Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

Referendum on Gender Equality

  • 08-03-2023 5:23am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,008 ✭✭✭


    Just some questions about this for some of those members more informed on the constitution.

    Is a referendum on this necessary or can the constitution be changed without a referendum?

    Is this just another in a long line of social justice referendums (where the government can't lose) to distract us from the important issues of the day?

    What does this gender equality referendum mean in practical terms?

    Does it work both ways - as in, if it is to ensure equal rights for women, does it also mean equal responsibility, and that there is no favouritism in the family court between fathers and mothers?



«13456760

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭FoxForce5


    Interesting they want to pepper the constitution with the word 'gender' . In fact is gender even mentioned in it at the moment? I also think there is some dangerous in removing the word mother from the constitution.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Is a referendum on this necessary or can the constitution be changed without a referendum?

    Yes, a referendum is required to change the constitution

    Is this just another in a long line of social justice referendums (where the government can't lose) to distract us from the important issues of the day?

    Depends on your perspective and your phrasing gives no illusion as to yours. Most would agree (and I'm guessing this will bear out in the result) that its time to update.

    If you believe a womans place is in the home, then the constitution is grand, otherwise, no, it needs to be updated

    The Government's intention to hold this referendum follows recommendations made by the Citizen's Assembly on Gender Equality two years ago.

    The recommended amendments to Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution included the "women in the home" reference - be deleted and replaced.

    It was also recommended that the Constitution should refer explicitly to gender equality and non-discrimination.

    What does this gender equality referendum mean in practical terms?

    Does it work both ways - as in, if it is to ensure equal rights for women, does it also mean equal responsibility, and that there is no favouritism in the family court between fathers and mothers?

    The referendum is to modify the constitution, nothing more. Other legislation may come as a result of the change and this may be published beforehand to give voters an informed choice if the referendum will directly impact current legislation e.g. this happened in the lead up to the abortion referendum

    Just to note, our referendums and citizen assemblies are one of the best things about Ireland's systems. Our constitution is a living document, always undergoing change to reflect society and keep it relevant. This is a good thing



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,742 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Is a referendum on this necessary or can the constitution be changed without a referendum?

    The constitution can only be changed by referendum.

    Is this just another in a long line of social justice referendums (where the government can't lose) to distract us from the important issues of the day?

    The question presupposes that justice is not an important issue. I don't think you'll get many takers for that position. And the notion that the whole thing is confected by the Government as a distraction from something else is undermined by the fact that this isn't ultimately a Government initiative - it's a recommendation of the citizen's assembly to which the Government is responding.

    What does this gender equality referendum mean in practical terms?

    Too soon to say with any confidence — we haven't seen the wording of the proposed amendment to the Constitution. An Oireachtas committee has suggested some draft wording, but we don't know yet if the Government will accept any of those recommendations.

    What we do know, at least, is that the Citizen's Assembly recommended deletion of the existing wording in Art 42.2 that referred to the importance of a woman's "life within the home" and its replacement with wording "that is not gender specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community". So maybe expect something like that?

    Does it work both ways - as in, if it is to ensure equal rights for women, does it also mean equal responsibility, and that there is no favouritism in the family court between fathers and mothers?

    See above — we're going to have to wait and see. But the constitutional provisions that are most relevant to the issue you raise are not the provisions about equal status, but the provisions about marriage and the family.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Luxembourgo


    So it will make little practical difference?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭StevenToast


    What a waste of time and money.

    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭FoxForce5


    It will enshrine the word gender, removing the word mother. That, like the same sex marriage referendum will have monumental changes for us. Every change to our constitution has a consequence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭CPTM


    I have to say, I see nothing wrong with this current text: "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law".

    Maybe if it referred specifically to "men and women" I could at least begin to see where they're coming from. But bringing any sort of specifics into it brings no added value.

    It'll be an interesting referendum in a way. I'm curious to see how many people feel as strongly in private about these transgender issues as they do in public. I've seen a lot of masks slip over the past few years. It could be a way for people to tell the government that enough is enough with this.

    Post edited by CPTM on


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    I assume by “monumental change for us” you are not heterosexual, and I applaud the change to permit everyone have the same right to marriage even though I am heterosexual and it hasn’t changed one thing, yet alone anything monumental.

