We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
TV3 HAS ANNOUNCED details of the first confirmed televised debate on the forthcoming referendum on Children’s Rights.
The debate will be aired on Halloween night, October 31, at beginning at 10pm.
The hour-long debate will be moderated by Vincent Browne and will feature two parties from each of the Yes and No sides.
The identities of the participants have not yet been confirmed, but TV3 said it had invited the children’s minister Frances Fitzgerald to participate in support of the motion.
TV3 director of news Andrew Hanlon said the broadcaster wanted “to play its part” in encouraging debate on the referendum, “particularly as there has been very little argument on the matter on the public airwaves”.
Hanlon also said TV3 wished to confirm its commitment “to ensure balance throughout the referendum period in all its coverage of the referendum.”
The debate is to be held ten days before polling on the referendum, which will be held on November 10.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Down with Children! Vote NO! ;)
The children are the future unless we stop them now!
It’s not due to the Kilkenny case. It’s a UN directive dating back 20 years. Lie no 1 from the Yes side. We all want our children to be safe but as a judge pointed out in the Times today, these provisions already exists but are never invoked, also as Cathy Sinnott said on the Pat Kenny show, it’s more about what’s been taken out.
Phillipa – I don’t mean to sound snide, but there is no such thing as a UN directive.
Conner I have two kids and another on the way so I have red thumbed your “down with children” comment now grow up.
Conner I have two kids and another on the way so I have red thumbed your “down with children” comment now grow up.
Conor, I too have two children and in the interest of balance I green thumbed your comment.;)
Conor and Ronan , I have 3 children too and I can’t believe how insensitive you guys are being , wont somebody please think of the children ;)) the irony of yelling ye grow up
I have no kids and want to know why my taxes are being spent on childrens’ allowance for you lot!?
Tomy Iona, because you were a kid too once. now give something back for the greater good of society, they will be paying your pension when you get older
I was actually kind of joking but then as a kid, I didn’t have that choice. As adults we all do have that choice – as my parents did. And while it’s off topic I can’t understand how people will moan and moan about those who have a “career” on the social welfare then follow it up by expecting people to pay for their choice to have children. If taxes should be relative to pay they should also be relative to your situation.
Don’t get me wrong, kids are great and it’s just not the right time for me but you can’t deny the contradiction of taking children’s allowance and then complaining about the “welfare state”.
I know you specifically aren’t doing so, it just makes me laugh….
I dont think anyone expects the people to pay for their kids. But if they are entitled to it then why not claim it. It’s no different from tax relief on mortgages, bin collection, rent, health care ect.
You would hope that most people will be tax payers at some point in their lives, and some will be tax payers all their lives. surely you are entitled to claim what is rightfully yours on a system you pay into.
“But if they are entitled to it then why not claim it.”
Do you think the same about TD’s expenses, bonuses for bankers after they’ve been bailed etc?!?
I know what you’re saying – I’m not trying to have a dig at you – just saying that there is a lot of contradiction when it comes to children’s allowance.
who is advocating a no vote?
People who don’t trust the state.
People who look at the collusion of this state with the Church in the setting up of the Industrial Schools.
People who don’t like the state being the one to decide what’s the in best interest of their children.
People who have read about courts in England taking children from their parents for the flimsiests reason (one example, a father was not allowed to see his daughter because someone made an unidentified woman made sexual abuse claims against him but the thing is, he wasn’t allowed to know who his accuser was because she suffered mental problems! Beyond believe. Guilty until proven innocent).
(Oh, I’m Undecided by the way)
Undecided my sweet fanny adams. You’re a no vote.
Colm, the fact that SaintRuth has given some reasons which may explain that there may be an argument at all for a no vote is no reason to assume what her vote will be (and effectively call her a liar.
I’m looking forward to this debate. There certainly is a line somewhere in terms of the State’s involvement in any citizen’s affairs but so far it seems any discussion which may cast even the slightest shadow on a yes vote is met with silly assumptions.
Nobody is against children having rights. Those who look below the surface of any referendum though are interested in how the wording that grants those rights could actually reduce the standing of others (in this case the family).
Don’t make the assumption that every time a child exercises their rights it means that the family are abusive.
This is great news. I do not believe that the Children’s referendum is as cut and dried as the government would like us to think . I really believed that I would vote Yes ! However I heard a discussion between Olivia O ‘Leary and Cathy Sinnott recently on Pat Kenny which made me think , is it as good as they want us to think or is is a referendum for adoption and anti family ? I would like to hear more discussion on the subject . It is a taboo subject in so far as who would admit to not wanting the children’s rights referendum not passed ,but I would like to know more . As Cathy Sinnott said it is not so much as the words they are putting in as the words they are taking out !!!
