Putting the state in charge of all the nation’s children makes no sense
In the very first sentence it admits parents, not the state or other institutions, are best for children, yet its CEO goes on to call for support for the children’s referendum. If passed, this will do away with the primary rights of parents to protect their children and transfer those rights to the state.
Does the ISPCC really believe the state would make a better parent?
Doesn’t the ISPCC, and the other organisations that support the referendum, know the state has been accused by Enda Kenny of covering up 20 reports into the deaths of children in its care — yes, deaths, and these reports, we are told, indicate appalling neglect of children in state care.
And it could be that the 20 cases are just the tip of the iceberg.
The ISPCC also claims the articles in our constitution that recognise the rights of parents are “unqualified”, implying the constitution prefers parents to children whether the parents are worthy or not.
This is not true and it boggles the mind that the ISPCC is ignorant of this fact. The constitution prefers the inalienable rights of children to be protected by their parents, but this is not an “unqualified” right. If for physical or moral reasons — sickness, alcohol/drug addiction, mental problems, etc — parents are not able to protect their children, the constitution obliges the state, as guardian of the common good, to “supply the place of the parents”.
The state let down the children in the Roscommon case because it failed to comply with its constitutional obligations. The state, in this case, is guilty of appalling neglect of these children.
This is the state that the ISPCC, et al, wants to be put in charge of protecting all the nation’s children. It makes no sense, unless the ISPCC, et al, have another agenda.
Nora Bennis
Christian Democrats — the Family First Party
Revington Park
North Circular Road
Limerick
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
