Sir, – As one of the 445,863 people who voted against the proposal to alter our Constitution, I need to defend my decision to do so as a result of various theories espoused by a number of blue shirt Ministers.
I believe the State got off the hook by removing a definitive obligation to protect the imprescriptible rights of children (Article 42.5,) and replace it with a conditional article which will affirm these “rights” where “practicable”.
As a family man I have great concern for the welfare of all children, but as the Troika bean-counters control our particular asylum, our weak-minded Government will not make the required resources available lest they leave their bondholder friends short.
My fellow objectors and I can take comfort in the great numbers of us who used free will and thought to form opinions and not succumb to the herd mentality. The political establishment must be running scared considering that based on the referendums returns, and contrary to the view of 164 TDs, the free- thinking citizens of this Republic could elect 20 of our own in the next general election. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Minister for Justice Alan Shatter’s response to the Supreme Court ruling which found the Government to have breached the McKennna judgment was arrogant and unapologetic. Fine Gael chairman Charlie Flanagan earlier this year described the McKenna judgment as “a nonsense”.
Judgments like McKenna, Coughlan and Crotty enhance democracy. To have our legislators voicing such contempt is very disturbing.
The present FG/Labour Government appears to find judgments like McKenna and Crotty and Coughlan to be serious impediments to the manner in which they wish to govern.
It’s ironic that it was a FG/Labour administration that led to the McKenna judgment and that Ministers Howlin, Bruton, Quinn, Noonan and the Taoiseach Enda Kenny were serving ministers in that administration. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is crucial that the referendum just passed is now speedily supported by necessary legislation and by proper funding of the services vital to the care of vulnerable children.
Without such action, this latest amendment to the Constitution will become yet another fine looking facade behind which the pain of the past will go on as before. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The €1m spend by the Department of Children on the referendum is less than 1 per cent of the cumulative deficit (now approaching €115m according to RTÉ’s estimates) which the State has allowed RTÉ TV to run up in the past four years. These deficits, surely involving illegal State aid (in addition to the licence fee), have extended the dominance of State-owned and controlled television broadcasting in Ireland, to a far greater extent than in any other EU country.
The Government turned a blind eye when, last year, the Irish Competition Authority decided after a two-year investigation that RTÉ was likely abusing its dominance on every standard test to limit commercial broadcasters’ share of the market. And of course RTÉ did not report on this, one of the most significant Competition Authority Enforcement Decisions ever taken.
This form of State control, delivering at best “groupthink” but potentially something more politicised, is a far greater threat to fair debate than some nuanced leafleting in this referendum (for example, according to press reports RTÉ loosened its own rules on 50/50 airtime in this referendum because there might not be sufficient No campaigners).
The Government should take steps immediately to reduce RTÉ’s dominance by eliminating its deficits and to end any anti-competitive behaviour. We don’t need more Supreme Court rulings on State leafleting, we just need a more balanced media market to ensure free debate. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Eliciting the opinions and wishes of children – as legally obliged by the outcome of the children’s referendum – will serve only to exacerbate the emotional and psychological abuse of children, particularly in separation, custody and contact disputes.
The overt views of the child may be fear-induced through an emotional and psychological abuse by one parent in order to reject, denigrate and make false allegations against a (previously loved) target parent.
The consequences of making children “active players” in the breakdown of their own familial relationships within the adversarial family law court system was not considered by those advocating a Yes vote. This is a very serious matter. Many of these children are already caught in sensitive and fractious scenarios caused by parental fall-out, etc. Making them “weapons” within the legal process could have devastating long-term effects on them: such as a loss of self-esteem, becoming involved in anti-social behaviours and even suicide.
Minster for Children, Frances Fitzgerald, stated that there is a strong obligation on the State to protect children. Good! What must now become a norm is that in giving a child a ‘voice’ that it be preceded by comprehensive and impartial investigations and assessments to ensure that the child’s expressed opinions and wishes is his/her “own”. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am ashamed to be Irish, to live in a country where only about a third of eligible voters are bothered to vote in an referendum defining children’s rights.
Considering this attitude, who can blame the government for taking over 20 years to decide on the site of a children’s hospital? And who really worries if the church has a history of horrifying child abuse in its institutions, hides the abusers and reneges on compensating its victims? Who cares when special needs assistance for handicapped kids is reduced, etc, etc.
Those who didn’t vote last Saturday – and could have – obviously just don’t care. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – One presumes the Ministry for Children will be dissolved now the referendum is over. Or is the Government going to take a leaf out of the book of the UN, which still has a decolonisation office? – Yours, etc,