24 September 2012 7:34 AM
The terrifying power of the State over families: Ireland beware
This is my column from Monday's Irish Daily Mail. It covers plans by the Irish Government to introduce a so-called children's rights amendment to the Constitution by way of referendum in November.
Before you wrap yourself in virtuous intent and go off to vote Yes on this amendment, stop and look at it again: it is dangerous on many counts, and ought to be defeated.
The vested interests who are selling this thing have wrapped it in pious phrases such as ‘the legacy of failing our country’s children’ and leaving behind our ‘legacy of neglect, abuse and inequality.’ They hope you will not think to question what those phrases hide.
What the people using such phrases – in this case, the phrases are from Frances Fitzgerald, minister at the department of children – never say is exactly who it is who has been ‘failing our country’s children.’
Answer, in almost every case: the agents of the State.
Yet this amendment is geared to give the agents of the State even more power over children.
Yes, indeed, the same pack of vested interest public employees who have taken hundreds of children into care only to see too many of them end up run-away and dead of an overdose in some northside Dublin B&B now want even more power to direct the fate of more children.
Remember the social workers’ record so far: between 2000 and 2010, 196 children or young people ‘known to the Health Service Executive’ died. A total of 112 deaths were of ‘non-natural causes.’ This is a small country. One hundred twelve is carnage.
These are the same agents of the State who still put children into adult mental health wards.
The same agents who let unaccompanied under-age asylum seekers disappear from care and into you-don’t-want-to-think-what-kind of abuse by pimps.
The same agents of the State who have made sure what desperate pain is inflicted on families in so-called family courts stays secret and beyond public scrutiny.
John Waters, who has followed family courts closely, nailed it in Friday’s Irish Times: ‘I have seen Irish courts return the children of clearly blameless parents to foreign jurisdictions in the certain knowledge that these children would be put up for adoption against the wishes of those parents.'
'I have listened on a mobile phone as a Garda officer snatched an infant from the arms of his loving Irish mother with the intention of delivering the child over to British social workers who pursued this woman to her home country, intent upon taking her child away.’
Now the agents of the State who can inflict such pain on families want even more power.
They say that without this amendment, children have no equal rights under our Constitution.
Wrong. Equal rights for persons of all ages are protected by Article 40: ‘All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.’
But I’m going to put all that aside. Let’s pretend that such equal rights for all, starting at conception, are not already in the Constitution. Pretend that instead, as the sales pitch goes, we have ‘been waiting for years for this’ to secure rights for children.
I will point instead to the law that is, to our shame, superior to the Constitution. This is the Lisbon Treaty.
Part of the treaty is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Go to Article 24: The Rights of the Child. Here is what is already our highest law, since EU law trumps our Constitution every time:
1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.
3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.
So what does the proposed amendment to Bunreacht na hEireann add to that? In terms of ‘rights of the child’ (and since I haven’t got space to go into the mendacity of that phrase, I won’t, not now anyway) the amendment adds nothing.
What the amendment does add instead is one very dangerous thing. It adds the power of the agents of the State to ‘supply the place of the parents.’
The vested interests pushing this amendment want that power.
The excuse they use is the historic list of examples of the rape and neglect of children. They pretend that the State has been powerless in the face of such abuse because the State did not have the power to force its way into a home and seize the role of the parents.
This is tripe. The problem has been that the agents of the State – in particular the Gardai and the public prosecutor – have not used the powers they have had for decades to protect children.
Incest? It’s already criminal. Rape? Criminal. Endangerment of children? Criminal. Neglect? Charge, try and convict the parents: it’s already a crime.
The agents of the State have already shown they either fumble the powers they have to protect children – as I noted, 112 dead -- or refuse to use the powers they have to protect children.
Whatever the remedy is to this, it surely cannot be to give these same people even more powers -- most dangerous of all, the power to take children away from their parents forever.
What the amendment will create is a caste of social workers with terrifying powers similar to those already in the hands of social workers in Britain. (Britain is under the Lisbon Treaty, so the laws similar to this amendment are in force there, yet none of that has stopped the horrors suffered by children and their parents at the hands of social workers.)
There is no man more aware of what can be inflicted on families in Britain than the veteran journalist Christopher Booker, a columnist with the Sunday Telegraph but known most famously here as the founding editor of Private Eye. He has been watching our Government’s moves towards this amendment from London.
