late. The powers that be have decided to nip this in the bud.

When one reads the Constitution and accepts that Irish Children are Citizens too (regardless as to age limitations talked about - voting, becoming the president, etc.), one can see that establishing the rights of children is not really an issue. Practicing and enforcing the rights of children are the issue.

41. 1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and
fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution
possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent
and superior to all positive law.

41. 1. 2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the
Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary
basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare
of the Nation and the State.

AND...

42. 5. 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.

From reading the above we can see: That the rights of the family supercde all written law (after the Constitution) and that the rights of the child supercede the rights of the family. The child is already the most protected citizen in our Constitution. The problem is in recognising this fact.

So we can see that the rights of the child have been established, even independantly of what would be considered 'normal' Citizenship. Why add more law into the picture when our Government wont even acknowledge or work with the law already established? Unless of course it is exercised to establish the rights of sex offenders and other scum to prey on children as is currently the case.

by B. Boru Fri Nov 10, 2006 02:52

Irish people are deeply concerned about the state of the family. We hear of dramatically increasing marital separation problems while the legal profession are claiming to be the fastest growth sector in our economy awash with cash stripped from what would have been those hapless family’s posterity. Our predicament orchestrated and conducted through those who have already been exposed as fraudsters and political thieves or from others whose shameful past history of their direct descendants serve to expose the blood line of their immoral character.

State supported family breakdown is now an open cancerous sore in our midst, with children from such divorced or separated families more likely to commit crimes, abuse drugs, and suffer mental and physical ill health, do poorly in school, become marginally employed adults and lack the skills to keep their own marriage together. We see the affects in our own homes and our own children. Controversies surrounding Marriage are constantly debated at local and national level but for all that talk, no action is taken.

Our morally chaotic government spends millions upon millions funding every conceivably group that will pledge to work against the defined marriage of one man and one woman as enshrined in our Constitution. Government funding for the support of Married fathers is totally nonexistent and with that mainstay of our society unashamedly harassed and stigmatised to such an extent that there could be said to be a connived sense of shame in declaring oneself as a Married father.

Those who begged at our doors to represent us in the promotion of our Irish nation have deserted the fundamental cause of Married Family stability with a massively funded institute of political correctness making certain that the line is toed. Those public representatives who are not attacking the very foundation of our society, the Married Family, are shrinking into the shadows as if they did not notice the goings on. Stories abound of individual politicians refusing to help when specific cases of state corruption in assisting the breakdown of particular families are brought to their attention.

They do this under the guise of not being able to help because the matter is cloaked by the now disgraced and vastly profitable ‘In-Camera’ rule fraud. What many Irish people and incredibly some politicians have yet to realise is that family court racketeers and other agencies of the state are forcibly dissolving families and that our prison system is used extensively to hold those who refuse to lie down and so agree to ‘desert their family’.

It is now common knowledge that family destruction proceeds directly for Government policies paid for with the ultimate abuse of our citizen’s tax collections. Everyday headlines of youth upheaval is no more that a scream for help from our children who are suffering the most throughout this sinister yet dismal charade of governance. Our state exists for material growth only with morality, decency and our peoples religious practices considered only as a thorn in the side of the money grabber’s vile enterprise and the success of our people counted only in euros.

“The socialist ideology has achieved its current hegemony from the gullibility of individuals who were told that confiscation for redistribution by government is social justice, when they knew better – rather, that it is illegitimate plunder of private property. Given that power, growth of government became irresistible, and the loss of private property rights was joined by the loss of rights to family, religion, and the heritage of freemen, as the growth of the nation states power to corrupt, led to unprecedented corruption. The demographic implosions, the disintegration of families, the demise of religion, and the impending economic hegemony of Asia are the bitter fruits that Europeans will pay for their folly.

The same can be said for people the world over. The footprints of Karl Marx are stamped upon every page of its recent history. The only antidote is severe curtailment of the excessive confiscations of government, returning to families the means and the time necessary to care for themselves and enjoy the fruits of their labour and freedom, plus a return to a culture that encourages motherhood, fatherhood, and lifetime families”.

For God’s sake, stand up and be counted!

by John Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26

I wonder about unborn children. I wonder if you'll be as enthusiastic about protecting their rights. OK, you may say an 8-week-old foetus is just a collection of cells and has no rights. But, how about a 24-week-old foetus? It can breath, smile, cry, wave its arms about and kick its legs about. It can live outside the womb. Are you planning any campaigns to protects its rights? I won't be holding my breath on this one.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:53

Not for nothing did Haughey call him the most devious, cunning and skillful of them all. The strategy appears to be this: there are irritating people who keep getting in the way of the corporate agenda. This time, it is parents who rely on the terms of the constitution for legal redress in order to procure services for their children. This has to be stopped but it's a tricky one - and likely to stir up ferocious widespread opposition - being an emotive issue. So, you sit down and work out who your fiercest enemies are and you take your proposals directly to them, disguised as something they are bound to embrace - e.g. preventing child sexual abuse. Everybody will sign up to that, of course - child protection is an issue which appears to bring out the unthinking Stalin in everyone - a fact most especially worked into Ahern's caluclations on this one.

Here is a fawning and obedient little op/ed from the Irish World:

"Proposing “strong and effective” provisions against maltreating, neglecting or abusing children, the Taoiseach told delegates: “We should be second to none in giving effect to our commitment to truly value childhood. “That is why I believe we should have a constitutional referendum to put the rights of children in a central place in our constitution.

“In that way, the Irish people can show the value we attach — in the words of the 1916 proclamation of Irish independence — to cherishing all the children of the nation equally.”

He said he had instructed health and children’s minister Brian Lenihan to begin consultation and discussions with other political parties and interested groups in the coming weeks to get a consensus on the amendment’s wording.

Last month Pope Benedict told Irish bishops in Rome that they should establish the truth about child sex abuse by priests there to prevent a repeat and rebuild trust and confidence with the public."

