OPFA Changes and Article 41 of the constitution

sophia25

From a legal point of view, without debating whether you agree with the Article or not, is it not unconstitutional to make the changes to One Parent Family Allowance which forces Mothers to start working once their child reaches age 7? Is this change compatible with Article 41 and should we not require a referendum to pass it?

Tom Young

I agree with the Article, but can you explain why you think that the change is unconstitutional?

sparkling sea

It does seem repugnant to the C. but wouldn't a mother have to challange it first, only a mother of a child within the age range would have locus standi.

As its not just mothers who receive ONFP, and Art 41 is only applicable to mothers, I wonder what would happen.

Art 41 - the state endeavours to ensure mothers aren't obliged to work out economic necessity - given the current crisis they might be seen to be endeavouring to ensure.

I'd like to see someone challange it but it would be expensive - who has the money?:D - our C really needs a good overhaul

sophia25

Well the Article states this:

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.

Yet the new changes to the OPFA states that the allowance i withdrawn once a child reaches 7 and will provide no support to allow them to work p/t while children are in school so Mothers will have no choice but to leave home for full day. This does not seem compatible with the constitution.

MagicSean

Rent allowance plus the dole and child benefit is quite sufficient to support a family. Mightn't pay for Sky tv and other luxuries but that isn't the states problem.

sophia25

Most Mothers want to work part time when children are in school. They will no longer be able to do this and therefore forced into longterm welfare dependency. This also means that when there children are old enough to re enter the work force full time their skills will be out dated.

sparkling sea

sophia25 wrote: »

Most Mothers want to work part time when children are in school. They will no longer be able to do this and therefore forced into longterm welfare dependency. This also means that when there children are old enough to re enter the work force full time their skills will be out dated.

It would have to be challanged on the grounds of economic necessity not personal choice or out dated skills - harsh but true. As Magic Sean points out its not the only benefit of allowance OPF get if they meet the criteria so it wouldn't be as simple as it first appears


The Art itself is more likely to be amended as it is sexist and outdated but unfortunately we choose to have a majority of male TD's who don't appear to have issues relating to women anywhere near the top of their agenda.
Thank mother nature for gender quotas - at last

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

It would have to be challanged on the grounds of economic necessity not personal choice or out dated skills - harsh but true. As Magic Sean points out its not the only benefit of allowance OPF get if they meet the criteria so it wouldn't be as simple as it first appears


The Art itself is more likely to be amended as it is sexist and outdated but unfortunately we choose to have a majority of male TD's who don't appear to have issues relating to women anywhere near the top of their agenda.
Thank mother nature for gender quotas - at last

The article is sexist against men and is in favour of women.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

The article is sexist against men and is in favour of women.

The Article is sexist against everyone and needs to be changed

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

The Article is sexist against everyone and needs to be changed

How is it sexist against women? It's in favour of women.

Manach

sparkling sea wrote: »

Thank mother nature for gender quotas - at last

A bad move, as it even more creates a disconnect between voters and politicians - IMHO.

sophia25

MagicSean wrote: »

How is it sexist against women? It's in favour of women.

It placed them in the private domain rather than the public domain. It was the reason many women were forced to forfeit their careers on marriage. It is a huge contributory factor as to why women are still lagging behind in many areas such as public representation etc.

MagicSean

sophia25 wrote: »

It placed them in the private domain rather than the public domain. It was the reason many women were forced to forfeit their careers on marriage. It is a huge contributory factor as to why women are still lagging behind in many areas such as public representation etc.

The constitution didn't do that. Society was just like that. Women stayed at home to care for the children.

sophia25

sophia25 wrote: »

It placed them in the private domain rather than the public domain. It was the reason many women were forced to forfeit their careers on marriage. It is a huge contributory factor as to why women are still lagging behind in many areas such as public representation etc.

Other countries without that protection for women also have the same issues. It's a cultural issue not a constiutional one.

sophia25

Well it certainly does not help women as being as equal in matters of the public domain. I therefore strongly disagree that is prejudiced against men as stated here earlier.

Corruptable

I would argue for the State that it is consistent with the common good. From what I remember from my lectures, "common good" is the only thing you need to know about Irish Constitutional Law.

MagicSean

sophia25 wrote: »

Well it certainly does not help women as being as equal in matters of the public domain. I therefore strongly disagree that is prejudiced against men as stated here earlier.

Do you understand it? It means that women who stay at home to work for the family provide a vlauable contribution to society and should not be required to give this up out of economic necessity. It doesn't say they shouldn't leave the home. It does not give the same value to the contribution of a stay at home father. That is how it is prejudiced against men.

Maybe the legislation we should be looking at, it that surrounding what is a "qualified child" under the social welfare acts.

Edit: Sorry, what I should have said is there has been no changes to the legislation on the age parameters of qualified children.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

Do you understand it? It means that women who stay at home to work for the family provide a vlauable contribution to society and should not be required to give this up out of economic necessity. It doesn't say they shouldn't leave the home. It does not give the same value to the contribution of a stay at home father. That is how it is prejudiced against men.

You need to check again and look at the preamble and meaning and framing of it. Context is everything :rolleyes:

Article 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann specifies the sanctity of the family, organised around women’s care and men’s breadwinning. Gendered recognition struggles, have had to frame rights in terms of women’s distinctiveness, just as you have, even when they are seeking to remove inequalities that stem from this frame of gender difference. There has been the greatest resistance to claims made based on equal treatment in the labour market and social policy, and its only Ireland’s membership in the EU has led to recognition of these types of claims.

Its not the 1930's and many fathers are as good as wish to be care givers and vice verse re bread winning and women. This is not recognised and is specifically omitted - thats why its sexism against all

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

You need to check again and look at the preamble and meaning and framing of it. Context is everything :rolleyes:

Article 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann specifies the sanctity of the family, organised around women’s care and men’s breadwinning. Gendered recognition struggles, have had to frame rights in terms of women’s distinctiveness, just as you have, even when they are seeking to remove inequalities that stem from this frame of gender difference. There has been the greatest resistance to claims made based on equal treatment in the labour market and social policy, and its only Ireland’s membership in the EU has led to recognition of these types of claims.

Its not the 1930's and many fathers are as good as wish to be care givers and vice verse re bread winning and women. This is not recognised and is specifically omitted - thats why its sexism against all

Again, it is not the constitution that failed, it was the interpretation given to it.

Avatargh

This has all been dealt with; L v L.

The Article (and by that I mean the provision under discussion) has little, if any, justiciable content.

Avatargh

Corruptable wrote: »

I would argue for the State that it is consistent with the common good. From what I remember from my lectures, "common good" is the only thing you need to know about Irish Constitutional Law.

Yeah. That's all there is to it.