Questions Being Raised

The Children’s Rights Referendum is occupying the media’s attention these days.  It was passed by a fairly tight margin, but it is shrouded in controversy, particularly following our Supreme Court’s decision that the government’s supposedly neutral information leaflets were not neutral at all, but rather heavily biased in favour of a “Yes” vote, thereby contravening the McKenna judgement, a judgement by the Supreme Court which requires balance and fairness on the government's part in referendums. 

One interesting pattern which seems to be emerging from this referendum is the gulf between liberal/middle class voters and the working class/unemployed/poor.  According to emerging information in those areas populated by the liberal middle class there was a high “Yes” vote for the changes to the Constitution, in those areas populated by the poor, unemployed and working class there was a high “No”vote, perhaps reflecting the fear that the new laws ushered in by this referendum will affect them the most.  They, more than anyone else, are in danger of having their children taken away because of financial difficulties.   One commentator has also reminded us that these voters have more contact with social workers, and so their high “No” vote is hardly a ringing endorsement for that profession.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out here.  While the government is celebrating and showing a brave face, reports are emerging that inside government there is a lot of concern – they were not expecting such a high “No” vote and it is obvious that despite their efforts to paint “No” campaigners as loony, fundamentalist, extreme right-wing Catholic bigots, they were in reality expressing the doubts and fears of almost half the voters in the referendum.    What is also very interesting is that despite the little coverage given to the “No” side, and a case could be made that that coverage was biased, the “No” vote was still quite large. 

A number of questions are now being raised: Has the government lost touch with half of the citizens?  Has the government alienated the poor?   Are there now two Irelands: the liberal left-wing middle class who rule and the fearful poor and working class who now seem to have little confidence in their political masters?   I wonder what Marx would say about that.

Bishops's Letter, Minister's Diktat, And A Twiddling Taoiseach

Enda and his mobile phone

What a week!  It seems that time is flying and more and more things are popping out of the woodwork to be dealt with.  Hence the spaces between posts - not that I have nothing to say - you should all know me by now, I tend to have too much to say at times.  I grab a few moments.....

Since my last post a few things of note have happened.  First of all the Bishops have released their statement for the Day for Life in Ireland which falls this year on the 7th October, feast of Our Lady of the Rosary (or as a friend pointed out this morning - the anniversary of Lepanto).   I have tried to find the statement online, but I do not think it is up yet - I trawled through the Bishop's Conference website and found nothing - it's not a great website and it can be difficult to find things on it, so maybe I missed it.

Anyway, the statement is good: it is clear and states quite catagorically that abortion is wrong, never necessary to save the life of a woman and that the child conceived is a human being worthy of the right to life.  There is a wonderful sentence in it worth noting: "From that moment [fertilisation], each of us did not grow and develop into a human being, but grew and developed as a human being" (emphasis in the text).  That is a marvellous way of stating the facts and undermine the argument proposed by those who promote and defend abortion that the "embryo" or "foetus" is not a human being. 

I am always amazed that in this era when science and medicine are so advanced, there are people out there who claim the embryo is not human, but becomes human (it seems) when the woman assents to the pregnancy.  Talk about hocus pocus and medieval ideas! The pro-abortion lobby are positively backward when it comes to scientific facts and then they have the gall to accuse those who respect human life as being stuck in the past and not as progressive as them.  Poor deluded creatures, their blindness has made fools of them all. 

The Bishops also point out that the government does not have to legislate for abortion to comply with the ruling of the European Court - someone should tell the bright sparks in the government because all we hear out of them is that we may have no choice.  Personally I believe they know, but well, politicians tend be selective when it comes to truth, and on this issue, even though it will cost innocent human lives, they'll fiddle the same old tune. 

Abortion, the bishops point out, is not a solution to a difficult problem, but the  delberate taking of human life and it can never be a genuinely humane or compassionate solution.  It is an evil that brings more evil, destroying not just the life of the baby who is killed, but the woman who has the abortion and society in general which becomes less humane and compassionate as it gets used to the killing of the innocent.  As the bishops correctly point out, as we listen to all the hard cases, it has proved by international experience that once abortion has been legalised, even if only for very restricted cases, it quickly becomes more widespread than was first intended (although to be honest, many of those arguing for abortion intend to have abortion on demand - their talk of restrictions is nothing more than a Trojan horse - as experience teaches us).

