A few days ago there is a referendum in Ireland on what is euphemistically called “children’s rights“. In reality it is an attack on the rights of families and an attempt to make children the property of the state. Sadly the news is that the vote went against the rights of families and has made a giant step down the slope to state ownership of children. I’ve been wondering what on earth is the matter with so many people that they will vote away rights and vote more oppression for themselves.
Ireland has a written constitution; (from the linked article)
Articles 41 and 42.5 of the Irish Constitution are the basis upon which the Irish State relates to the family. It recognises that the family is the bedrock of society (article 41), pledges to respect it as an entity where children are born and raised by their parents in a spirit of love and responsibility towards society. It also makes provision for obligatory intervention to protect children when parents do not fulfil their duties of love, care, protection or education towards their children (42.5). The type of relationship between the family and the State under the Irish Constitution is therefore based on the philosophy that the family is the best place for a child to be, that the State has the obligation to support families in their endeavour to raise and educate their children..
This is a great bit of constitutional writing and this is what the Irish Government want to change to give themselves more power over families. (from linked article) my bolding:
What is proposed in the amendment is a subtle, yet definite philosophical shift short of being the legal maid-of-all work that it may or may not be. The threshold of intervention in article 42A2.1 reveals this new approach: “when the safety or welfare” of children “is likely to be prejudicially affected”, the State can intervene, and take various kinds of measures, from family support to compulsory adoption (in article 42A2.2). The semantic variation from “when the parents fail” in current article 42.5 to “when the safety or welfare of children is likely to be prejudicially affected” is revealing of the paradigm shift. Indeed, a precautionary approach is proposed: an assessment will be required of the likelihood of occurrence of harm to children, instead of the evidence that the parents have failed.
This slippery political language should be well known to British home educators who have faced this “children’s rights” meaning “children belong to the state” way of thinking a great deal. The whole Badman and Balls attack on family rights was under the banner of state being the primary protectors of children. The biggest danger in this is something that American’s will be learning a lot about over the next few years.
A state that decides it can GIVE rights, rather than merely protect inherent rights, is a state that will REMOVE those rights when it sees fit to do so.
I am still struggling to see why so many people actually vote to remove their own intrinsic rights.