Article 41.2 of the Constitution

The_Minister

Article 41.2.1: In particular, 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.

Article 41.2.2: 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.

Bother you at all?
Do you care?
Did you know?

pikachucheeks

I didn't know about it, so thanks for posting!


Just two comments ;

One : seems quite sexist.

Two: Very out-dated, given today's society and how Ireland has developed in recent years.

minidazzler

Dayum, we are one country that doesn't like to fix anything aren't we.

Malari

The_Minister wrote: »

Article 41.2.1: In particular, 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.

Article 41.2.2: 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.

Bother you at all?
Do you care?
Did you know?

The first one seems ok. The wording is old-fashioned. But they are not talking about ALL women...are they?

The second one is just saying that mothers shouldn't HAVE to work if they don't wish to? My interpretation is that the state would support them - childcare?

Am I wrong? What was your interpretation/reason for posting, Minister?

The_Minister

Malari wrote: »

The first one seems ok. The wording is old-fashioned. But they are not talking about ALL women...are they?

The second one is just saying that mothers shouldn't HAVE to work if they don't wish to? My interpretation is that the state would support them - childcare?

Am I wrong? What was your interpretation/reason for posting, Minister?

My reason for posting is to see if mhá na hEireann care about it.

Tbh, it's been pretty much ignored by everyone for decades (I can't think of any cases citing it), but it still seems a bit anachronistic.

Morgase

I knew about it and it is something that I disagree with and feel should be changed.

Malari

The_Minister wrote: »

My reason for posting is to see if mhá na hEireann care about it.

Tbh, it's been pretty much ignored by everyone for decades (I can't think of any cases citing it), but it still seems a bit anachronistic.

Well, I know you want to see what people think, but wondering what YOU think.

Yes it's anachronistic but I would imagine so is half of the constitution. Look at the blasphemy article! Is there legislation connected to it?

iguana

I knew about it and think it would be a good thing if it was adhered to and "mother" was amended to "a parent." Just about every single study in the whole world shows that children do best when their primary care-giver is a parent. If it is doable then either one parent should make an effort to do most of the childcare or the workforce could work in such a way that both parents could have a job share option with each parent sharing earning and childcare, whichever works best for the family.

The state however has not adhered to part two, which it could have done very simply by having the financial regulator only allow mortgages to be based on 3.5x the main salary plus 1x the second salary. House prices would never have risen to such ludicrous levels and one salary households would be sufficient to raise a family. Then either one parent could stay home and raise the children or job-sharing for fathers as well as mothers would have started to become more normal.

b3t4

The_Minister wrote: »

Article 41.2.1: In particular, 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.

Article 41.2.2: 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.

From the times in which it was written I think it was trying to recognise the work that women did in the home which I think is commendable as it often went unnoticed.

The lack of recognistion of this work can be seen in the 1911 census as often times the wife of the head of household would be given an occupation of none.

If I were to change it, I'd change it to

]Article 41.2.1: In particular, the State recognises that by his/her life within the home, women/men gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

Article 41.2.2: The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that a parent shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

I'm still unsure what "which the common good cannot be achieved." means exactly so if someone could enlighten me on that I might reword the first article a bit more

My current re-wording would imply that if either parent did not choose to stay at home the common good could not be achieved but we all know that there are many cases where both parents work outside the home these days.

Oh and I would of choosen an option in the poll but there isn't an option "I only found out about it now but do care"

hmmm

The_Minister

*relevant bump*

From the new Programme for Government

We will proceed, subject to appropriate Oireachtas approval, with proposals to hold a constitutional referendum to consider amending Article 41.2 of the Constitution, broadening the reference to the role of women in the home to one which recognises the role of the parent in the home.

What do you all think?

Nevyn

I'd have ot see the proposed wording before I could comment.

dan719

Do we not have more important issues to worry about right now, like uh 14% unemployment, and an economic growth rate of -8.2%. This referendum is so far down the lists of priorities it's laughable. But let's make sure that the greens can present this to their members as a win.:rolleyes:

Euro_Kraut

dan719 wrote: »

Do we not have more important issues to worry about right now, like uh 14% unemployment, and an economic growth rate of -8.2%. This referendum is so far down the lists of priorities it's laughable. But let's make sure that the greens can present this to their members as a win.:rolleyes:

I hate this type of argument. Just because we have high unemployment doesn't mean everything else should be put on hold. Constitutional reform is a good idea regardless of the length of the dole cues.

The_Minister

Thaedydal wrote: »

I'd have ot see the proposed wording before I could comment.

I know what you mean.

If they bring forward the children's rights referendum and I have to vote against it I will be furious.

dan719

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I hate this type of argument. Just because we have high unemployment doesn't mean everything else should be put on hold. Constitutional reform is a good idea regardless of the length of the dole cues.

