Convoluted wording on children’s rights

DOES the proposed children’s rights referendum really protect children, or is the archaic legalese wording designed to confuse us into thinking it does?

A constitution is supposed to be written in the simplest yet most legally accurate wording possible so the ordinary person can understand it. If you need a legal expert just to grasp the simplest of concepts, then something is wrong with the wording.

The Irish Constitution fails this basic test, and this proposed amendment follows the same lamentable pattern. It includes the phrase, “natural and imprescriptible rights”. What are natural rights? Are freedom of speech and the right to vote natural rights? Does a child need a doctor’s prescription for their imprescriptible rights? If children have rights, why aren’t they explained?

The paragraph on absolute or strict liability is not restricted to sexual offences, or to the defence of honest mistake, which I thought was the point of this amendment in the first place.

The liberal use of the phrase “provision may be made by law” is suspicious and questionable. This wording doesn’t grant any constitutional rights or protections. It simply allows the Oireachtas to enact legislation, but it is not compulsory for it do so.

The report of the Kilkenny Incest Inquiry stated that the incest was assisted by the constitutional protection of the family valuing parents more than children.

Yet Children’s Minister Brian Lenihan has already said that the proposed amendment, as worded, will not undermine the constitutional protection of the family and parents.

All this begs the question, does the amendment really protect children, or is it designed to delude us into thinking it does?

If we are going to fix our shoddy constitution so our children have enforceable rights and legal protection from harm, then let us do it properly.

Jason FitzHarris

Rivervalley

Swords

Co Dublin