Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121893352#Comment_121893352

In terms of? The terms could have a wide application depending on the nature of the organisation. I suppose ultimately the the question boils down to whether an NGO, who advocates against the wishes of the majority at an election, should be entitled to any public money.

tarvis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121891367#Comment_121891367

Fact is that the National Women’s Council of Ireland and Women’s Aid played a prominent part in the counter demo against a Let Women Speak event in Dublin last September. One of the banners said ‘ No Terfs in our city’ - ie no feminists who questions trans ideology welcome in our city.

I don’t think women who dissent from this ideology shout out ‘no trans in our city’ .

Women and trans women have different challenges but if the lobby groups want to represent both, let them open up and say so - give people the chance to agree or disagree, support or not support.

crossman47

I always presumed the National Womens Council existed to represent all women but that was clearly not the case in the Repeal referendum. They were clearly on one side only and paid no attention at al to the approx 30 % of women who opposed repeal.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121893470#Comment_121893470

NGOs possibly should not be involved in politics at all. That would solve that problem. Let them do their charity work instead.

Ten of Swords

@Hamsterchops threadbanned

Ten of Swords

Mod - This is getting ridiculous, this constitutional amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with Trans rights in any way, yet multiple posters have tried to drag the thread off topic.

If this continues the thread will be closed without further warning

mariaalice

(1) There was no identifiable group that would have benefited from the changes it was too defused, unlike the same-sex marriage referendum for example so the campaign lacked focus and energy.

(2) It didn't feel right to some people although they couldn't explain why.

(3) There is always tension between those who want to go backward and those who think we aren't going far enough but society tends to find the right level overall taking the long view.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121894489#Comment_121894489

I agree with your first point and that is because there was no identifiable group needing help who would actually have gained from it, but your second point is the wrong way around. The people who "couldn't explain why" were those calling for a Yes vote.

Indeed some of them even campaigned for a Yes vote but claim to have voted No themselves.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121894489#Comment_121894489

Unmarried women and their children would have benefited from the changes as it would have acknowledged they constitute the Family, but it was the way it was tacked on as “other durable relationships” made people uneasy as though it would be equatable to marriage, on which the Family is founded.

That tension will always be present in society, but everyone is primarily interested in finding the right level for themselves and their families, as opposed to the idea of being influenced by ideologues of any particular flavour, which is what a society is made up of, with the Family being recognised in the Constitution as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Irish society and the natural educator of the child and so on.

Government tried desperately to be clever about it which is what put people off, that’s why the campaign was lacking in focus and energy - Government themselves knew pretty early on that the amendments (both Family and Care amendments), were a bit shìt.

tom23

The why did they borage their holes to run them? 23 mill could of been better spent.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121897335#Comment_121897335

Because they’d been promising a referendum on the particular issue of the provision which recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

Government went much further than it was required to, and made a hames of it. It would’ve been about the same spent on running a referendum anyway, regardless of the wording.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121897368#Comment_121897368

But I'm sure it was felt in advance that just taking out the 'offensive' bits would have been an uninspiring exercise so they had to put in some uplifting words to replace them and as you say ended up making a hames of it...

I'm sure, or I'd hope, the lesson will be learned across all parties that every word of any future constitutional referendum needs to be thoroughly stress-tested in advance and there can be no dangling hostages to fortune like 'durable relationships'...

bloopy

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/03/15/referendum-wording-chosen-to-avoid-a-concrete-and-mandatory-obligation-files-suggest/

"Ministers had insisted there were no taxation or immigration implications. But files showed officials grappling with tax issues and legal advice that said greater weight would be given to non-marital family rights “in childcare, immigration and social welfare”.

The files showed officials saying measures such as those presented in the family referendum could create uncertainty because of the role foreseen for judges. Officials referred in favourable terms to early plans – dropped by the Government in the referendum proposal – for the Oireachtas to retain the power to define the new concept of family in law."

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121897465#Comment_121897465

Also, the cynicism of running it as a separate referendum, on International Day of the woman - and just before Mother's Day - didn't help and is also why it cost so much. It could easily have been tacked onto the local and European elections, as the Patent clause has been, but that wouldn't have given the government as big a chance to point up their progressiveness.

People saw right through that.

Economics101

The Irish Times is the gift that keeps on giving. A couple of days ago Fintan O'Toole got roasted in the letters page for his take on the reerendum results - his obsession with Irish Catholicism seemed to dominate. To-day, Cathy Sheridan got a good roasting from several letter writers, lsrgely female and even feminist.

