Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Referendum on "Women in the Home" clause in the Constitution not forthcoming

  • 10-10-2013 05:02PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,547 ✭✭✭


    According to the Journal.ie this embarassing carbuncle in our Constitution won't be subject to a referendum for for the moment.

    Who in the hell wouldn't want this sexist crap taken out of the blue book? If the Government are so concerned about acknowledging the role of carers, then they should simply replace it with "the State acknowledges the important role of carers" surely?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,444 ✭✭✭✭Skid X


    Did you read the article?
    A REFERENDUM ON changing the reference in the constitution to women’s ‘life within the home’ will not happen before “extensive consultations” take place according to Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

    Seems perfectly sensible to tread carefully before changing the Constitution. As we have seen before, any amendment can have unforeseen consequences.

    There is merit in updating this part of the Constitution, but the last thing we need is a badly worded change.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,547 ✭✭✭Foxhound38


    Skid X wrote: »
    Did you read the article?



    Seems perfectly sensible to tread carefully before changing the Constitution. As we have seen before, any amendment can have unforeseen consequences.

    There is merit in updating this part of the Constitution, but the last thing we need is a badly worded change.

    Oh come on, that's the oldest trick in the book. He hasn't ruled it out but he refuses to put any sort of a timescale on it - it's kicking the can down the road


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 305 ✭✭Jimminy Mc Fukhead


    Although creating a new constituition is itself a difficult and involved process it would be better than having referendums every week to keep patching up the DeValera one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭fl4pj4ck


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    Oh come on, that's the oldest trick in the book. He hasn't ruled it out but he refuses to put any sort of a timescale on it - it's kicking the can down the road

    you DO know how much those consultations will cost right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    but who will make the sandwiches?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,444 ✭✭✭✭Skid X


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    Oh come on, that's the oldest trick in the book. He hasn't ruled it out but he refuses to put any sort of a timescale on it - it's kicking the can down the road

    Nothing of the sort.

    If you meddle with the Constitution you are creating a situation where you are changing the rights of the citizens. There are many potential implications - Women's Rights, Mens Rights, Carers Rights, Rights of separated and divorced parents.

    No-one can predict absolutely what the consequences of an Amendment might be, but I would like them to take their time about getting the wording correct. it is in everyone's interest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭EyeSight


    Why do we need so many Referendums? Can we not save them all up and put them together? Once one ends another begins


  • Subscribers Posts: 32,869 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    Obviously it's a stupid inclusion, but is it actually detrimental to women at the moment? Making these references gender neutral or removing them wouldn't mean that women would stop being held back in certain ways would it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    5starpool wrote: »
    Obviously it's a stupid inclusion, but is it actually detrimental to women at the moment? Making these references gender neutral or removing them wouldn't mean that women would stop being held back in certain ways would it?

    To be honest the way it is currently worded is more detrimental to men than it is to women especially in terms of the family courts, child custody and the like IMO


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,733 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Its so meaningless and irrelevant that I don't see what the issue is with leaving it there. There are a high proportion of women who have to work because of economic necessity so it is being ignored at present.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    how would removing this clause harm carers (and those the care about)

    arn't carers legally recognised apart from the entity that is Women


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Could we not just change 'woman' to 'legal guardian'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Honestly can this country afford to keep having utterly pointless Referendums? Christ if it ain't important why spend money on it? Kids of 16 shouldn't be able to vote, thats just common sense,and how much will it cost fcuking about providing votes for those Irish living abroad. For fecks sake a bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    The constitutional review group recommended that Article 41.2. be deleted or edited as far back as 1996.

    I don't see the point of being outraged. This provision has not been used to any detrimental effect that I am aware of. Although it is easy to criticise it for being paternalistic, in practice the provision has only ever been used to secure the minimum entitlements of mothers and women at their own beckoning, and to my knowledge has never been used to limit their lives or livelihoods by another party, or by the State.

    There are individuals in Ireland today - especially unmarried mothers, and their children - who have benefited from this article. I don't think anyone has been materially harmed by it. I would venture that not even men have been harmed by it.

