TERFs and the Irish referendum

[theDudesmummy]

Could any kind Irish MNer break down for me the reasoning around how a TERF should be voting in the referendum on 8 March? I am not usually thick but I am struggling to get my head around it, and would also like to explain to fully TERFy DH. (We are British, not Irish yet, not fully steeped in all the ins and outs of Irish politics. We moved here in 2020, and we have the right to vote in referendums here). Thanks!

Sorry but I don't think you do have the right to vote in referendums.

You need to be an irish citizen.

All Irish citizens who are on the Register of Electors, the Postal Voters List or the Special Voters List can vote in a referendum.

www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/types-of-elections-and-referendums/constitutional-referendum-in-ireland/

I started a thread on this the other day might help. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4999605-march-8th-irish-referendum-on-mothers-in-the-home

Follow The countess and other Irish GCs on twitter lots of discussion there.

You should be voting No.

essentially a consequence of the not in reasonable attempt to broaden the language around support for families and carers has resulted in a proposal to remove the word woman and the specific rights afforded women in the constitution. It’s seen as an attempt to strike the words woman and women from the legislative framework.

You can’t vote in the referendum unless you’re an Irish citizen.

Hope you are enjoying being in Ireland. I moved from Ireland to Scotland in 2007. (I miss corned beef 😁)

No, you have the right to vote in Dáil and local elections , you don't have the right to vote in referendums unless you're an Irish citizen, so you don't need to worry about this one at all

Big fat No, no,no.

The social welfare system already provide a financial safety net for carers etc.

That mother at home is lovely clause it is the only place in modern Ireland that recognises the work mothers do at home.

Our tax system is designed that both parents are encouraged to work.

And to be blatantly honest anything Roderick O'Gorman (minister of made up letter salad) is behind is damaging to women.

HI, thanks for the replies. My DH clearly had the wrong end of the stick, he told me we could vote in it and I didn't check! Sorry about that. Oh well, we are eligible to apply for Irish citizenship next year, roll on 2025!

Hi, sorry I was a bit abrupt earlier.
I thought it was important you knew you couldn't vote before writing anything longer.

My reasons are as follows:
The clause mentioning women and mothers in the home has not held me or other women back from working outside the home.
There were laws that did historically but they are now gone.
When actual women wanted rid of this wording 30/40 years ago, nobody gave a fuck.

I am highly suspicious of RODs involvement in this. He fucked women and children over in the mother's and baby home scandal. I dont believe he is doing this for the women!

Ireland has moved with the times but due to the bigger sized families we still have, shorter school days and long school holidays there are still a large ammount of sahms here. We have a much higher rate than most eu countries. I think that this unpaid labour should be respected.

I also object to the vagueness of the whole thing.

This particularly bothers me with the proposed 2nd ammendment.
The wording replacing marriage with enduring relationship is ridiculous. What does that mean?

The wording replacing marriage with enduring relationship is ridiculous. What does that mean?

Not following Irish politics, but my presumption would be that this is opening the gate to greater rights in law for cohabitants. Like in Scotland, where the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 gave cohabitants various rights, including a right to raise a claim for up to what they would have got through prior rights as a spouse in intestate succession, to the detriment of the deceased's children.

@elgreco thanks for the information and perspective. I am trying very much to get up to speed on Irish politics/culture/society etc as we prepare to hopefully actually become Irish citizens next year! It is obviously not always easy to map one's UK politics/social attitudes/understandings onto the Irish situation (although current UK politics has left me politically homeless there).

If they mean cohabitatants they should use that word surely, so clearly they mean relationships that do and don't include cohabitation.

Enduring relationship is so vague.

What the hell is that? I had a longer enduring relationship with my dog than my son's father.

It will interesting to see the potential court challenge down the road to define it.

Having read both articles, my advice is to vote 'no', because the intention is to remove women from the constitution and to remove also the central importance of home, family and motherhood without which no society can thrive. The removal of 41.2 also supports neo-liberal ideas that only the economy matters and activities which do not make a profit in monetary terms are worthless - definitely a 'no' to that. Irish sisters, do not be angry that I should comment here. Women need to stick together for our rights are, again, under attack.