To-day Justine McCarthy has a piece which with any luck will get a really good pasting over the next few days. The left, faux-liberal groupthink of Irish journalism has never been so thoroughly revealed.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886258#Comment_121886258

I agree with most of this and frankly O'Gorman and others should be resigning. It's just handy timing that has allowed them to skive off and avoid responsibility for a while.

I think it was very concerning that so many largely government funded NGOs fell in behind promoting the proposed wordings. Some are arguing now that they didn't use public money for campaigning on this matter but that is disingenuous. If say 95% of your funding is from the state and 5% from donations, you can't readily separate that in campaign finances - 95% of campaign expenses in this case would be state funded. The only way to avoid this would be for an NGO to have a very specific fundraising exercise from the general public, ringfence this and only use that fund to campaign. But did any do this, I doubt it gravely.

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121898332#Comment_121898332

Strange this . Fintan o Toole's piece was supportive of the referendum result as was Justine McCarthy's .did you read the articles before the letters ? ..were you on the yes side ?

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886965#Comment_121886965

Wow ! Bit strong there now ?

It wasn't explicit but was seen as a threat by many , and it caused a lot of unease when he said it .

It was recognised as a further guillotine to push that wording through ..so no, it's not bullshit .

"Progressive’ organisations must explain any decision not to support referendum, says Minister

Rejection of proposed changes ‘would leave status quo’ on woman’s place in the home" .

Irish Times , Jan 2024 .

Note 'explain '.... would that be on the carpet , cap in hand ?..fxxx that !

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900910#Comment_121900910

You can't claim that unless you have proof ie financial statements

NWCI for one, did not use public funds and have submitted financial statements prior to the referendum about their campaign funding .

"Statement on funding for referendum campaign"

 https://www.nwci.ie/discover/about_us/statement_on_funding_for_referendum_campaign#:~:text=ABOUT%20THIS%20SITE%20%3E-,Statement%20on%20funding%20for%20referendum%20campaign,-NWC%20represents%20the

But one has to question if pressure to campaign for the amendments came from a government minister or whether any NGOs were effectively gagged if they didn't support it ?

How is that democratic ?

Inclusion Ireland did not support the care amendment either but many people would be oblivious to that fact except for a one line statement on their website .

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121902601#Comment_121902601

Come now - NWCI and others need to explain and prove where the funding for their campaigning came from. To stand up, it would have to have been a specific fund solely raised from private donations towards this Yes vote campaign.

It couldn't just be taken from general fundraising as clearly that is mixed in with their state funding to run the organisation as a whole.

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903023#Comment_121903023

Eh did you not read the link I provided ? ..those financial statement have already been supplied ..so come now yourself , you should be big enough to admit that in this case , you are wrong !

Thinkingaboutit

It was fascinating to see that army of quangos who backed that vote for something unclear (but likely not good given the proposers), whose job it is to create a false consensus for the official line, fail completely this time.

ahnowbrowncow

RTE News have an article about whether NWCI used public funds to campaign for Yes votes in the referendums.

The article states that the NWCI receive 'some' state funding.

Looking at their 2022 accounts, they received a total of €1,073,603 of which the Government provided €945,266 or 88%, somewhat misleading by RTE to say they receive some funding from the state.

Interestingly they received €611,000, or 57%, of their funding from Roderic O' Gorman's department.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0316/1438220-national-womens-council/

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121902372#Comment_121902372

Whether or not I was on the Yes side is irrelevant: I was commenting on the poor reactions of sore losers, who are so sore that they miss the real reasons behind thier loss.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121882084#Comment_121882084

Progressive ffs. It's that what your calling it

Mr. teddywinkles

I remember sinn fein screaming across the dail at opposition about any such so called injustice or not providing for such n such. Yet they remain very quiet of late. Why is that you say. Because the present government have gone 1 step further and said we will provide justice and provide for the world as well. Gimps the lot of them. They're so far left they think centre is far right. Gobshites

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121884789#Comment_121884789

Again absolute leeches

Mr. teddywinkles

Think we need a referendum on every topic. Obviously the government cant govern.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121893967#Comment_121893967

The whole point of many of them is to be involved, and tge govt pay them very well in return.

Milominderbender

This referendum demonstrates that the NGO's are a fifth column who subvert the will of the people. They need to be shut down and their employees can use their Mickey mouse degrees to apply for a job at Starbucks.