Sir, – A report stated “Many children in the State’s asylum process are living in extreme poverty in overcrowded accommodation with inadequate food” (Home News, September 19th). The article gave details of this appalling situation: these children are in the care of the State and are suffering such neglect that their human rights are being denied to them.
The following day we read about the proposed constitutional amendment designed to ensure that the rights of the most vulnerable children will be protected.
The new articles state that the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children.
Are children in direct provision excluded? Does Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald or anyone in Government see the contradictions in this situation? Many words have been spoken about abuse and neglect of children, here we have the Department of Justice and HSE responsible for neglect of 1,789 of the most needy. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – I am somewhat confused as to the powers supposedly granted to the State under the proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Has the State not had such powers since its inception? How else did the State, over several generations, take children away from parents they deemed to be unfit, only for them to be physically and sexually abused in industrial schools?
The State has a long and shameful history of what they are now again proposing, and I am somewhat amazed at the supportive stance taken by groups like One-in-Four. Even as early as the 1940s the Irish government of the day suppressed attempts to expose the systematic abuse of children whom the State had taken from their parents. I would suggest that without an institutional or legislative framework to protect children from the physical and sexual abuse suffered by thousands of Irish children at the hands of the State this proposed Constitutional amendment is at best needless and at worst a renewed and pertinent threat to children’s safety from the State. – Is mise,
Sir, – Martin Hayes (September 21st) argues that because “the Catholic Church, enabled by and in collusion with State institutions perpetrated the most hideous crimes” against children, we should be voting No in the forthcoming referendum.
This is hopefully a backward glance at these awful crimes, but surely constitutes a reason to vote Yes? From a historical perspective it always seemed to be the case that the rights of the children took second place, if indeed their rights were deemed to have existed at all. This is why so many perpetrators got away with these offences – the last voices traditionally considered were those of victimised children.
This constitutional amendment if passed will safeguard that voice.
Mr Hayes may believe that parents voting for this amendment would be “voting against their own interests and rights as parents” but as a parent myself, I would like to think that not only would my rights and interests coincide exactly with those of my children but that their rights and interests are given full and equal measure. – Yours, etc,