But child abuse is and was illegal. The problem was that the church and political establishments suppressed and hid it - they refused to bring people to account for it - to use the terms of the constitution and all the legislation that we already had. We do not need an amendment to the consitution to protect children against abuse - we need only for people to do their jobs properly according to existing law. We need an end to cover-ups and evasions. Instead we are seeing proposals for criminalising whistleblowers. In respect of true rights for children, Ahern's proposal (carefully identified with himself personally, of course, to impart that special warm glow of caring paternalism ) is woefully inadequate. It will be interesting to see whether these 'strong' and 'effective' provisions that he is calling for will include full accountability for e.g. professional failures and neglect of children among social workers, doctors, teachers, care home managers, hospitals etc etc.

It is bizarre that Finlay and others should overlook the fact that it is the state itself which has been the worst abuser of children. Fianna Fail have the most extraordinarily patronising and condescending attitude towards parents and their children. This ammendment will serve no purpose other than to further infantilise us all and enshrine our child status within the constitution itself. Successive governments have consistently failed children - none more so than the current one. Pointing the finger of blame exclusively at the tiny minority of child abusers among the electorate - as this proposed amendment effectively does - is dissembling to the point of insulting dishonesty. For the vast majority of loving and trustworthy parents it is certainly not worth a dimiution of their rights on the back of a rationale that is already well served under existing law. In short, the whole charade is electioneering of the most manipulative kind.

See Finlay's Irish Examiner article here:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story....1.asp

by Stuart Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:54

Miriam said "Pointing the finger of blame exclusively at the tiny minority of child abusers among the electorate - as this proposed amendment effectively does - is dissembling to the point of insulting dishonesty."

This dishonesty rests on conferring rights without demanding responsibilities. "Surviving" child sexual abuse means surviving the deaf, dumb and blindness of three-monkeys adults who took no responsibility, asked nobody else to take responsibility and required no responsibility of the state and care infrastructures they entrusted with their children. "Surviving" child sexual abuse means surviving the suicidal drive to the only relief from community and society that daily denies any responsibility. The right not be the sexual plaything of adults is ancient and universal, as is the right not to receive apologies for having been offended by such treatment. The proposed ammendments are not going to confer responsibility on those who could, potentially, give a damn.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Nov 10, 2006 13:44

ISure, rights should be accompanied by responsibilities. At the moment, however, it is the state which has all the rights and parents and children who have all the responsibilites. When things go wrong it is only parents who will ever be blamed. If, for example, you are unhappy about your child's experience at school because of bullying or whatever, you can be put in prison if you keep them at home. If schools fail to control bullying, however, nobody will ever be made accountable - it simply doesnt happen because of the ferocity of the profession's resistance to being in any way accountable for how they do what they do. Ahern is not about to take them on - no siree.

It's possible to frame rights-based legilsation around well articulated and sepcific objectives, as was done for people with disability:

1. A clear and unequivocal right to assessment of need – not resource dependent;
2. Services identified in the assessment of need to be provided within a reasonable, agreed timeframe;
3. Clear protection for disability specific resources;
4. Sectoral plans from Government Departments to take account of the wider needs of people with disabilities;
5. A clear statutory duty on Government Departments and public bodies to include people with disabilities in their plans and services - with ongoing monitoring and accountability.

Of course, not a single one of these desperately needed measures was incorporated into the disability legislation and thousands of the children Ahern claims to care so much about are suffering right now because of that fact. State neglect of the issues above is a form of child abuse and Fianna Fail have legalised that neglect with the passing of the disability legislation. How anyone could even contemplate trusting them with the concept of rights for children is staggering - unless of course there is some other political agenda at play - such as a Labour/Fianna Fail coalition after the election. Enda must be seething.

by Stuart Fri Nov 10, 2006 16:38

Miriam wrote "the state which has all the rights and parents and children who have all the responsibilites. When things go wrong it is only parents who will ever be blamed."

I don't think I am disagreeing with you, although my terminology is completely at odds with the real world. Conferring a responsibility on the parent to provide adequate education also confers a responsibility on the community, society and the State to support parents in meeting that responsibility. Rights-based legislation creates continuous conflicts of rights - the child's right to education is a recipe for blaming the most immediate "negligent" or "delinquent" provider, usually the parent, and thereby the destructive intervention of State agencies.

We should be asking how parents can be supported, not defining rights to punish them with. You could phrase this as the parents' right to be primary provider, but why create conflicts of rights in the first place?

by Miriam Fri Nov 10, 2006 19:40

We could get into a big jurisprudential debate about rights versus positive/natural law etc, but it really doesnt have to come to that. You say:

"Conferring a responsibility on the parent to provide adequate education also confers a responsibility on the community, society and the State to support parents in meeting that responsibility."

No it doesnt. What it means in practice, for example, is that you must send your child to school regardless because the state's definition of 'adequate education' is attendance at a school. If your child has his or her bum on chair in a classroom, the state has met its responsibility to your child accordingy to itself - no matter what is happening to your child. That's the whole point. There has to be a mechanism for ensuring that education (health care etc) reflects the differing needs of children. There is no conflict of rights in the way you describe by legislating for certain standards as an enforceable minimum. Property and commercial law are riddled with rights protections for the wealthy. If it can be done in that context, it can be done in others. The conflict only really arises where people resist the idea of proper accountability for what they are doing. At the moment, accountability is a principle directed almost exclusively at the private citizen, while the state can do pretty much as it damn well pleases.

by Stuart Sat Nov 11, 2006 13:13

"If your child has his or her bum on chair in a classroom, the state has met its responsibility to your child according to itself - no matter what is happening to your child."

The State has been well and truly exposed and shamed, legally and morally, in almost every stupid legal action they have involved themselves in over education issues. Shame takes a long time to sink in - they are still in the denial stage, it will be years before the anger, the defiance and finally the acceptance. As individuals with needs that interact with the State we do have to accept their primacy (or fight bloody hard), but as an electorate and in discussion we do not.

This bill will no doubt be presented and pass, whatever it contains, but that minority of the electorate that involves itself in debate can rewrite the legislation.

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Mon Nov 13, 2006 23:24

As mentioned above , the real reason for this proposed Referendum is to userp one of the most important Articles in the Constitution. ARTICLE 40.