It's called CBA. Constitutional reform is only a good idea if the benefit of it outweighs the cost of staging and campaigning for the referendum. And in a time of such severe money shortages, the benefit of the monies it would cost are far less then the benefit of spending such money on job creation. Sorry if rationality isn't your strong point.

Warfi

The_Minister wrote: »

I know what you mean.

If they bring forward the children's rights referendum and I have to vote against it I will be furious.

Even if the referendum said 'A slap never did us any harm when we were children. Look at us now!' :pac:

Piste

I knew about it before, but I never really cared as it's not something that affects me or has that much of an effect generally.

amacachi

I'd like to see a modification, sure, and/or have it strengthened. It's odd how certain things in our constitution are used as excuses to do nothing whereas some that are quite nice ideas are just ignored.

Lockstep

Meh, the Constitution is obviously outdated but for the time it was written, it was incredibly progressive (remember that this was the time of Nazism/Fascism sweeping Europe and the Constitution acknowledges citizens and guarantees rights etc) so we're a bit too hard on it these days.

It definitely needs updating, as passages like the above show.


The idea of a "common good" is a fairly recurring theme throughout the entire constitution.

doctor evil

What if the 'parent' is a grandparent/aunt/uncle

rainbow kirby

Our constitution is a sexist, dated sop to the Catholic church. It could do with an awful lot of change tbh.

Crumble Froo

the first one, i dont particularly like, and while the second one is sexist, it does at least supposedly endeavour to make sure that the person bringing up the children (mother) isnt forced into working. i think, personally, that it is quite sad how many kids are being brought up by preschools/creches, and i do firmly believe in the benefit of young children getting lots of time at home with a parent.

not necessarily the mother, but certainly a parent.

BumbleB

You do realise ,that ireland threw away 400 years of struggle and all that won't matter anymore in the new global fascist state. The Irish constitution is null and void now.

Macha

BumbleB wrote: »

You do realise ,that ireland threw away 400 years of struggle and all that won't matter anymore in the new global fascist state. The Irish constitution is null and void now.

Is that the global fascist state run by giant lizards or the one run by the Illuminati/Stonemasons? I never can tell the difference.

OT- Article 41.2.1 is just downright offensive and needs to be scrapped.

cee_jay

While I feel these are outdated for the current time, they do have some purpose in trying to protect family life, the role of a parent in the home, and allows for some provision that there be support from the state in order to stay at home - even though in reality that may not be the case.

To be honest I like Article 41.3 even less than those ones:

"The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

So basically in the eyes of our constitution you are not considered a family unless you have entered into marriage. In Irish Law you have no family rights if you have never entered into a marriage with your partner. Any children you have are seen as illegitimate until a marriage is entered into. If your partner is to pass away you have no right to anything at all.
Hopefully the civil partnership bill will bring some much needed reform to this.

Macha

cAr0l wrote: »

So basically in the eyes of our constitution you are not considered a family unless you have entered into marriage. In Irish Law you have no family rights if you have never entered into a marriage with your partner. Any children you have are seen as illegitimate until a marriage is entered into. If your partner is to pass away you have no right to anything at all.
Hopefully the civil partnership bill will bring some much needed reform to this.

cAr0l, would you agree that all of this is pretty much coming from the same source: ie the Catholic Church? Assumptions about the "traditional" family, the role of women, attitudes towards forms of sexuality outside heterosexuality etc ?

cee_jay

Well you have to bare in mind this was all written in 1937 - times and society have changed a lot since then.
Yes in 1937 the Catholic Church did hold a lot of power in Ireland - people had their faith and lived by their faith, so it was a very rare occurrence to have openly gay people, unmarried mothers, single parent families except ones where the couple were married and were now a widow. The woman's place was primarily in the home, the man was the main bread winner.
I think it is a written as a reflection of people's everyday life in 1937.

The_Minister

cAr0l wrote: »

Any children you have are seen as illegitimate until a marriage is entered into.

The concept of illegitimacy has effectively been abolished in Irish law.

Pipsie Pie

Hi The_Minister,

Is there any case law in which article 41.2 is used?

Would agree that the constitution needs to be seriously updated with regards to the modern family, but not at huge expense to our 'poor' Dept. of Finance.
Maybe it could be coordinated with the next election perhaps?

miss no stars

Does anyone here know if the cost of having a spouse stay at home to mind children (ie, become a dependant themselves) is tax deductable?

If it's not, is that not unconstitutional?

The_Minister

Pipsie Pie wrote: »

Is there any case law in which article 41.2 is used?

It has been referenced, but I don't recall any case where the decision turned on that article.

You'd have to ask in Legal Discussion for a definate answer, but I don't think any cases were decided on that basis.

Argument have been made using it (almost sure the one about letting women on juries had an argument regarding the article - would have to double check) but I don't think any have been successful.