Personally, my intention (at the moment, unless something amazing happens) is to vote no.

First of all, I don't agree with the concept of durable relationships being equal to marriage. Marriage is opt in and open to all adults and some of the legalities surrounding marriage is quite onerous. I see no reason to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to those who don't make a positive choice and agreement to acquire them together. People should be free to have relationships that are not marriage if they want.

Secondly, regarding women in the home. I don't see the current wording as an impediment to me or any other woman and I don't see the change benefitting me or any other woman. In fact, nobody promoting the change has managed to come up with a single plausible way in which making this change will change anything. So I don't know what it's for. However, if O'Gorman's involved, I just feel that whatever comes of it won't be better for women. Had the proposal been to delete this article, I would have been disposed to vote in favour of that.

https://citizensassembly.ie/overview-previous-assemblies/assembly-on-gender-equality/

We held a Citizen's Assembly to discuss this Article and all the information that informed the proposed new legislation is available at the link above. Including expert submissions and the decisions taken.

The current article in the Constitution is of absolutely no use to women, it has been cited in legal cases against the State to try and enforce the so-called rights in the article, but all of them have failed. It only pays lip service to the role of women in the home or in caring situations, the State has always weaselled out of actually financially supporting SAHP. My own mother had to leave employment because of the marriage bar in the 1970's and she certainly wasn't "compensated for her work in the home".

It is a bullshit, backwards article that needs to be erased from the Constitution. Since the introduction of progressive taxation, the only financial compensation available to a stay at home mother was the "home carers tax credit".

The Iona Institute is campaigning for a No vote and any argument that includes those anti-abortion, anti-divorce, pro-Catholic feckers means that I will be running fast in the opposite direction.

For those asking about cohabitation, since 2011 there are laws in place regarding the status of committed cohabitants. If you are financially dependent in a relationship, if the relationship breaks down you can make a financial claim on your former partner if the relationship is at least of two years duration if you have children or five years without children. This includes claims on the estate of a deceased partner. You can only opt-out if you have a legal agreement in place.

TL:DR The article is not fit for purpose, it has been extensively discussed, no-one has benefitted from its existence, it needs to go.

Respectfully, TheLongRider, I disagree.

Disagree with what part of my post? I have stated nothing but facts as opposed to your opinion.

Show me the practical support the State has shown to women under this Article of the Constitution.

We know it is of no practical use.
A gender neutral version is also of no practical use.
So why change it?

If they wanted to reword marriage as cohabiting they could have. They didn't.
What does enduring relationship mean?

On "enduring relationships" my opinion is that the Government has muddied the waters by using this phrase rather than phrases such as "commited relationship" or "cohabitants" as are used elsewhere in Irish legislation.

I refer you to the record of the Dáil debates on a proposed amendment. The Minister sets out some of his remaining behind the use of the phrase "enduring relationships".

There are two votes in this referendum. The 39th Amendment and the 40th Amendment. The Electoral Commission website sets out the wording and legal implications of a YES and NO vote to each amendment.
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/

The 40th Amendment, in this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The proposal involves deleting Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B, as shown below:

Original

Article 41.2.1° “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.”

Article 41.2.2° “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.”

Replacement

“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”

I support the removal of Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 and their replacement with the new text. The original articles are not and were never fit for purpose. Irish feminists have been fighting for their removal since the inception of the Constitution in 1937.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2024-01-17/11/

You can vote in some elections though coz my ex was British and did so. I'm voting No. Once some sexist crap is written into the Constitution it can take decades to take it out. Witness Repeal and Divorce.

“TL:DR The article is not fit for purpose, it has been extensively discussed, no-one has benefitted from its existence, it needs to go”

it may well “need to go” but the alternative won’t add any benefits and erases women from the legislative framework.

Yeah, I don't see the point in replacing what's there with something arguably worse. The fact is that women do do the bulk of family care and pretending otherwise won't change that.