Children's rights are already well protected in the Constitution.

Article 40 has been a major headache for this PRO NEW WORLD ORDER GOVORNMENT.

It is the way of a bigger plan in this Country.

This Article is a protection from ANY violation of a Person's Fundamental rights, including Land grabs like in Rossport. , right to silence and unjust attack from any quarter. Take a look at the demolishion of the Statutory rape Law. Blown out if the Water by an Article 40.

I am not suggesting that it be the case. Let there be a proper Law to deal with Stautory rape and the like.

But most Laws in place are legal. But under the Constitution many are not LAWFUL.
Think about all the shafted People looking for JUSTICE when they invoke THEIR ARTICLE 40 IN OPEN COURT?

Think about all the Land that was robbed bt the State under cpo's?

What about the income tax system?

Think about the consequence , because more and more People are copping on to THEIR rights under Article 40 and our Constitution.

Have a nice day.

by Stuart Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:53

The report prepared by Minister Lenihan and Attorney General Brady supposedly proposes changes to:

- Trial of offences, Section 38, to prohibit the defence of reasonable mistake as to a child being too young to consent to sex
- Personal Rights, Section 40, to include protection for children, perhaps the State's intervention under 40.5 to protect against abuse / negligence by carers
- Education, Section 42.5, to allow the State to intervene to invoke children's rights over those of their carers.

They might well wish to amend 40.3 on the right to life, 41 to more widely define "family" and to remove all gendered references (such as "the mother" and "he" the citizen). The definition of family is probably too contentious to touch without risk of sinking the bill entirely.

There is an unspoken agenda of aligning the Irish Constitution with both European law (under which Ireland has been repeatedly criticised) and UK law. Whilst the latter might be perceived by McDowell et al as "Republicanism by stealth", it will hugely weaken Irish legislation and fuel distrust of government if it is achieved without public support and if it is achieved by exploiting public concern over, most critically, sexual abuse and statutory rape.

by M Cotton Tue Nov 14, 2006 16:52

Even from the meagre information provided by Lenihan, it's clear there is no intention to confer anything that could remotely be called a 'right' on children. Restricting the available legal defences for people accused of sex offences against children is not a positive right that a child can assert on his or her own behalf - it's just a change to the state of the law irrespective of the child. With regard to state intervention in certain circumstances, again it has nothing to do with children asserting rights - it is about the state assuming the right to control the situation - whether children want it to or not. Use of the term 'rights' in these contexts is nothing but political trickery. The whole thing is a cynical attempt to rose tint the government's track record on disability legislation and other issues in time for the election, while ridding itself of a nuisance in the constitution under cover of do-gooding for children. The Independent was even calling for this bogus referendum to be held on the same day as the general election, nicely caluclating the benefits to FF of the knock-on, feel-good factor that would almost certainly accrue to them among gullible electors.

by Stuart Tue Nov 14, 2006 18:28

It is purely about ducking the resourcing issue. If the government actually cared about exercising children's rights then they would resource the existing infrastructure, not exploit sensitivities about the abuse of children and minors for entirely separate, underhand purposes.

There are only 20 psychiatric beds for under-18s in Ireland, divided between Cork and Dublin, the Irish College of Psychiatrists recommends 236, as well as tripling the number of consultant psychiatric posts to 150.

There is one sexual assault unit for the whole of Munster with no dedicated childrens staff whatsoever. There are only four sexual assault units (Dublin, Galway, Cork and Waterford) nationally.

There are just over 200 young offender places nationwide, other children are either imprisoned with adults or denied any intervention.

These are the extremes that nobody would wish to find themselves in, but asking for adequate social work, special needs education and home care interventions to support primary carers is howling at the moon for most families. Listening to children and averting problems is damn hard, and damn expensive. It is so much easier for a government shamed by a deal limiting the liability of religious institutions to blame negligent parents and their delinquent communities.

by Stuart Mon Dec 11, 2006 13:18

Bertie has cowtowed to the disgruntled bishops, who falsely claim that they weren't invited to contribute to the discussion on children's rights (as if they ever needed inviting to stick their noses into anyone's business before!) and rowed back on the lowering of the age of consent, and possibly on having a referendum at all before that all-important election. The opinion polls and focus groups are clearly saying this issue will do no favours to FF.

The grossest of all distortions is in the wild misinterpretation of the age of consent as an age at which children may have sex or (according to the bishops) the age at which children are encouraged to have sex. It is not. It is the age at which a person is deemed competent to give consent to engage in sex, and below which sex is without legal consent. Age of consent is not about criminalising those under that age. Apart from which, the apparatus of law enforcement has no business in intimate contact between children and adolescents - parents, schools, religious, communities are all certainly appropriately concerned to protect (or prevent) or impose morality. The last thing anyone should want is the additional burden of the enforcement of legal proceedings on children or adolescents engaging in sexual conduct.

But back to the issue - has anyone raised specific legal cases in which children would be protected under proposed changes to the referendum, and the relative frequency of similar cases? Have the same people raised the appalling frequency with which children are abused already, in contravention of existing legislation, and do not receive protection or subsequent support, care and advocacy?

Some 30% of women and 25% of men are sexually abused in some way before the age of consent, predominantly by people who are over the age of consent. That is the real protection issue.

by anon Mon Dec 11, 2006 14:58

The last election was called 9 days after the government agreed the Indemnity deal.
because they did not want the issue debated.

the taoiseach was party to the deal. dr michael woods was party to the deal.
michael mc dowell was not- he was left out by woods ( he was attorney general at the time)
Mary Harney stood over the deal.

the victims of sex abuse were abused again through this 'deal'.

now they want to moralise on our kids without facing up to how the last geneartions were
treated.

then they all went back into power and neglected again, the victims.
they are dishonest and unfair.
the deals they make to access power have been made over the bodies of
some dead, some suicide, people who have never been answered.
the bishops should get out of the political arena and allow people to chosse whether
or not to accept spiritual and moral guidance.

by Stuart Mon Dec 11, 2006 16:10

The last election was called 9 days after the government agreed the Indemnity deal. because they did not want the issue debated.

