Children’s rights - Constitution must cherish our children

THE much-bandied phrase “cherishing all the children of the nation equally” comes from the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in Easter 1916.

Ninety years on, however, the rights of children have yet to be enshrined in the Constitution. But the controversy which convulsed the nation after the Supreme Court struck down the statutory rape law has injected a new sense of urgency into the debate on children’s rights.

In the 21st century, there is an irresistible case for Ireland, progressive and confident of its international standing, to honour the sentiments uttered so generously in the Proclamation.

A cogent argument for giving children the ultimate protection of the Constitution has now been put forward by the children’s charity Barnardos.

As chief executive of that organisation, Fergus Finlay is well placed to comment on an issue successive governments have failed to address.

Those in favour of such a move are clamouring for a referendum to be held on the rights of the child. In a significant development, both Children’s Ombudsman Emily Logan and the Children’s Rights Alliance have added their voices to these demands.

Following the recent outpouring of anger, the Government is taking welcome steps to address the complex issues opened up by the Supreme Court ruling, including the appointment of rapporteurs to keep under review legal developments, nationally and internationally, that could have an impact on child protection laws, and the setting up of an all-party Oireachtas committee on legislative measures.

However, there is an onus on the coalition to go further and it is imperative that Junior Minister Brian Lenihan, who has responsibility for children, give serious consideration to the referendum proposition.

Arguably, if a referendum were held it would be after the next election. However, lobbying on behalf of children has already begun and there are good reasons why politicians should now reach a broad measure of agreement on this vital issue. In effect, politicians must become proactive rather than reactive where child law is concerned.

Calling for the interests of the child to be paramount in all situations, Mr Finlay argues that children should have automatic rights. He also claims that there is almost no legal situation at the moment where the rights of the child come first.

Though a 1990 report stated children should not be subjected to cross-examination by lawyers, new legislation to plug the statutory rape loophole will expose children to adversarial cross-examination. That is a backward step and is unacceptable.

Barnardos’ new motto, no child gets left behind, is a laudable sentiment and represents a line in the sand on children’s inalienable rights. Under the present system, children are more or less invisible in the eyes of the law. Politicians must take this on board by ensuring the rights of the child are enshrined in the constitution. Their needs must be placed first in every situation.

Until that happens, the high sounding principles of the 1916 Proclamation on “cherishing all the children of the nation equally” have a hollow ring.