|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 25, 2012 20:21:15 GMT
I will not be voting as I will be out of the country, so let me play devil's advocate on one or two points: (1) The No voters fear that however restrictively the amendment may be worded, the judges will make it mean whatever they think it ought to mean, in line with their long history of creative jurisprudence. (2) Kathy Sinnott's point about the secrecy and unaccountability of family courts refers to a situation which ALREADY exists - her point is that this secrecy and unaccountability will make it impossible to check how the amendment is being implemented in practice (3) Your reference to her American origins is IMHO xenophobic. Kathy Sinnott is not responsible for everything any American does any more than I am responsible for everything Mine Bean Ui Cribin said or did just because I happen to be an Irish Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 25, 2012 21:34:27 GMT
Xenophobia and racism are not the same thing - the latter is a much more serious accusation than the former and I certainly did not make it against you. America has many different cultures - I do not know anything about Ms Sinnott's particular background but I know of no evidence that she grew up in the sort of Protestant fundamentalist culture you describe (and which I know exists). Attributing its views to her because she is American is like saying that because Mormonism is a distinctively American religion (and its beliefs correspond to certain deeply-held features of American culture) therefore any American can be called a Mormon. I agree that there has been a lot of scaremongering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 14:04:24 GMT
I spotted this a while ago and was wondering if Synon had a point? synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/10/from-obama-to-an-irish-courtroom-what-makes-a-child-a-person.html"Some people, so this old argument goes, just don’t make the cut: they -- the cretins, Injuns, abos, foetuses, pick your own de-humanising name for them -- are not ‘a human being in exactly the same sense as Nelson Mandela or Lady Gaga or the pope.’ Yet something interesting could soon happen to this argument. There is the so-called Children’s Amendment, which as I have pointed out before is largely bad law, but I will say no more on that for the moment. If the amendment is passed in the upcoming referendum, it will give for the first time, in the words of the official referendum website, ‘Constitutional recognition to the best interests and views of the child in court cases affecting their life.’ The emphasis is mine. What I see coming out of that is a most interesting law case which could be brought by a father who does not want his not-yet-born child taken abroad by the mother for abortion. I can see a lawyer appointed by the court to act as defender of the child’s interests. A barrister would be that ‘voice for the voiceless’ we’ve heard so much about. He would make the case that the child’s best interests clearly lie in staying alive. What would the judge do then, given that the not-yet-born individual at last would have a Constitutionally-established voice in court? After all, the not-yet-born child is established in the Irish Constitution as having a right to life equal to that of the mother, so the new amendment would have to cover him. But the new amendment would give the child something more -- the Constitutional privilege to have his interests ‘paramount.’ Paramount means supreme or pre-eminent, that is, superior to the rights of anyone else in the case, including the mother. Denigrate him as a ‘foetus’ if you insist, but give the little creature a barrister and he will be the most powerful person – and I mean person -- in court." It reminds me of that awful vote a few months ago where a couple on facebook, wife pregnant, refused to state whether they were prolife or proabortion started a poll on whether they should abort or not. Some previously pro-choice people were so angry because they saw the child as an innocent pawn here who could be killed at will. In other words as a person. If a dad were to humanise the child in the same way, could it enlighten some people to their (for some, disputable) humanity and change hearts? Does she have a point, law-wise?
|
|