It may be just a paranoid irrelevance of my warped mind, but I recall a documentary claiming that the indemnity deal was ratified on the very last day that signatories were available, in one of the most active strides of achievement in Mr Woods entire political career. I have very little respect for or expectations of the sorry representatives in government.

I do have high expectations that vocal advocates have an excellent opportunity to express progressive views and be heard right now.

by unfinished business Mon Dec 11, 2006 20:04

and the FF government knows this.
Michael Mc Dowell knows this.
Mary Harney knows this.

from that particular corruption stemmed the obstruction of Laffoy.
The 'cc' and 'a' cases. the statutory rape debate. the consent issue.

No-one has had the courage to address the relationship between church
and state. good catholic people in ireland know that the church is a
'moral' force and not a political force- but the amorality of interference
in our legislation has caused for us- societal stigma and massive
hurt.

and like I said the Woods issue has not been debated. it's denial
and its common denominator is budget. money.sheckles.cash.
what has this to do with the healing of the pain caused by the church
to Irish citizens?

by Stuart Mon Dec 11, 2006 20:56

unfinished business: and like I said the Woods issue has not been debated. it's denial and its common denominator is budget. money.sheckles.cash.
what has this to do with the healing of the pain caused by the church to Irish citizens?

The government has attempted to capitalise on the outrage caused by the "honest mistake" releases of guilty men and the almost universal sense of injustice that people feel over church non-apologies on top of their indemnity deal - who can watch Brother Gibson and not feel sick to the pit of their stomach? Their attempt was ill-thought out and they are in retreat, but have no obvious line of escape. The bishops and their morality arguments were too easily seized by back-peddling Bertie, but don't answer the outrage and injustice. Excuse my bluntness, but it is the church who fucked the children, told them they were sinful, transferred the abusers from parish to parish, frustrated all investigation, negotiated amnesties for the sick and dead perpetrators, and then apologised to the children for any offence they might have taken.

Now is the time for reasoned arguments to fund adequate child protection services, child advocacy workers, child-centred crisis nursing, sexual assault treatment centres, child psychiatric beds and the lifelong care of people abused in childhood. A 1% reduction in the higher rate of tax is costing 230 million euro per year, Mary Harney has promised 4 million to support assault units for the 400 reported rapes per year. Money places caring staff in post.

by henry p Fri Jan 26, 2007 18:09

I'm always interested in the reaction of people to the issue of children's rights. It seems to me that many parents assume that what they consider their child needs to be ( e.g. a certain type of education, a certain type of care arrangment etc.) is equivalent to the child's rights. Put another way, I often hear parents say that their child is entitled to something, by right, because they think he/she needs it.

The problem with this kind of approach to" vindicating" the rights of children is that rarely, if ever, are children consulted what they consider their needs or rights to be. We cannot assume that because a parent thinks their child needs something, it is automatically what the child requires. This is particularly true in the case of children with disabilities who cannot voice their concerns.

A Constitutional amendment that would make it mandatory to seek the views of children, irrespective of those of their families, is long overdue. Where children cannot voice their opinions, every effort should be made to seek an independent expert assessment of what can be read from their behaviour or other forms of communication. We should have learned a long time ago that the parents don't always know best.

by M Cotton Thu Feb 01, 2007 09:38

The IT reports today on what this referendum is goiing to look like:

"On the issue of children's rights, the briefing notes provided to Opposition parties suggest the Government will avoid setting out a list of explicit rights for children. [My emphasis]. Instead, it will set out in more explicit terms the "natural and imprescriptible" rights of the child. The lack of children's rights, according to campaigners, has led to the rights of married parents dominating over children in areas such as adoption, child custody and child abuse.

The amendment will also propose changing the wording of the constitutional provision relating to State intervention in families where children are considered to be at risk. The reworded article would allow for the State to used "appropriate and proportionate means" to intervene in a family where parents of "any child" have failed in their duty towards that child"

As anticipated, this referendum has absolutely nothing to do with establishing positive rights for children. It is about infantilising the status of parents - and appropriating their natural authority and responsibility for their children under the guise of child protection. Article 42 has been targetted - its been the basis for many a powerful challenge to the state in respect of its failures to provide services and supports. And no doubt the compliant and lazy mainstream media will fail to get off its collective arse and look beyond the press briefings and packs that land on their desks. And all those coy, sentimental ads from Barnardos will do their insinuating worst.

See already how parents are being painted as the enemies of their children? Why should the entire nation give up its constitutional rights because of the actions of a few? The law is already wholly adequate for dealing with sex abuse - it is illegal and social workers etc already have powers to intervene where they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse is occurring. Why does the government not target instead the state agencies who have repeatedly and shockingly failed children in its care? Why does it not make the staff who run those agencies appropriately accountable for their failures?

The idea that the interests of parents and children are mutually exclusive or conflicting is completely bogus - social workers and others have been pedalling that line for thirty years now. It is a descredited theory where the interests of children are concerned. But it has been the strategy by which that so-called 'profession' has inserted itself into people's lives without any progress to show for it.

For shame on Barnardos and the Childrens Rights Alliance for walking into this trap. When will people learn to keep their heads about them where child protection is concerned? This is genuine nanny-statism at its very worst. An insult to the entire adult population of Ireland.

by Stuart Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:01

I read those briefing notes through and I can not think of an abundance of examples of the abuse of children's that would be prevented or remedied by them. And who are the "campaigning groups" mentioned over and over as driving this thing?

If you take the legal case that started this off, how will a child in the care of a classmate's parent any more protected from rape? How would any of the 14,541 cases brought to the Residential Institutions Redress Board have been prevented by these constitutional amendments? How would any of the 3,849 first time callers to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (half reporting childhood abuse) have been protected?
The only positive step contained in the legislative amendment is preventing the cross-questioning of abused children in court.

