TERFs and the Irish referendum

I think you misunderstood that point. Here Repatriation would mean members of an extended family - however loosely defined - being entitled to join a relative who has immigrated to Ireland. A potential bonanza for the Herman Kellys and Gemma Dohertys of this world. But I'm just speculating tbh

Dublincailin
Also I suspect it will expand the repatriation of extended family for asylum seekers. In current climate they definitely do not want that information in the public arena.
?
Surely in the current anti-immigration climate, extending repatriation of asylum seekers as widely as possible would be a vote-getter that the government would be very keen to get out into the public arena?
'Look, we're not only repatriating failed asylum seekers, but anybody in durable relationships with them as well' would go down a treat with some sections of Irish society.

In The Irish Independent today there's an article about the implications of changing the meaning of family - it specifically relates to reunification claims for immigration. What's interesting is the idea that having changed the definition of family in the constitution, the state can then redefine it back to the original meaning when it suits. In which cases will it carry the new or the old definition?

I was thinking of a woman I know who is currently being persecuted - there's no other word for it - by estranged family members who are making legal claims for access to her children despite having no relationship with them and never having shown interest in them until now. Will the new definition lead to an increase in this kind of harrassment? Whatever the outcome of the hearing, the process itself is punishment.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/changes-to-definition-of-family-in-referendum-could-lead-to-increase-in-people-seeking-reunification-with-family-who-emigrated-to-ireland-cabinet-warned/a1601313708.html

Sigh, the lack of transparency is frightening

Who knows?

But is enduring based on time frame or the closeness of relationship?

That should said

Should have been included

He doesn't give a rats ass about M&B's. It has been a painful process to date with deliberate exclusion of homes which be included not much loads of records missing.

To date the updates are about the placements which to date has been men

Anything under 10 months probably wont count as enduring.

Just wondering @elgreco with endurable relationship not defined, could be possible for women to claim endurable relationship with the baby

Think of how much less grief he would have had if the "Mother and Baby" homes were called "Gestational carriers and their Gifts" homes.

It honestly gets worse with every question I ask.

The surrogacy thing never occurred to me

I've been calling him ROD too.

Surrogacy is my best guess too. If the can get rid of the word mother, it can be replaced gradually; in HSE...etc documents, with gestational carrier.
Nobody will object to removing a baby from a gestational carrier because it is now a job not a relationship.

Not to be confused with the wonderful Ronan O Gara.

I think it may also have some implications for the changes to the laws around surrogacy that they're looking at.

Also I suspect it will expand the repatriation of extended family for asylum seekers.

In current climate they definitely do not want that information in the public arena.

Not releasing the minutes is a huge red flag and I think it is a financial disadvantage to women and they will the women's vote to pass this.

I seriously suspect that it is CB which is affected.

Just realised I've called him ROD all along, rather than ROG 😂oops.

Yeah, I mean they clearly know that the notes are going to damage their ambition to pass the referendum. Otherwise, they'd release them no problem. So there is a devil in the detail that they've identified. And that might be the purpose.

Fair enough, however I personally disagree that article 41.2 states or implies that a woman's place is only in the home. In fact nowhere in the constitution does it expressly state that 'a woman's place is in the home'.

In my view it doesn't consign women to a domestic role only, it simply recognises the importance of women and mothers role within the home. It certainly hasn't stopped women from working outside the home, as many women in Ireland already do.

It also removes the sole reference in the constitution to mothers, as previously mentioned by PegasusReturned upthread - which is unnerving to me given the recent nonsense pushed by the government to give priority to gender bullshit over biological reality and women's protections.

Also, ROD and his friends won't release the minutes of interdepartmental meetings which would have discussed how these changes would impact other laws, we don't yet know. According to ROD it's not in the 'public interest', I disagree.

The Department has refused access to all 64 pages of notes and minutes discussing the consequences of the amendments including tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers. The withheld records include minutes of 16 meetings of the cross-departmental group.

As for what a 'durable relationship' means - that's anyone's guess.

The whole thing seems messy and unnecessary.

For ne the tangible benefit will remove the archaic idea that womens place ( only) is in the home. It would be different if stay st home mams we're offered special protection but they are not. For me it's a meaningless platitude that ( as they are no additional supports) has no place in modern life. It would be different if this was reckobable time going towards pension contributions, additional meaningful allowances paid but its not. For me it's a pat on the head without any real substance. The above posts highlight the reason why people are voting no are specific mention the Constitution (which has no real meaning) and dislike if ROG. I am.absolutely open to learning, I am not being obtuse but can't see where womens and in particular objections are coming from.

I ignore the Iona Institute (literally have no idea what they've said about anything in years). I am not going to let them influence how I'll vote either by blanket agreeing with them or by blanket disagreeing. I am capable of making my own decisions.

Can I ask what actual tangible benefits you think Irish women will get from the changing of this wording? What has it stopped you from doing in life up until now?
I'm curious because the previous referendums - abortion and marriage equality were for a tangible change in the law that benefitted people in a meaningful way. With this referendum, I don't see what this change would do - it seems the wording changes are wishy washy at best. Also the fact that the government aren't releasing the meeting minutes which clarify how these changes will affect other laws is suspicious.

Also, while I abhor the Iona institute and many of the things they stand for, I think it is misguided to assume that just because they campaign for something it will automatically be bad just by association. Surely it's better to look at each issue individually on it's own merit than by just assuming that because you've disagreed with them before that you could never align on any issue in the future?