Meanwhile the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, is berating RTE for its unbiased coverage of the Children's Rights Referendum.  Now to be honest I never thought RTE could ever be accused of unbaised reporting, but if they are finally getting their act together, they should be supported. The issue is, once again, the McKenna judgement whereby both sides in a referendum campaign must be given equal time to explain their position: the government doesn't like this.

Meanwhile (you'll love this), after another minister in the same government told the Catholic Church to keep its nose out of the forthcoming abortion debate, Minister Noonan has told the Churches that he expects them to issue statements very soon supporting the government position on the Children's Rights Referendum.  This is an interesting development - a government minister telling the Christian Churches what positions they should take on certain issues: is this a diktat?  What about separation of Church and state?  This crowd just get worse. 

And meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, on a visit to the Pope with other representatives of the European Political Group of which his party is a member, was twiddling away on his mobile phone during the Pope's speech.  Lord knows what people think about Ireland when they see our political representatives behave in such a childish way.  But really, is this the best we Irish can get to run our country?  Thanks their actions against the Pope and the Vatican, this government has already brought much criticism of Ireland from foreign diplomats and governments - when will they stop showing us up in public with their adolescent rebellion against Catholicism?

Not sure if you saw this, if not, please read it - John Water's excellent article on the Children's Rights Referendum.  As always, Waters sheds light on issues usually ignored in Irish Society today. That man deserves a knighthood!  We must drop a few hints with the bishops to put in a word with the Holy Father.

A Few Thoughts

I have been reflecting a little on the wording of the Children's Rights referendum coming up in November.  Last night coming back from my brother's wedding practice (yes, we are finally getting rid of him!! Say a prayer for his fiancee, I think she needs her head examined, but anyway....), I was listening to the debates on Newstalk - Marc Coleman's programme, though someone else was standing in. If Marc had been there the debate would have been more robust because, while there were a few concerns expressed, most were happy with the wording and it went unchallenged.

I have a few thoughts at this initial stage, and perhaps the questions I am asking will be answered in the debate and I am set at ease.

First of all - do we need such a referendum?  Surely children have the same rights as other citizens.  When we get to giving some citizens more rights than others, is that not questionable?  Is this referendum just an attempt to respond to recent crises in an easy way rather than just use the provisions that are already there?

Secondly, I agree with the change in allowing the children of married people to be put up for adoption - there are cases where someone who marries a widowed person cannot actually adopt the children because they had been born in marriage. However, I believe this should only happen with the agreement of the living parents.  Despite the hard cases, I do not think the State should have the power to conduct forced adoptions.  Yes, the wording says "in exceptional cases", but to be honest that will be abused by the State and social workers.  Enshrining this in the Constitution is dangerous.

Thirdly, I do not like the idea that the State can see itself as being a substitute for parents, ie "supply the place of parents" - that is beyond the remit of the state and I think enshrining this in the Constitution is dangerous too.   We have seen various States and regimes attempting to do that, most notably the Soviet Union.   And given that the Irish government's recent history on child care has been appalling and fatal for some children (facts conveniently ignored by the media), can we actually trust the State to look after these children?  

Finally, this wording diminishes the rights of parents with regard to their children.  There are difficult cases, hard cases, but as the legal adage goes, "hard cases make bad law" - is this referendum an attempt to enshrine these bad cases in the Constitution (some of these articles are a response to actual cases)?  If so we need to tread very carefully. 

I cannot help but think of Chesterton's comment on socialism, applicable I believe here too since the government here in Ireland today is a left-wing government on social issues.  He said: "Socialists are specially engaged in mending (that is, strengthening and renewing) the state; [but] they are not specially engaged in strengthening and renewing the family."  Is this referendum about consolidating State power over children (albeit, I accept, with noble intentions), but striking at the heart of the family?

Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald, said that this referendum was "not a charter for breaking up families" - I think she believes that.  However I think, perhaps, despite her noble intentions, in reality and in practice it may well become that.   We shall see how the debate pans out.  Unless my concerns are seriously addressed though, I think I will be voting no.

Children's Rights Referendum Wording

The government has announced the date and published the wording of the Children's Rights Referendum.  The referendum will take place in Saturday 10th November (only the second time we have had a referendum on a Saturday), and the wording is as follows:

1. The 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.

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

2.2 Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

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

4.1. Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings -

i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

4.2. Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1 of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

The wording requires careful study, but the first thing that strikes me is section 2.2: forced adoption?