    I can’t see what the fear some posters have about the word mother. Why are ye so scared of a father having equal rights under the constitution?



  • Registered Users Posts: 276 ✭✭Jazz Hands


    If the wording in the constitution needs to be updated in relation to gender equality then yes we need a referendum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,218 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    if there are changes to the definition of the family it could make significant difference in law in how families are treated; e.g. unmarried couples could have significantly more recognition in areas around: death, taxes, children

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,218 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I dont know what any of that has to do with the proposed referendum

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Subscribers Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The answer to this is extremely obvious and simple. You just change the reference from "woman" to "person" in the constitution, so that the persons role in the home is recognized as being beneficial to the state, and that no person shall be obliged by economic necessary to take up labor which would result in the neglect of home duties (as currently exists anyway)

    Done and dusted



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,487 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    From https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41087869.html

    The Citizens' Assembly recommended that Article 40.1 of the Constitution should be amended to refer explicitly to gender equality and non-discrimination.

    The group also found that the Constitution should be changed to protect all family life and should not be limited to the marital family.

    'Women in the home'

    It recommends that Article 41.2, which refers to women in the home, should be deleted and replaced with language that is not gender-specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community.


    In 40.1, I expect it refers to lines like 'No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law' and '...and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity' being reworded with 'their' and 'they are' and so on.


    In Article 41.2, theese are the likely sections to be examined:

    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.

    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.

    3     1° 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.


    I don't see any issue with the idea that those 3 points should be deleted/edited in 2023, but of course it depends on what the new wording (if any) is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Luxembourgo


    It would be good to have clarification on what some of those consequences would be, as of now its pretty blind. Perhaps fairer treatment of men in divorce, which would be welcome as someone with a family member getting taken to the cleaners at the moment.

    Though I guess that's why we have it, just seems a waste of money to be.

    They could do all the above without a referendum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,090 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    So how much is this sop to the leftie wokies going to cost I wonder.



  • Registered Users Posts: 42 nonsheep7


    'Women in the spa' more like it...



  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭archermoo




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,454 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    "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."

    The govt and state are already completly ignoring this provision, its next to impossible to support a home and family on a signle income these days, in changing this to 'person' or otherwise is the state actually going to do anything about the costs of living to the extent that this provision can be actioned to actually allow one parent or the other to not have to be out of the home working to the detriment of their duties in the home?



  • Subscribers Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Do you think the article should stay the way it is?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    The wording of the amendment has not been proposed yet.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,340 ✭✭✭francois


    Thw woke strawman tediously makes another appearance on Boards



  • Subscribers Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    There's a difference between "endeavor to ensure" and "prevent"



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,454 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    given how vague and fluffly that is then, why not simply get rid of the entire provision rahter than attempt to amend it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,090 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Well in my own opinion with a 200 billion national debt I think there are more urgent issues to spend money on rather than worrying about changing a few words in the constitution.



  • Subscribers Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Well done on your whataboutery, now would you like to answer the question you were asked, and which is the topic of this thread that you chose to post in?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,090 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    I gave my reason and you don't get to tell me where I can or can't post.



  • Subscribers Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    well, you didnt answer the question, so ill take it from your reluctance to answer that you are afraid to provide one. That means you have no credibility at all here and your posts are to be considered as such.



  • Registered Users Posts: 276 ✭✭Jazz Hands


    The Government has already got this wrong with the messaging on Gender Equality :(

    Gender Equity seems to be one sided.

    ‘ In announcing the planned referendum on gender equality and a timeframe, the Government has said it will establish an inter-departmental group this month to agree on proposals.

    Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said: "For too long, women and girls have carried a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities, been discriminated against at home and in the workplace, objectified or lived in fear of domestic or gender-based violence.

    "I am pleased to announce that the Government plans to hold a Referendum this November to amend our Constitution to enshrine gender equality and to remove the outmoded reference to 'women in the home', in line with the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality."



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,090 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Oh no, I'm gutted to learn they don't meet with your approval.



  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 40,552 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    the constitution is not supposed to be situation specific. its supposed to be a bedrock to describe fundamental rights, and a basis for government. it is not a consolidated list of all the laws of the land.



Advertisement