Approximately 7,500 boys and 10,000 girls become victims of sexual abuse every year in Ireland. Just 13 perpetrators were convicted in the past five years.

by Stuart Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35

From today's RTE:

A woman who claims she was beaten, indecently assaulted and raped by members of her family, particularly her brother, for a quarter of a century, has won the right to take legal proceedings against the gardaí for ignoring her complaints.

The woman claims the abuse began in around 1960, when she was five years old.

She says she went to a garda station in 1967 and she says members of the gardaí told her she must have enjoyed the abuse.

She was sent back home and she says she was continually and systematically beaten, intimidated, indecently and incestually assaulted and raped until 1996.

She later had a child by her brother.

Perhaps the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell could explain why the legislation for rape, rape of a minor, assault, sexual assault, incest and neglect of a child did not protect her.

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Thu Feb 01, 2007 17:29

Front page Article in Alive magazine states,' Children's rights vote would 'diminish' role of the Family'.

The main stream media have not taken up on this most important issue. Instead ,they prefere to bury it.

The Family, the most fundamental unit in our Society is majorly under threat by those who pretend to protect it.

Essentially , the Fundamental Articles,40-44 are under threat. These Articles are to protect both Child and Adult..

The Articles written by Miriam have stated and proved , there is no need whatsoever to Amend the Constitution to protect Children's rights , they already exist. In fact in the original Constitutional Text Draft the Fundamental rights for all are even much stronger. For example, it is stated that the Child has 'invincible 'rights.

It also states as in Article 42.1 , ' The State acknowledges that the Family is the primary connate Teacher for the Child, and (it) guarantees not to interfere with the inalienable rights (child) nor with the inalienable obligation of the Parents to provide education according to their means for their Family in matters of Religion,morality,intellect, body and sociality .'

The above is just an example of the direct Irish translation to English , not available in the 'blue book' Bunreacht na hEireann, but available for 19 euros at Govt.Publications office Molesworth Street Dublin, entitled 'A study of the Irish Text' and is a must read for all who are on track with the issue.

Barnardos have also played their part in misdirecting the Public. With bill boards posted at every Luas Stop (assisted by Railway procurment agency and D.C.C.) stating ,'Would you thrust a Consttitution that forgets / Targets our Children'?

I think that statements like the one above that has been allowed a free reign is bordering on Treasonable intent. People have been jailed for Statements that came no where near this.

It seems that the real Threat to this Country is from within.

bcnu

by Miriam Cotton Thu Feb 08, 2007 07:09

Mr Finlay [CEO Barnardos Ireland]

Your website is not very helpful - it does not give people sufficient information about the proposed ammendments to the consitution.

No positive rights will be given to children. But parents will loose rights. Why, therefore are you misleading people and defining the issue in terms of childrens rights? You are lessening the rights of the very agents on whom children most have to rely in order to enforce their rights - they cannot do it for themselves. Do you seriously think that state agents are better placed to do that? What does our history tell you?

The existing wording of the affected articles should be clear on your website so that people can easily see the difference.

The significance in legal and other terms of your changes should be made clear.

What exactly will be lost?

What exactly will be gained?

Which case law will be affected or weakened?

What will the effect on existing legislation be?

Will existing constitutional grounds of legal redress be affected? If so, won't this affect children negatively?

These are urgent questions which so far neither Barnardos nor Fianna Fail have attempted to answer.

Why do you think insulting the authority and care of the vast majority of parents in Ireland is going to protect children? Do you think defining all our legal and familial status in terms of what abusers do is right or sensible?

An honest campaign that was confident on all of these points would not be afraid of an open and frank debate.

Why has Barnardos put a misleading and incomplete description of what the ammendments will do to the constitution on its website and stuck a 'yes' or 'no' button underneath it? Isn't this merely encouraging people to offer a pre referendum voting sample which can then be used to make unsubstantiated claims about 'support' for the ammendment? What consideration is there for vulnerable children in resorting to tactics like that? There is no rationale for what is being proposed on your website. As it stands it amounts to nothing more than an emotional appeal on a highly emotive issue.

We are owed a full and frank explanation for what this is all about and we are not getting it. All we have is public manouvering of the issue in the media via a carefully orchestrated PR exercise. I am posting this inquiry on Indymedia.ie in the hope of generating some open discussion there, at least.

Miriam Cotton

[Link to Barnardos website below]

by that ad... Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:02

This image does not represent Irish society.

It is not deliberately racist but it does not reflect multi-culturism.

Please protect and nurture all our kids= equality of
opportunity, education and health care.

freedom of religious expression.

the right to family- not have family deported, split up or
casually defined as one woman+one man= baby.

where are the kids form other cultures?

by Libero Fri Feb 09, 2007 15:31

There's a fair point underneath all this hysteria, misinformation and empty rhetoric: that the government isn't doing enough to directly promote child welfare, that this referendum does nothing to change that, and that it risks having state agents interfere with parents and those who work to look after children.

But the Catholic fundamentalists know that it isn't really a runner in modern times to go stressing the freedom of parents and churches in the context of child welfare. So they tend to concentrate on the former complaints as a way to advance the latter cause of independence from state oversight.

I suspect that Miriam is one such Catholic for her claim that "it is within private and state-run institutions that the worst of the systematic abuses of children (and others) have occurred". Perhaps she just fired it out, but this claim - even if true - really has little to do with supporting or opposing a general right conferred by the consitution. Take the right to education: it has been the source of claims against the state and against striking teachers. So I don't see how stronger rights to child welfare won't be enforceable against the state. Rather, I suspect that the objection lies elsewhere: that the right WILL be enforceable, in some circumstances, against parents and Catholic schools and so on.
More evidence comes from the slating of social work theory, something the Church has always seen as a threat to its social thought.

We should expect more of this rhetoric in months to come, as Catholic Church groups try to find talking points for why they and parents should remain in a superior position to children and the state as a guardian of child welfare.

by Miriam Cotton Fri Feb 09, 2007 15:40

This is really very bad.

See other detailed discussion currently taking place on politics.ie and find out what Mr Libero is really up to. This is a government spinner out to trash opposition to this ammendment by foul rather than fair means. A whole lot of questions were put to him which he refuses to answer because he can't.

