Sir, - There are, I hope, states in which, when a Minister for Justice persistently refuses to apologise following the Supreme Court's finding that the State has acted unconstitutionally (Breaking News, November 8th) the Minister would be dismissed or asked to resign. Let us hope that our State is one of them. - Yours, etc,
Sir, - Ireland's written constitution of 1937 is the third oldest in the world, after America (1789) and Australia (1901). It has stood the test of time like few others, through a world war, through a cold war, through countless dictatorships in Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and through domestic trials and tribulations. Like few others, it is a well proven document that should therefore be amended only where there is an overwhelmingly strong case to do so, and it is up to those who want to change it to make such a case.
Thus before we vote in this referendum, its proponents should at least name even a single instance of child neglect or child abuse or unlawful child death that would have been prevented or mitigated had the proposed amendment been in place, and explain just how. But they cannot, because no such instance exists.
The referendum may make people feel good, but that is no basis for altering Ireland's sacred Constitution. It needs to be rejected. - Yours, etc,
Sir, - I write on behalf of the School Completion Programme, Impact branch in support of the children's referendum.
We believe that the passing of this referendum will be a very important moment for Ireland and the future of our children. If passed, it will ensure the voice of children is heard and must be heard in all important proceedings regarding their well-being.
The passing of this referendum will place a far greater obligation on the State to act to ensure that no child is discriminated against when it comes to accessing State services. We respectfully urge a Yes vote in the referendum, to give explicit expression to children in our Constitution. - Yours, etc,
A chara, - For milleniums in all civilised societies the family has been the fundamental building block. The so-called "children's referendum" seeks to give the State almost unlimited power to tear asunder that building block, with the concomitant power, it would seem, to put in its place almost anything it likes.
This is not a children's referendum. It is social experimenting gone mad. - Is mise,
Sir, - As one of the newest members of Ireland's growing Diaspora, it infuriates me that not being physically present in Ireland means I am not entitled to vote in Saturday's referendum. My new home country of Australia has compulsory voting, even if one is overseas. One's suffrage is an integral part of one's identity. I am a native of Ireland, I am a citizen of Ireland and I hold an Irish passport which is the property of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland (it's the only one I have). I should be entitled, if not obliged, to vote on the proposed amendment to my Constitution. On Saturday my Irish citizenship will be worth less than that of my fellow citizens in Ireland. A sad day for Ireland. - Yours, etc,
Sir, - Whereas passing the forthcoming children's referendum might make some of us feel better by allowing us to "have been seen to do something", in the area of children's rights, it will change nothing for children unless the way the State conducts its business in the area is radically overhauled.
By this I mean the use of the blunt "left brain" tool of the court system whereby judges, while usually more than well meaning, have (often by their own admission) minimal or no specific training or expertise in the area, are expected to (and do all the time) make decisions regarding children that are of such importance that they have life-changing consequences. In this work they frequently employ the services of so called "expert witnesses", - a significant proportion of whom are private practitioners and (save for medical practitioners) the majority of whom are unregulated in any true sense of the word. That this way of doing business might now de facto be backed by the imprimatur of Bunreacht na hÉireann does not fill one full of confidence.
So what to do? Whether the referendum is passed or not, judges dealing with children must be trained appropriately to the work they have to do and be required to show evidence of continuous professional development throughout their career. Similarly if "expert witnesses" are still needed thereafter, the State must define the qualifications and regulate those practitioners who claim to have an expertise in the area. The provisions of the medical practitioners Act 2007 might be a useful template.
Finally the antiquated in camera rule should be abolished. - Yours, etc,
Sir, - As a person with a background in legal philosophy I would like to assuage the fears of Prof Peter Gill (November 6th) about the risk to the child wherethe wording of the referendum uses the word "parents" and doesnot refer to the "single parent".
Under the Interpretation Acts 1937 and 2004 the meaning and construction to be put on a word referring to the "singular" shall be construed asalso importing the "plural" and visa versa. So whether the wording of the referendum uses the word "parent" or "parents" it absolutely makes no difference. They areinterchang-eable. - Yours, etc,
Sir, - A cautionary tale. In 1983 when abortion in this country was a crime punishable by life imprisonment a group of campaigners persuaded the government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution in an attempt to double bolt the door so that abortion could never be declared legal in any circumstances. The interpretation of that constitutional amendment some years later in the X case resulted in exactly the opposite, the legalisation of abortion.
Unnecessarily amending the Constitution is a precarious procedure. - Yours, etc,
Sir, - I feel I have to disagree with Vincent Browne ("Referendum mainly a stunt but I'll still be voting Yes", November 7th).
Although he makes a number of points that would incline the undecided to vote No, he finishes his article saying "there is that marginal advantage in the proposed amendment permitting the adoption of children whose parents are married and because of that, very reluctantly, I will be voting Yes".
Although I agree with him on that particular point, I feel it best to vote No because, as he says, "once the referendum is passed, the Government parties (as did the previous government parties) will continue their dogged indifference to the welfare of children, including even the widespread sexual abuse of children". There has been very little debate on the entire matter, with most commentators making out that anyone who votes No is against children having rights,despitethe fact that the No campaign has successfully indicated that children have Constitutional rights but these rights have been ignored by various State agencies.
I believe we should vote No to give the government the opportunity to come back with a different draft of the amendment, as it invariably does ask us to vote again when we get it wrong. The next draft should fund a No campaign with resources equal to those which the Yes campaign has received, so the electorate would have a fair chance to decide on the various matters themselves.
Also, the referendum should allow for voters to decide on each individual item on its own. For example, they might not agree to a married couple giving up their children for adoption but might agree with the child having a voice in court proceedings.
How can anyone vote Yes when they don't support the entire amendment? Anyone who is concerned at the lack of definition of "the best interests of the child" or is concerned at exactly what "proportionate" and "as far as practicable" means should vote No and give the Government a chance to come back to us in the near future with a proper explanation. It would also give it a chance to amend the in camera rule to allow us to know what we are actually voting for.
If this ambiguous amendment is passed, the matter will not be revisited for at least another half century. - Yours, etc,