Inequality in Irish Society

“Child labour is any work done by a child that may be harmful to their physical, emotional, intellectual and social development,” according to the UN Convention. Child Labour is a harrowing epidemic. More widespread than ever, this multidimensional nightmare is depriving children of the very essence of childhood. As our children step out into their care free lives, debating what game to play, what television show to watch, what toy they recieve in the Kellogg cereal boxes, we seldom consider the utter antithesis or perhaps it is too daunting to do so. Child labour is the practice of having children engage in labour for economic purposes. This has detrimental social and physical consequences on children’s lives. Children are the future generation and with their futures doomed by child labour, the future of their countries is consequently doomed as a result.

While the International Labour Organisation has campaigned for an end to the practice, others have scrutinized the banning of child labour as having adverse effects and have adopted a more regulatory strategy.

Banning child labour takes it out of the formal sector however does it place it into the informal sector as a result?  AMRC’s Asia Pacific Labour Law Review 2010, confirms such a proposition in which they argued that through legal prohibitions on child labour in Asia’s developing countries, “child employment was not eliminated, but simply moved from the formal to the non-formal sector…” If something is illegal it makes it increasingly difficult to improve it and as such such this has detrimental impacts for young children subjected to such conditions. Thus, by banning child labour through legislation it paradoxically makes it more onerous to protect these children as authorities can not monitor the situation. The rights granted to children under article 32-40 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child are subsequently neglected. Is it a case, that such bans have not eradicated child labour but simply pushed it into an area that is out of sight...out of sight, out of mind?

Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that children who have been “recognized as having infringed the penal law are to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth.” However, this ideal is regrettably not the case. By banning child labor, children who engage in it whether subjectively or objectively are often treated by authorities as “criminals” and in this regard they are condemned for their behaviour rather than protected. These vulnerable children are starved from their basic right of protection. In other words, while it may be morally correct to ban child labour it is not always the best solution. That is to say, child labour is not the problem. It is the symptom. By completely eradicating the symptoms before addressing the root cause, makes the situation detrimentally worse. The fact that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre UK estimates that “300+ child victims of trafficking have gone missing from state care in UK in last three years” reflects such an observation. While such protection addresses the symptoms it eliminates any such venture to address the problem and consequently such children return to the problem as they feel there is no viable alternative.  

Additionally, interlinked with the effects of banning child labour rather than regulating it on the childs right to protection is the effects it will have on their right to remain with their family under article 9. As aforementioned when child labour is banned it is taken into the informal setting. This often provokes children upon trafficking and as such this has destructive effects on children’s rights.  As a result of child trafficking, children are displaced from their families. The International Journal of Children’s rights reinforces such a surveillance by outlining the situation in Canada. When separated children as a result of trafficking make a refugee claim, this may appear that they are receiving a right to protection. However, this is at a detriment as their assenting right of family reunification is often treated as “a parental right” rather than a child’s right because family reunification is only guarenteed where the “child is fortunate enough to have a parent or guardian or

other relative who is a Canadian permanent resident or citizen already and can sponsor the child.”^[1] This is contrary to the requirements of Article 22 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child which imposes the proposition that States will “assist the unaccompanied child in reunifying with his or her family wherever possible.” It is important to note that this is the reality in most European states also and as such while banning child labour may appear on the exterior to be a saviour it essentially comes accompanied with burdensome costs in the face of denying another set of basic rights.

Therefore, as it has been established by banning child labour, it becomes even more of an epidemic. A systemic global problem embroiling the forcible eradication of children from their homes. The unification between children and their families should take priority. A regulatory scheme would be more susceptible to provide such an arrangement. That is to say, the calamitous foundation of the ignominy to the person done by traffickers, should be authority that such children need protected and as such they should acquire a refugee status.   Furthermore, it would be niave to consider that such protections are needed to extend only to developing countries. A recent 2016 Irish journal revealed how “people trafficking in Ireland is on the rise, according to a new report, and Irish children were among the victims last year.” Ultimately, child labour is widespread, and often society may take a “blind eye” to such realities that sit on our very doorstep. This is conceptualised by the fact that an Irish anti trafficking unit called “blue blind fold” exists. This unit addresses how too often child labour exists right within our very society through for example trafficking but we do not witness it because we are blindfolded and refuse to open our eyes to such ideals.

It is quite conspicuous, that it is not desirable sending children out to labour. Nonetheless, this does not mean that completely banning child labour is an improved option. In fact it is quite the antithesis. Banning child labour in India through the 1986 Child Labour Act whereby a ban was placed on employing children under the age of 14 but allowing them to work in family businesses stresses such an issue as child labour consequently inclined. Such a provision did not extinguish exploitation but rather regrettably perpetuated it as it involves children taking part in the hazardous family firms forcing them to work long, strenuous hours.  Child rights activist Satyarthi  reiterates such a melancholy reality whereby he claims that "the definition of family and family enterprises is flawed. This Bill uses Indian family values to justify economic exploitation of children. It is misleading the society by blurring the lines between learning in a family and working in a family enterprise."^[2] In other words, the Indian ban on child labour uses strong family values as a disguise for the exploitation of children. Child Labour is simply not eradicated. It is taken from a visible sector to an invisible sector.