I look forward to the debate .
I’m glad there is going to be a debate on the children’s referendum the more info people have on it the better in my opinion.
But right now I’m not sure weather to vote yes or no i mean I’m all for Children having more rights but it means giving the Government more power and giving more power to a corrupt governmental coalition is not a smart idea in my book.
How do we know if they will use that extra power to actually protect Children they could just abuse the extra power for they’re own benefit’s or maybe they’re things hidden that are covered up with the wording of the children’s referendum i don’t know.
What I do know is if Enda Kenny is urging people to vote yes it is quite possibly not a good thing after all.
I’ll probably be attacked for what i just said but it’s my opinion n the situation.
Yes because Enda Kenny, chair of the party who brought the referendum forward, is going to advocate a no vote. Seriously?
Get a copy of the referendum from your post office, read it, and make up your mind that way. Listen to the debates, and form your opinion on the content instead of on the fact that the people who wrote the yoke actually might stand up for what they wrote.
I’d happily vol. to be the hangman for every Govt. TD over the last 20 years if the opening came up but I disagree with your logic my manga friend. A good man can do bad things, a bad man can do good things. Politics is never black and white. This is good legislation, this Govt. is bringing many good piece of legislation forward, certainly more than the last group of criminals in FF however they are not addressing the 1 major fault of Irish politics, how the few are constantly put ahead of the many and the good of the country.
People must be educated to understand what is going on. This is the first step to total control of the family. Yes mean that the parents will just be carers of children belonging to the state.
That’s some statement!
But…. It’s Halloween night, will it get the audience it deserves? Odd choice of timing
This stems from kilkenny incest case 20 years ago. Like X Case this legislation is long overdue.
This is not legislation, Brian. It’s a Constitutional Amendment.
TV 3? Vincent Browne? I take it that Kenny will not be appearing so?
It is long overdue.
All of us are supposedly equal – or so the Constitution says. This amendment will make children superior to their parents. The word “PARAMOUNT”, as used in the text of the proposed amendment, signalsa demarché. And our new and improved Constitution will do exactly “what it says on the tin”. Children will not only be superior to their bad ol’ Dads – which is perfectly P.C. – but , also, they’ll be superior to their perfectly wonderful Mums. Not P.C.! Do many feminists know about this new “empowerment” ? And are they going to stand for it?
Our Constitution does not see us all as equal, children of Ireland have no specific Constitutional rights. Children of unmarried parents are not equal to children of married parents. Women are undermined.
Gavan, thanks for picking that up sorry my mistake. To make my point clear, the call for this did not come from Ireland, the call for constitutional change in the area of children came from the “UN Committee on the rights of the child ever since Ireland ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child 20 years ago last month”. Mrs Fitzgarld has admitted this. My point is that linking it to cases here is just not true.
Great it should be some freak show.
Halloween is the perfect night.
Kathy Sinnott can tell us how’s all a UN conspiracy by a secret cabal of baby eaters, then they can have a seance to get Mena Bean Ui Chribin opinion straight from the deepest depths of hell.
Its TV3 so no-one will watch it anyway.
So i presume Sinn Fein and the so called socialists are advocating for a no vote
Sinn Fein are looking for a yes vote.
I’d rather it shown on RTE – it’d be subtitled for its Deaf and Hard of Hearing viewers whereas on TV3 its guaranteed not to be subtitled :(
won’t someone please think of the children,don’t let them stay up to watch that bogeyman Vincent brown
Its good news. But can someone tell me if theres a way where the government can slyly slot something into it that has little to do with the actual thing itself, but affects us in other ways? You know, like America does.
I’ll be voting yes BTW.
How do you mean? Like sticking something onto it last minute? The text is widely available in the public forum, on the Internet, to change it would attract widespread negative publicity – something I’m sure they wouldn’t be overly keen on give their existence of late.
No, they cannot do that. What might happen is that the courts might interpret something that was unforeseen in the original wording. E.g. like the previous wording giving rights for everyone born here to citizenship.
So here’s 2 questions about the best interests of the child should be the paramount in legal proceedings:
1) does that mean no immigrant under 18 can ever be deported from Ireland? What if it’s in his interests that his granny and second cousin twice removed come to live with him.
2) How will this affect the “unborn” as the constitution states. Are the rights of the unborn now more important than those of the mother?
I am not happy with the coverage of the press on this issue, it is all one sided, where is ALLIANCE OF PARENTS AGAINST THE STATE, they are getting no coverage. This Kathy Sinnot interview on the Pat Kenny show explains why i am voting no. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRakvowcGVg&feature=plcp
They should ask children what they want…
have your say