    I guess we should change it do a gender neutral provision, but I don't see the point in abolishing it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    To be honest with you, changing the relevant article in this situation should not be complicated at all, and should certainly not need to be extensive. All the constituion review committee need do is refer back to the 1922 consitution and replace the relvant article with that, which was gender neutral.
    In fact, while they're at it they may well revert most of the consituion back to 1922 before De Valera decided to priortise rights of the family meanwhile denying us equality for the individual... amongst other problems.
    There are individuals in Ireland today - especially unmarried mothers, and their children - who have benefited from this article. I don't think anyone has been materially harmed by it. I would venture that not even men have been harmed by it.


    Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but that article has harmed men when it comes to their rights as fathers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    The constitution needs a bit of a spring clean. It doesn't exist to serve as an historical document of the values of people who are beyond criticism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    I don't see the point of being outraged. This provision has not been used to any detrimental effect that I am aware of.

    I kinda like the idea that the state recognises that a Mother/Father/significant care-giver is important in children's lives.

    The gender/status specific language is a bit out-dated but I think the idea is sound.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,068 ✭✭✭LoonyLovegood


    The average constitution lasts somewhere around 30 years, afair. Are we not better off creating a new constitution, rather than patching up a dated, badly in need of reform one?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭brokenarms


    Another big waste of money.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    The opening few sentences of the thing is basically a bloody prayer. The whole thing will remain a joke as long as that's the case.
    In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
    We, the people of Éire,
    Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial

    fcuking cringe


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    A REFERENDUM ON changing the reference in the constitution to women’s ‘life within the home’ will not happen before “extensive consultations” take place according to Justice Minister Alan Shatter.
    Cue solicitors and barristers sitting around all day drinking tea racking up unnecessary bills.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    The funny thing is that the 1937 referendum to enact the new constitution was opposed by supporters of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, Unionists, and some independents and feminists.

    Going back to the 1922 one is a bad idea though, that ties us to the UK.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    The funny thing is that the 1937 referendum to enact the new constitution was opposed by supporters of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, Unionists, and some independents and feminists.

    Going back to the 1922 one is a bad idea though, that ties us to the UK.

    Lol ok then, alter the bit that ties in with the U.K.

    The 1922 constitution was a much more progressive constiutuion than the one that followed it 15 years later, by a man who disregarded the legacies of Pearse and co. despite his involvement in the orginal proclamation.

    Dev's Ireland, shaped that way for decades to come, and its soul still lingers on like a demon who refuses to be exorcised.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    Lol ok then, alter the bit that ties in with the U.K.

    The 1922 constitution was a much more progressive constiutuion than the one that followed it 15 years later, by a man who disregarded the legacies of Pearse and co. despite his involvement in the orginal proclamation.

    Dev's Ireland, shaped that way for decades to come, and it's soul still lingers on like a demon who just won't go away.

    He wrote it in 1937....but it feels like it was written in 1837.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    CTYIgirl wrote: »
    The average constitution lasts somewhere around 30 years, afair.?

    The American one is 224 years old and hasnt had as many amendments (27) as the Irish one (33).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    He wrote it in 1937....but it feels like it was written in 1837.

    That's because archbishop McQuaid was pulling his strings.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    The opening few sentences of the thing is basically a bloody prayer. The whole thing will remain a joke as long as that's the case.



    fcuking cringe

    That is awful ****e.....wonder why they did not get rid of it in 1973 referendum when they cleared up some of the other religious nonsense in there.

    List of all the referendums we have had so far.


    http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    It would actually be a nice idea to think that the women can just stay at home but in todays rat race its hard to make ends meet that way. Now everyone has to work to keep the banks, the insurance industry and the resellers of Chinese rubbish and other economic parasites going.

    I dont see anything wrong with a society where the woman stays at home to look after the kids. If that's what they feel like doing...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    P_1 wrote: »
    To be honest the way it is currently worded is more detrimental to men than it is to women especially in terms of the family courts, child custody and the like IMO

    I'd probably agree with that.

    It may not have an overt, visible effect, but having something like that in the Constitution of the country does set a pretty backwards tone.

    The whole document is full of stuff that makes me wince though, tbh. It's funny, when you see Irish people chatting about politics with Americans, when they cite stuff from their constitution with pride, and Irish people just can't identify with that idea. The Constitution, to us, is just an archaic auld embarrassment of a thing that we can never seem to patch fast enough to give it any semblance of credibility.


Advertisement