Booker warns it will put us onto the road to a British system of child protection. At the weekend he told me:
‘There are now more than 90,000 children in Britain in state “care,” their number having more than doubled in just four years. If all these children were genuinely being harmed by their parents, there might be justification for what is happening.'
'But I have followed in detail hundreds of cases which show that far too many loving responsible parents are now having their children seized from them by social workers for what appears to be no good reason at all.’
‘Parents and children suddenly find themselves in a nightmare world where they are completely in the grip of a heartless and inexplicable system – in which an array of social workers, lawyers, professional “experts” and judges too often seem unite in ruthless determination to tear their family apart.’
One of the great dangers of course is that in Ireland most people will imagine that the parents who get caught up in the nightmare of having their children snatched by social workers are never ‘people like us.’
Most think of the drunken, toothless perverts living in the shabby, remote cottages involved in the most famous incest cases and imagine those are the only sort of people whose children social workers would seize.
Think again.
All it would take under this new regime for your middle-class married self to have your child seized would be an ill-timed trip to the hospital to treat a minor injury or infection suffered by your son or daughter.
At that point some overzealous nurse can ring the social workers to say she suspects your child has suffered ‘non-accidental injury.’ You will then be expected to prove a negative, which is impossible: that the injury was not caused by you.
Welcome to the nightmare. Your life will never be the same again.
Under the new constitutional regime, if your child is put into care for just 36 months while you try to prove the impossible, the courts can order your child be adopted by strangers. The adoption will be irreversible, even if you finally demonstrate that the injury was indeed accidental and you have been innocent all along.
Still want to vote Yes? Well, as you stand one day in that hospital A&E and you see a nurse leave your child to make a phone call, don’t say you weren’t warned.
17 September 2012 7:02 AM
Barroso: eurosceptics are 'dangerous.' I say not yet dangerous enough
This is an edited version of my column in Monday's Irish Daily Mail --
Spot the paradox.
Ireland needs a deal on its bank debt to get back to growth and out of this depression.
The European Union needs a success story to show that its austerity policies are working.
Ireland is the EU’s best chance of a success story. So the EU must give Ireland a deal to cut the burden of bank debt.
Or so the Irish are told by their government.
Yet the eurozone powers have shown they are in no hurry to give Ireland a deal.
Indeed, if you listened closely to the statement made by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the eurogroup, at the end of the eurogroup meeting in Cyprus on Friday, you would have noticed he said nothing about delivering a deal for Ireland.
All he said was that the ministers from the other euro countries would discuss a ‘possible improvement’ of Ireland’s programme ‘at one of our next meetings.’
But that discussion will not come until after the end of the technical talks. And they could go on for months more.
The point to note, though, is that Mr Juncker only spoke about a ‘possible’ deal for Ireland. No deal has been agreed. Even the certainty that Ireland will sometime in the future get a deal has not been agreed. All those things are merely ‘possible.’
This is despite the Irish government’s announcement in June that the European Council statement meant a ‘seismic change’ which would ‘lift the burden of debt from the shoulders of the Irish people.’
In fact the statement merely promised that the situation of Ireland's financial sector would be ‘examined.’
That word meant nothing in June, and it means nothing now. Which is why Finance Minister Michael Noonan came away with nothing after his tour last week of top eurozone finance ministers and his pleadings in Cyprus.
So, it looks like Ireland is faced with a paradox: the Irish are told ‘Europe needs an Irish success story,’ but Europe has shown no interest in giving the Irish the one thing -- a cut in the debt – that would make their country into a success story.
Except it isn’t a paradox, because there is no such thing as a paradox. As the philosopher tells us, a paradox – facts which contradict themselves -- cannot exist. Whenever you think you are faced with a paradox, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Here is the premise that is wrong: it is not true that Europe needs a success story. Talking about how ‘Europe needs a success story’ might have been fashionable in Brussels two years ago, but not now.
What the euro elite – by whom I mean the likes of José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, and Mario Monti, the former European Commissioner who was parachuted by Angela Merkel into being the unelected prime minister of Italy – what these men now want is for the crisis to roll on.
A continuing crisis gives them an excuse to rush exhausted and terrified governments into agreeing to a new EU treaty (‘Quick, hurry, sign here! We must have more Europe or the crisis will not end!’).
So what one hears in Brussels now is not ‘Europe must have a success story.’ No, this crisis is beneficial as far as Brussels is concerned.
