Sir, – How interesting that those calling for a Yes vote in the referendum for children’s rights see no problem in using children as advertising material in their political campaigns. Surely children have a right not to be used in this way. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am concerned that this referendum represents a retrograde step constitutionally as it seeks to differentiate rights among citizens, in this instance those of a certain age, while purporting to offer increased protection to them. The amendment itself seems confused and strangely complicated, co-mingling issues in adoptive law with notional concepts of explicitly protecting children’s rights and representing their interests. Were their rights and interests and those of all other citizens not always recognised by the Constitution, even if we as a society failed dismally to protect them? Would this additional wording have made the slightest difference at the time for those who suffered abuse? I don’t think so. Will our Constitution next be used to protect the special concerns of women, farmers, older people, heterosexuals, unemployed, Irish speakers, etc?
Is the purpose of the Constitution to protect all citizens equally, or to give some additional protections to specific groups of citizens? I think this will lead to a fragmentation of our Constitution as sectional interests seek to have their “first among equals” status recognised. The amendment should fail. – Yours, etc,