Link here:

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?p=534813#534813

by Stuart Fri Feb 09, 2007 19:54

I will accept (for the sake of argument) that there is a fundamentalist Catholic element opposing Constitutional reform, and that I and others have allowed myself to be exploited in their devious hidden agenda. I hope that the pro-reform lobby will therefore explain to me how the changes proposed will prevent the future sexual abuse of children or would have prevented past abuse. They can start with:

- The A, B, C, D, E and F cases of last summer, only one of whom (if memory serves) was released on the reasonable belief ground;

- The more than 100 children criminally abused, as reported in the Ferns Diocese;

- The victims of the 102 alleged paedophile priests in the Dublin Diocese;

- The 14,541 applicants to the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

I am unable to recognise any measures that would have alleviated this (massive) suffering resulting from acts that have been criminal conduct since before the inception of the Irish State. I would like to see reforms that prevent abuse, not a figleaf over the State's contemptible failure within the existing legislation.

by Simply this Fri Feb 09, 2007 20:14

There needs to be a church /state separation.

Freedom of religious expression- leave it outside of the Dail when you go to
work.

The Church is in the moral and spiritual sphere.
It needs reform.
The state believes it is political, it lacks ideal.

Michael Woods really needs to retire.

[but may be thanked for highlighting through the indemnity deal exactly how
deeply the church has penetrated the 'organ of governement' and rightly f***ed it.]

by Miriam Cotton Sat Feb 10, 2007 15:25

If there was any doubt about they monumental hypocrisy of the government where this referendum is concerend then VB has exposed it:

http://www.village.ie/ireland/society_%26_justice/refus...buse/

(From Village online magazine)

by Doilie Sat Feb 10, 2007 19:52

In case Miriam Cotton did not notice the discussion on child abuse and the varied
lies and deals of FF/PD have indeed been covered by indymedia- or does she give
no credence to a site she regularly contributes too?

Does everything become okey- dokey , acceptable when covered by the liberal
intelligentsia and not by the atonomous individual. Is it 'safe' to advocate Brown
after excoriating him about Haughey? (and one of the indy editors to boot)

Why the avoidance of the issue unless it is 'acceptably' presented?

by Miriam Cotton Sun Feb 11, 2007 16:16

In case Miriam Cotton did not notice the discussion on child abuse and the varied
lies and deals of FF/PD have indeed been covered by indymedia- or does she give
no credence to a site she regularly contributes too?

Er, yes, I noticed. Not least because it is being covered here on this Indymedia thread, right now, again. I'm supporting Indymedia by contributing to this new thread on the subject (must there only be one?). VB has provided a very useful analysis of facts that are relevant to this thread - which compliment it.

It’s not an 'attack' on Vincent Browne or anyone else to challenge them from conviction in public on any issue that they have written about in a public forum. Are we supposed to accept that Vincent Browne and Indymedia editors are a special case - that they can declaim news and views without expecting legitimate challenge? I don’t believe the people you refer to actually believe that themselves. They write lots of things. I disagree – strongly sometimes - with some of them and wholly agree with others. Like anyone else, I have a legitimate interest in what national media says and does because of the powerful influence it can exert on our society. Where I believe that someone has written something that does not reflect the rights or wrongs of an issue I am prepared to say so and I do not care who that person is or what prior relationship I have with them. I may be wrong in what I say, and don’t ever say anything I don’t believe - but the expression of different views matters.

It's amazing that some people appear to think that if you are broadly aligned to a particular position you are not allowed to challenge it. Anarchists, left wingers, socialist et al have no monopoly of the moral high ground. They are only human beings too. I may generally prefer that overall perspective but it is not an act of treachery or betrayal to make a strong challenge to people who may share a similar outlook when you think they are getting something badly wrong.

My posts on Indymedia are frequently criticised by Indymedia moderators, contributors and others - sometimes quite viciously. I don't see anyone rushing forward to call that an 'attack' when it happens. It's only to be expected - and welcomed even. Here we have the healthy possibility to look from different points of view at any given issue on what is probably the only truly level media playing field in Ireland. The statutory rape issue is being subjected to that scrutiny on this thread.

Here is another quote from another excellent article by Browne on the rape issue:

However heinous and extensive clerical child sex abuse has been, it is only the tip of the iceberg.

It is hard to fathom why the appalling scale of child sex abuse in Ireland has not been right at the top of the political and media agenda for at least three years.

More than three years ago, an authoritative report showed that over 130,000 Irish adults, male and female, had been raped as children.

By ‘raped', I mean intercourse, oral or anal sex, or penetration by an object.

The statistics of sex child abuse are absolutely shocking.

About 150,000 adults were shown pornographic material when they were children.

Around 40,000 were stripped naked and made to pose in sexually suggestive ways.

Around 450,000 people, while children, were exposed to someone displaying their sexual organs.

About 160,000 saw a man masturbate in front of them while they were children.

Around 350,000 were touched sexually by adults.

Around 100,000 were subjected as children to attempted sexual intercourse.

About 40,000 actually had sexual intercourse.

About 25,000 were forced to have oral sex.

More than 50,000 were subjected to anal sex.

More than 60,000 women had objects inserted into their vagina while they were children.

These figures are extrapolated from Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI), published in 2002.

Link to full article by Browne:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/11/06/story942...3.asp

Again, it illustrates how hypocritical the government are being.

For what it is worth – I’m as susceptible as anyone to overstating things . But then again so are the editors and others that you wrongly believe have been 'attacked'. And they can do some pretty ferocious 'attacking' of their own at times. Strength of feeling or conviction about an issue is not always the best perspective from which to write things and there are many contributors to this site, me included, who might benefit from reflecting on that. I acknowledge that there has been too much of an edge to some of what I have written here - it 's not always helpful and it is clearly a factor in causing this reaction from certain members of the Indymedia collective.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Feb 13, 2007 13:05

From a former victim:

"Perpetrators of child sexual abuse are approximately
equally distributed one fifth each between family, neighbours, friends /
acquaintances, authority figures and strangers. [Family] is widely and
incorrectly interpreted as "parents" but actually about 2% of all abuse is
by fathers, 0.2% mothers and 3.5% brothers - most family abuse is by uncles
and cousins. That means 98% of child sexual abuse is not perpetrated by
parents and 80% not by relatives of any kind. (that's tables 4.10, 4.11 and
4.12 in SAVI).