The reason is that if the current EU institutional arrangements, and the current policies on austerity, suddenly started producing success stories, the excuse for a new treaty, for new EU institutions putting more power into the hands of the euro-elite, would be gone.
So one hears nothing now (except from increasingly-pathetic Irish ministers) about ‘Europe needs a success story.’
What one now hears instead is a series of choreographed calls for a ‘federal Europe.’
Earlier this year Mr Van Rompuy announced that the ‘four presidents’ – himself, Mr Barroso, Mr Juncker and Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank – would put forward plans for ‘more Europe.’
In June their first efforts were published with calls for a banking union, a common eurozone treasury, common eurozone bonds and a deeper political union. They want ‘a genuine economic and monetary union.’
On September 8th Mr Van Rompuy gave a speech in Italy, repeating his calls for more powers to be surrendered by member states: ‘We have a chance to finish a house half-built.’
At the same event, the president of Italy, the former communist Giorgio Napolitano, called for a ‘true political union’ in Europe.'
Then last Wednesday Mr Van Rompuy tabled an ‘issue paper’ to be agreed at the European Council meeting next month, calling again for the same things as in the June paper, but adding the idea that the eurozone member states form their own parliamentary assembly.
Just how this ‘completed’ union is supposed to look was outlined by Mr Barroso in his State of the Union address in the European Parliament on Wednesday. In a series of non-sequitors translated into 23 working languages, he insisted: ‘Globalisation demands more European unity. More unity demands more integration.’
He said Europe ‘requires the completion of a deep and genuine economic union, based on a political union.’ Also fiscal union. Also a defence policy.
And yes I did say that was Mr Barroso’s State of the Union address, you know, like the president of the United States of America gives a State of the Union address to Congress every year.
Of course it is pretentious, that this unelected, private-jet-loving Portuguese former Maoist eurocrat is posing as the European equivalent of the President of the United States of America.
The US Constitution established a State of the Union address by the President ‘from time to time’ in Article II. President George Washington made it an annual tradition starting in 1790. Mr Barroso started his annual State of the Union ‘tradition’ three years ago, though it is established nowhere except in his own vanity. That tells you a lot about where he thinks he is going.
What tells you even more about where Mr Barroso thinks he is going were comments made earlier this month by Viviane Reding, the Luxembourg politician who has been a European Commissioner since 2004. She is cheerleading for a third term as president for Mr Barroso.
Mrs Reding said she admires him ‘for his strength, his legal mind, his patience and his wisdom’ – at which point I believe she swooned – ‘in managing the current crisis. My personal wish would be that José Manuel stays on for a third term.’
Not that ‘José Manuel’ has put forward his name for an unprecedented third term. His spokesman said this ‘is not on the President’s mind.’
Except it is. That is why among other musings from ‘the President’ (as the commission eurocrats are trained to call him) is that there is no reason the commission president should be directly elected.
One of his spokesmen explained Mr Barroso’s position: prime ministers in European countries are not directly elected, so why should the commission president be?
Note how Mr Barroso is trying to put himself on a par with the prime minister of a sovereign state, yet at the same time fudging the fact that all prime ministers (except Mr Monti of Italy, and he was dropped into the government by an EU/ECB coup) must be elected first to parliament and then by members of parliament.
No doubt Mr Barroso would dismiss such a comment about elections as ‘populism.’ Which is why in his State of the Union speech he also made a point of attacking ‘populism’ and ‘nationalism’ and announced that EU money would now go to towards financing European political parties to combat those things.
In his State of the Union address, Mr Barroso said: ‘We must use the 2012 [European parliament] election to mobilise all pro-European forces. We must not allow the populists and the nationalists to set a negative agenda.’
Apparently his definition of populism and nationalism is anyone who is against 'more Europe.'
Which means we now have an unelected European bureaucrat trying to command an election campaign, and using taxpayers' money to do it.
He went on and denounced the scepticism of the ‘anti-Europeans’ – note, in the Brussels orthodoxy to be anti-EU power is to be anti-European – as ‘dangerous.’
Yet to be sceptical of what the unelected euro-elite have in mind to increase their powers over us is the only rational position to take.
Mr Barroso calls any such questioning, doubting, thoughtful attitude ‘dangerous.’
Maybe.
But until it’s dangerous enough to topple the likes of Mr Barroso, I’d say it’s not dangerous enough.
Posts
