* I want to preface this post by stating that although I utterly dislike Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Green Party because of their own decades of still ongoing corruption, lies, u-turns, law breaking, operating double-standard, party member unaccountability and refusal to hold state others to court room account, traitor actions, undemocratic actions and more, my decision to vote “NO” is NOT based on my dislike of them. It is based SOLELY on the forthcoming practical reasons.
.
BACKGROUND: The three parties intend to
(a) Change Article 41.1.1 to insert the words “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”.
(b) They also propose the deletion of the words “on which the Family is founded” from Article 41.3.1. Care Amendment
.
They propose to delete Article 41.2 from the Constitution – “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
.
– and insert the following wording: “The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
.
I am saying “NO” to the removal of 41.2 because of the following.
.
1. The present 41.2 in law reinforces legislation. In other words, women have the right NOT TO BE what’s considered in a STANDARD EMPLOYENT position or status. It current says “shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour”.
.
The proposed replacement wording does NOT CLEAR CUT LEGAL as strong, say the same legal protection for either male, female or other not medial recognised derivations.
.
Even though the present constitution is outdated in that it only addresses the “woman in the home”, any non-sexist update that can be possible, has not been wrote (a) in any form and (b) what they have created is vague, wishy-washy, and certainly has more legal loopholes for any future government to try slipping through rather than be made adhere to what’s even presently legal stronger in law, within the current constitution.
.
People having the right NOT to be employed, additionally could have future detrimental ramifications – if that right was taken away – regarding further state financial help in a number of ways. I suspect, we are not majority supposed to cop this. It’s already clear that opposition parties have not copped onto this. They are all silent so far, on this additional aspect. Suspiciously silent.
.
2. An independent Oireachtas group (Special Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality) attempted to propose better wording – but this has been completely ignored. Their proposal had support from many groups in Ireland and cross-party support. It was welcomed by the Citizens Assembly who had their own recommendations. The likes of the “National Women’s Council” have welcomed the addressing of the matter but like others, are severely disappointed by a piss-poor wording government result that the three parties have stupidly come up with – after dragging their heels for many months! Their wording exposes a continued incompetence with the three parties.
.
3. The definition of “Family” has NOT been made definitive inclusive of states of relationships beyond the once traditional family home setup.
.
4. The definition of care is not there. There should and must be a broader definition of “Care” – if only for legal reasons. Not defining “Care” leaves future dodgy government with self-adopted agendas, to exploit in their biased view what “care” is defined as – as it suits them and not others, and outside the “home” or “family”.
.
What the three parties have proposed, lays out that “care” is only applicable to members of a “family” to one another by reason the bonds that exist within that very important (for possible future court cases) legal definition.
.
The three parties proposed present wording does NOT INCLUDE care
(a) provided by a friend,
(b) neighbour,
(c) state recognised carer,
(d) a charity volunteer,
(e) home-helps or even those that are paid to “care” for a person.
.
It is both shocking and astonishing that these categories are totally excluded in legal wording or even state recognition. Their forms of care will NOT be recognised within our constitution, in legal terms, within our supposed more modern era.
.
5. “The state shall take reasonable measures to support care” for example, is what the Oireachtas Independent Committee proposed as part of any updated wording. It was a CLEAR statement of constitution intent. What the three parties wish to include instead is “shall strive” – but who gets to decide what “strive” is and to what extent in definition? It’s too loose, wishy-washy wording that allows future governments to be able to escape their responsibilities to their employers, the citizens of Ireland.
.
I ABSOLUTELY WELCOME the addressing of our outdated section of our constitution. However, what is proposed is
(a) TOO legal loose,
(b) cuts out one’s right (not to be employed) and does NOT guarantee that state for future “carers” and
(c) Is NOT inclusive enough of those that are today, in modern Ireland, are “Caring” in a lot of more broad ways.
.
I welcome better wording – but what the three parties have proposed, is not better but in some respects, possible worse. Even though the present wording is indeed sexist, it still has a legal guarantee that a person (be it a woman) has the right NOT to be employed in a common recognised status – so that a person can continue caring without state interference or pressure.
.
I reject the three parties wording. It’s simply not good enough. Till they produce better, I support the still legal protection for women, currently given to them in our current constitution. That legal protection alone, must be now more inclusive and recognised – not just ripped out as a legal status, completely in one swoop. Any current existing protections – even if sexist – are better than proposed wording that weakens them (by missing wording and vagueness) and is not better inclusive.
.
If the current proposed wording appears on a referendum ballot next year, I will be voting “NO” till something far better is created as a replacement to the current constitution wording.
