Dáil debates

Tuesday, 1 June 2004

 

Citizenship Referendum.

3:00 pm

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Implicit in the Deputy's line of argument is that a child who came into this country with his non-national parents and who is in a playground standing beside a young Irish child born to Irish parents has different fundamental protections under our Constitution than the other child. I reject that suggestion. Despite the 32-page document and the conclusions of the Children's Rights Alliance, not one credible argument has been forwarded to support the suggestion. If we believed that a child of non-national parents, who itself is a non-national, had fewer fundamental rights and freedoms under the Constitution than an Irish child born to Irish parents, we would be under an obligation to reform the whole Constitution to extend the rights of the child born to Irish parents to every person within the State. It is very strange that this argument was never addressed to us by the Human Rights Commission until this referendum was proposed.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh made the slightly irrelevant but nonetheless timely remark that I had somehow denigrated the Equality Authority. I did not do so. I said the Equality Authority was both a statutory body and a ginger group. By the term ginger group, I meant, in a most uncritical way, a body whose job it is to formulate ideas and make proposals ahead of the consensus of a society in order to advance the debate. That is a fair description of what the Equality Authority has done in respect of many matters.

By statute, both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority are independent institutions. It would be remarkable, therefore, if all their opinions were shared by a Minister automatically. On this occasion, I say respectfully to the Human Rights Commission that I believe its arguments are not substantial. It came as a disappointment to me that it did not consult my Department on any of these issues before it advanced its 32-page document. I felt it was a bit unworthy that a number of its leading members went into print in advance of the consideration by that commission of the issues on a collective basis.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.