Given that the overwhelming majority of children are in family homes,
professionals and other authority figures are far more actively abusive per
head of population - I estimate that people in religious occupations are 60
times more frequently child abusers (4 per cent of abuse when only 3,000
people are in religious occupations), but it wouldn't surprise me if other
professions had equally bad records. Authority is a recurring theme,
sometimes legal authority and sometimes informal"

Nothing could illustrate more obviously the futility and hypocrisy of what the government are doing with this referendum.

Approximately 2% of parents are culpable. Why is the government setting out to cut the rights of those
with whom children are safest? Why is doing nothing to improve the accountability of those who are most responsible?

The awful fact is that the places and institutions which are set up to protect children are very likely a target for those with paedophile tendencies. This should not be an issue that results in the demonisation of the majority of dedicated and innocent people who work with children but it cannot be ignored if we are serious about doing something meaningful.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Feb 13, 2007 19:48

It will take away the God given rights of the Parents and enhance the powers of the State to remove Children from their Parents.

This has nothing to do with 'God-given' anything for many people. Some people might interpret it that way but for a lot of people it is about their natural relationship to their children. Gay parents, single parents, married parents - children are safest under the protection of those people than in any other setting - what they think about God has nothing to do with it.

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Tue Feb 13, 2007 21:26

I never suggested 'they' thought about God on the issue , or about God at all.

It seems the word GOD has become a very contentious word all of a sudden.It's just a word to describe ??????????? who knows.

I personally believe 'it' is about the relationship between a Mother , Father and their Child(ren) ,as Natural Parents ,which, is congruous to the best development to the Child.

Ironically 'it' has to do with 'God-given anything' for many People , not all see everything the same way.
Great ! Thank Dog for that. The argument is really semantics.

But we do seem to sing from the same Hymn sheet on the real issue.

by Miriam Cotton Wed Feb 14, 2007 17:25

I don't sing from your hymn sheet - you have another agenda altogether which appears to be the promotion of the 'nuclear family' as the only form of legitimate family. I dont agree with you at all about that. This is not an opprtunity for the raving right.

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Wed Feb 14, 2007 18:25

I ain't left or I ain't right. I Just endevour to pursue a balance.

I beleive it is common sense , proved over many millenniums , that the NORMAL (nuclear) Family situation is the obvious best for every Child.

Surely you above all People who advocate for the Child cannot disagree with that , AND , I do not think that my 'other agenda'??? in promoting the nuclear Family is in any way a threat to any Child , quite the contrary.

According to Bunreacht , the Legitimate Family IS the nuclear Family.

Do you have something better than the nuclear Family to offer a Child for a well balanced development?

WHAT'S YOUR 'OTHER AGENDA'?

by Stuart Thu Feb 15, 2007 09:14

I think that "WHAT'S YOUR 'OTHER AGENDA'?" is a question we should be posing to children's rights advocacy groups, some of whom are uncharacteristically briefing journalists without being identified in the subsequent article.

It is probably safe at this point to say that the referendum (with wording that will not be revealed until Monday next at the earliest) will not take place this spring. But why is there such a strong movement to change the wording of the Constitution and who does it serve? Would it have prevented the abuse of any of these children?

Cynthia Owen came forward claiming to be the mother of the baby girl whose body was found in a plastic bag in 1973. A sister of Ms Owen said physical and sexual abuse was normal and an everyday occurrence in the house in Dalkey, south Dublin

The A-F cases? One of these raped a 12-year-old school-friend of his own daughter whose care he was trusted with by the child's parent. He did not dispute the child's age. Another of these raped a 13-year-old babysitter, the child of a family friend.

(from an impact statement) If I killed him then I would get longer in prison that he is getting.

Rape is illegal, child sexual abuse is illegal and neglect is illegal, since before the State's birth. These crimes continue every day, perpetrated in the main by people known to the children and in positions of trust or authority over them. The people who commit these crimes look normal and act normal, the child's experience is unbelievable. The children who try to talk about their experiences are silenced by disbelief, and will still be silenced by this "credibility gap" whatever legal rights are conferred on them.

We need resources to identify and support at risk children, to collect evidence, to process cases and to care for the welfare of abused people.

by C Murray Thu Feb 15, 2007 09:58

Judge Catherine Mc Guiness has called on the state to provide separate rights
for children and not for them to be read wholly within the context of the family.

FF were carpetted in Geneva for not ensuring children's rights
and UNICEF stated yesterday , that the two islands (England and Ireland) are
providing for children the least in basic human rights- the worst record
on persistent child poverty- despite obvious wealth.

The referendum as proposed does not recognise the rights of the child.
In a historical context it does not recognise victims of abuse.
in the context of section 5 of the Criminal Law sexual offences bill- it does
not recognise the rights to protection of the 12-17 year old pre-consent girl,
who is considered co-equal with a foetus she is carrying.

The referendum will be put to us before a general election and will no doubt
be the frame for multiple human rights cases under UN and EU legislations.

by Stuart Mon Feb 19, 2007 14:02

Speech by the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern T.D. on the publication of the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007 in the Press Centre, Government Buildings on Monday 19 February 2007 at 12.15p.m.

The new Article 42A(5) will provide two enormously important provisions which will allow the Oireachtas to put in place laws to protect children from sexual and other forms of abuse.

The first of these will permit the exchange of so-called “soft information” about suspected child abusers. It is a matter of grave concern to me now to be told that the Constitution as it stands inhibits the power of the Oireachtas to provide for the exchange of information between the Gardaí, social services and prospective employers of people working with children. This means that it is difficult to warn employers about people who have been suspected of, but not charged with, sexual misconduct relating to children. This is clearly an imbalance in our Constitution, one which this present amendment will set right.

