Children’s Rights Referendum
It’s easy to get lost in the details of the current
Amendment.
In my view, this amendment is more about providing a route,
via the Courts, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC or UN
Convention), than providing relief for dysfunctional families, important though
that is.
(The UN Convention has already, apparently legally, been
ratified by the Irish Government, without reservation, in 1992. It was never
put to the people).
The key word here is "rights".
When presented with the first test case, the Court is likely
to ask: "What Rights are we talking about?"
It could then be explained to the Court that such rights are
none other than those that are in the UN Convention, which had already been
ratified by the Irish Government. It can be argued that this is what the
electorate had in mind on 10 November 2012.
In support of this view, it can be further stated that the
Explanatory Booklet, issued by the Department of Children and received by
voters just prior to the Referendum, made favourable reference to the
Convention.
It would then be easy for the Court to accept that the
Constitution, as amended, was in accordance with the UN Convention, or a
specified part of it.
If I am correct in concluding that "the elephant in the
room" is the UN Convention, parents should be aware that, according to a
UN "expert", speaking to an Irish Government delegation, the
"innovative idea" of the Convention was that of "moving from
protection and caring to assertion of children’s rights".
This has huge implications not only for every parent (not
just those who are deemed to fail), but also for every child. It would
represent a reversal of existing law and practice.
At present, children are entitled to the love and support of
both parents, rather than rights which would be enforced by a Court.
In view of where I believe this amendment is leading, I will
be voting NO.
Yours sincerely,
Donal O’Driscoll
