Constitution Article 41.2.2

allmight

Article 41.2.2 of the Constitution of Ireland says that

"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."

Can it be interpreted in a way that women who have children, no matter the children's age, are not obliged to work but are nonetheless entitled to all the social welfare payments that would secure their subsistence?

Keep in mind that the Constitution does not provide a definition for the word "mother" or their "duties at home".

Caranica

allmight wrote: »

Article 41.2.2 of the Constitution of Ireland says that

"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."

Can it be interpreted in a way that women who have children, no matter the children's age, are not obliged to work but are nonetheless entitled to all the social welfare payments that would secure their subsistence?

Keep in mind that the Constitution does not provide a definition for the word "mother" or their "duties at home".

They're looking to remove it so does it matter. Dev at his worst.

Victor

The courts are loathe to impose general financial obligations on the Exchequer.

One eyed Jack

allmight wrote: »

Article 41.2.2 of the Constitution of Ireland says that

"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."

Can it be interpreted in a way that women who have children, no matter the children's age, are not obliged to work but are nonetheless entitled to all the social welfare payments that would secure their subsistence?

Keep in mind that the Constitution does not provide a definition for the word "mother" or their "duties at home".

I don’t see how it could be interpreted that way as there is no inference that the State will endeavour to provide mothers with social welfare payments which they are not entitled to? I would interpret that section to mean that the State would compel the children’s father to provide for them, rather than the State, so that mothers are not obligated due to economic necessity to have to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

I don’t see how the Constitution not providing a definition for the word “mother” or their “duties in the home” would make any difference. Is there something specific you’re driving at?

johnnyskeleton

allmight wrote: »

Can it be interpreted in a way that women who have children, no matter the children's age, are not obliged to work but are nonetheless entitled to all the social welfare payments that would secure their subsistence?

Thats already the case. One parent family payments are there to ensure that lone parents, both mothers and fathers, are entitled to social welfare benefits. The government could remove the payments to single fathers at present without a constitutional problem, but if they wanted to do so in respect of single mothers they would be susceptable to challenge

rebelwithcause

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thats already the case. One parent family payments are there to ensure that lone parents, both mothers and fathers, are entitled to social welfare benefits. The government could remove the payments to single fathers at present without a constitutional problem, but if they wanted to do so in respect of single mothers they would be susceptable to challenge

But one parent family payments stop when a child is over 6 now, and that hasn't been seen as a constitutional problem. The supreme court previously found that the definition of family is the married family, thus single Mothers don't have constitutional protection anyway.

Carawaystick

What about two married mothers? and the father is a danish sperm donor?

allmight

In any way, what I find kind of silly is that feminists want this article changed or removed because they feel it humors the gender stereotypes, but it in reality it only adds to the women's rights, if anything.

Peregrinus

A provision which is predicated on mothers having "duties in the home" which they ought not to "neglect" hardly adds to their rights. Duties are pretty much the oppposite of rights.

allmight

Peregrinus wrote: »

A provision which is predicated on mothers having "duties in the home" which they ought not to "neglect" hardly adds to their rights. Duties are pretty much the oppposite of rights.

The article doesn't say that the mothers necessarily have any duties in the home (which, once again, are not defined), but if they do have some duties there, the state should make sure that they have enough finances to not engage in labour which can potentially compromise the fulfillment of these duties. That's at least how I see it.

johnnyskeleton

rebelwithcause wrote: »

But one parent family payments stop when a child is over 6 now, and that hasn't been seen as a constitutional problem. The supreme court previously found that the definition of family is the married family, thus single Mothers don't have constitutional protection anyway.

The article refers to mothers rather than to families. It isn't a case that by not being in a married family that someone loses all rights, they just don't have the specific protections of the constitutionally protected family.

rebelwithcause

Yes I am aware of that. The point I made was this article does not mean the state is obliged to support single Mothers, as One Parent Family has been removed for children over 6.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The article refers to mothers rather than to families. It isn't a case that by not being in a married family that someone loses all rights, they just don't have the specific protections of the constitutionally protected family.

Mr. Incognito

endeavour
1.
try hard to do or achieve something.


noun
noun: endeavour; plural noun: endeavours; noun: endeavor; plural noun: endeavors

1.
an attempt to achieve a goal.

It is not a binding obligation. It is best efforts.

So i don't believe it is actionable.

Stupid provision anyway.

seamus

allmight wrote: »

The article doesn't say that the mothers necessarily have any duties in the home (which, once again, are not defined)

It is implicit in the article that women have a "life in the home" which is a duty that should not be allowed to be neglected.

but if they do have some duties there, the state should make sure that they have enough finances to not engage in labour which can potentially compromise the fulfillment of these duties. That's at least how I see it.

There are many ways to interpret this article.

One could be a really soft interpretation that claims that it gives women the right to stay at home if they feel like it and claim social welfare.

One can be a really hard interpretation which says that the state has a duty to ensure that mothers do not work, at all, ever, lest they neglect their duties in the home. Including making it illegal for any employer to hire a mother.
In fact, there was a point not so long ago where women were not permitted to work after getting married.

The fact that a single section could be interpreted in two vastly different (almost opposite) ways should explain why women's groups are particularly eager to remove it.

They aren't the only two possible interpretations though, it's so fuzzy as to be basically pointless.

allmight

seamus wrote: »

It is implicit in the article that women have a "life in the home" which is a duty that should not be allowed to be neglected.
There are many ways to interpret this article.

One could be a really soft interpretation that claims that it gives women the right to stay at home if they feel like it and claim social welfare.

One can be a really hard interpretation which says that the state has a duty to ensure that mothers do not work, at all, ever, lest they neglect their duties in the home. Including making it illegal for any employer to hire a mother.
In fact, there was a point not so long ago where women were not permitted to work after getting married.

The fact that a single section could be interpreted in two vastly different (almost opposite) ways should explain why women's groups are particularly eager to remove it.

They aren't the only two possible interpretations though, it's so fuzzy as to be basically pointless.

Good point!