The second change in Article 42A (5) will be even more fundamental. It will permit the Oireachtas to implement for offences of strict or absolute liability in respect of children. The crucial need for such offences is clear.

Whilst welcoming any change that improves the welfare of children, I feel that this wording exposes a complete and abject failure to comprehend the dangers that children face. Children are sexually abused and raped, it is illegal and no action is taken because children are not believed and adults do not wish to believe them. No amount of jiggery-pokery with constitutional rights is going to prevent institutional deaf, dumb and blindness to the experience of abused children.

by Miriam Cotton Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:49

Following the Irish Supreme Court’s judgment on Friday 23rd March in favour of the Irish government’s contention that it has no duty appropriately to educate children with autism, it is time now to call this government’s attitude to those with disability by its proper names: fear and loathing. We are truly going backwards where disability is concerned.

With the connivance of civil servants, successive Fianna Fail and Prgresive Democrat (extreme right wing) ministers (McDowell, Dempsey, Fahey and now Hanafin) have mounted what can only be described as a ruthless campaign to ensure that nobody born with special needs in this country is specifically entitled to any form of appropriate care or education. Not only that but the government is now hampering the ability of parents to help themselves and their children. Its disgraceful disability legislation (including the Education of Persons with Special Needs [EPSEN] Act 2004) has made what was already a dire situation even worse. Its objective has been, not to confer rights – a blatantly dishonest claim - but both to take them away and to ensure that even where people resort to privately funded assessments and services, the state will refuse to recognise them so that their recommendations for care and services can be ignored.

The message is clear: if you have a disability in Ireland, the current government regards you as a non-person- a tarnished unit with no economic or other potential other than being a burden in so far as you are different. Minister foir Education, Mary Hanafin is in the habit of routinely defying the plain meaning of English in her pronouncements on this issue but she excelled herself on Friday, while celebrating her victory over thousands of needy children when she said:“We have to think in terms of what is best in terms of all of the children in the country.” Manifestly, what is best for a child with autism or Down Syndrome, for example, is not the same thing as will be the case for other children. Neither is it fair to other children merely to dump a child with special needs in a mainstream school without adequate provision. But let’s spell out the ugly insinuation in the Minister’s distorted perspective. What she is suggesting is that if the state were appropriately to educate people with special needs, typically-abled people would suffer. The message to other parents is clear: parents of people with disability are being selfish and want to disadvantage your children in order to procure what their children desperately need. This is nonsense of course, and the diametric opposite of the truth, but the idea is persistently advanced and is calculated to play on the public ignorance that the Minister and her colleagues must cultivate and preserve in order to justify their ‘policy’.

The truth behind the government rhetoric that preceded the recent legislation is beginning to bite - and hard. For example, under the terms of EPSEN Act 2004 parents are said to have a right to request a full assessment for their child. But they have no right to the assessment itself. They really do think we are stupid, don’t they? The government have now allocated a shockingly meagre 2.5 assessments per year to each school – when every class in the country will have at least one child with special needs. This allocation can only ensure that their conditions are never identified, much less provided for. And just to make absolutely sure that parents are effectively bound and gagged, the National Council for Special Education is refusing to recognise private assessments because, they claim, they don’t meet their criteria. Yet they won’t tell us what their criteria are. This is just one of hundreds of examples of the way parents and children are being treated: damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

This is the same government that is trying to sell us a sham referendum aimed at tinkering with the rights of parents to protect their vulnerable children from state neglect. Make no mistake, the true objective of this referendum is to ensure that the government never again has to make its contempt as obvious as it has in the O' Cuanachain and other cases: one of the grounds for legal challenge will almost certainly be taken from parents. How can Fianna Fail presume even to talk about children’s rights given their track record?

There is now a mounting tide of anger around the country where disability legislation is concerned and anyone who has a shred of humanity or concern for this matter should make a priority of using the forthcoming election to send a clear signal to Fianna Fail and the PDs. Let’s not be naïve, either, where the opposition parties are concerned. While we have had much rousing rhetoric from them too on this issue, when you push them hard, as I have, they are unwilling to commit themselves to changing the situation. In the words of one senior party member just a couple of months ago: ‘nothing is non negotiable’.

But we have more influence than we might suspect. It is entirely possible that the 1.4 million-strong disability lobby could single-handedly bring this government down at the next election, if it chose to do so. This would be an instructive lesson for all political parties that we are not willing to be treated with such disregard and that, in future, we are a group that none of them can afford to ignore.

Perhaps the greatest enemy of people with disability in Ireland is the inertia and apathy of the lobby itself when it comes to mounting a determined challenge. We are also seriously hampered by spineless voluntary agencies, many, but not all, of whom are headed up and run by people whose sole objective is not to upset the government – and who meekly pull back at the least sign of government or Ministerial displeasure. There are far too many people, personally unaffected by disability, who are drawing down substantial salaries to no discernible effect when the money would be better spent on direct service provision such as speech and occupational therapy for instance. Those with disability are suffering enough without having to endure this sort of ‘friendly fire’ from behind.

Unless or until parents fully understand that the legislation and the politics behind it are the true source of the misery they experience in securing support for themselves and their children, nothing will change. That nice Fianna Fail TD, so affable and sympathetic when you meet him or her in person, or in the context of your planning permission difficulty, is the same person who voted for this legislation in the Dail. Does your difficulty as a person with a disability matter more to you than their political aspirations? Does your child or affected relative or friend? If so, then don’t vote for that person, no matter how much they smile at you. Judge them by what they do – not what they say.

by C Murray Mon Mar 26, 2007 19:41

I found the Irish Times coverage of the case to be badly balanced.
As if Kathy Sinnot was a lone voice in the issue of the ABA system and autism.

I would have like to have heard more from Adrienne Murphy who was interviewed by RTE,
she published a mag a few years ago called 'Source'.

I do have to ask why Sinnot was so represented in the Irish Times, when she has
a platform through her EU MEP thingy and a general election coming up too,
in fact If it were campaign time I would question the validity of the Irish
Times coverage in a very serious manner- is K Sinnot running again in the
generals?