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!

It doesn't erase women from the legislative framework, that's an overblown claim. It doesn't even remove the word women completely from the Constitution.

There's a Factcheck on that piece of misinformation. If you don't want to click on links, you can read a copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann and you'll see the other references to women. If the Amendment is passed it will remove the reference to the singular word "woman" not all references to women.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-women-in-home-referendum-erase-irish-constitution-6279204-Jan2024/

It’s not misinformation, you’re being disingenuous.

The only other references to women in Bunreacht na hÉireann are when conjoined with men i.e. “men and women” as one single group with no separate rights or

the excising of woman and mother from 41.2 removes the only references where woman and mother are given specific and separate protections to men and therefore considered a discrete group. That is important.

When seeking significant changes such as these the better question is what happens if no changes are made? Given no one has benefited from its existence, what is the point of a more broadly drafted, less robust provision?

Yeah, I don't see the point in replacing what's there with something arguably worse.
I agree with this. It's not so much that the articles don't need uodating. It's that the replacement wording is worse imho.

Irish feminists have been fighting for their removal since the inception of the Constitution in 1937.
There are many Irish feminists who'll be voting no on this @TheLongRider. In fact, all the people I've heard arguing for a no vote are feminists.

What is wrong with the wording of the proposed replacement Article?

"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."

A lot of the previous debate about this referendum was prior to the wording of proposed amendment. Now that it is available, would you care to discuss the wording?

I have provided evidence to support my statement that the original Article is not fit for purpose. Where is your evidence?

The so-called protections afforded to women and mothers under the current Constitution are not and have never been fit for purpose. It is like our blasphemy laws, again not fit for purpose and therefore removed.

A written Constitution is a living document in Ireland. That is why we are onto our 39th and 40th proposed Amendments to a Constitution that is not even 100 years old.

If you don't know ; Vote No .

In the immortal words of Frankie Howerd - Nay , nay and thrice nay !

Vote No for sure. ROG is a charlatan when it comes to women and children AFAIS. So I don't trust anything he says or advocates TBH.

The National Women's Council - a State funded NGO - has advocated a YES vote. That is another reason I'm voting no. They have a biological man on their executive board. They (trans) are a woman though for the Women's Council. Yep.

The vagueness of "Durable Relationship" is concerning. Also the fact that it is not defined in the proposal. So it will be left to the judiciary to define if challenged. That is a total cop out on behalf of the legislature. NO.

I might be voting with my heart not my head, but instinct is good in this case. NO.

And you want to replace the 'so called protections ' with waffle and piffle binning all mention of women or mothers . Grand so.

I have provided evidence to support my statement that the original Article is not fit for purpose. Where is your evidence?

I’m not sure anyone on this thread is arguing that the original article is for for purpose. I’m certainly not.

I’m arguing that we shouldn’t exchange it for an Article that is significantly less robust and removes women and mothers as a discreet category.

The article is not "robust", robust would imply that a woman compelled by economic necessity to stay at home would be able to claim for financial support from the State. This does not and has never happened and it has never been upheld in law.

I think your meaning of robust is as flimsy as a wisp of straw.

Again, for those of the hard of understanding, the proposed amendments do not remove all references to women in the Constitution.

Women are mentioned in two other places in the constitution (with men) where it is explicitly stated that we (like men) have a right to work for our livings if we so choose. It also mentions that young children should not be expected to work that could harm them. I wonder will they try to con us into removing that one next?

Anyone with experience of the way the HSE tries to transfer caring responsibilities not just to family, including extended family members, but even to neighbours (no kidding, that was suggested to me more than once wrt elderly parents need for emergency support) should be very wary of putting into the CONSTITUTION the idea that something woolly called a 'durable relationship' could make a person liable for care of another. Though the horrible situations that could produce might soften us all up for their next move, legalising killing people.

The constitution.

I lived my adult life in the arguments and the risk to women's lives and the expense of trying to unpick the meaning and effect of putting abortion into the constitution in 1983, and that was cut and dried compared to this.

Bottom line, in both cases, it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing, and would you really trust the present batch of politicians to do the right thing for anyone, particularly for the vulnerable?

Vote NO and NO

@TheLongRider , I'm sorry your mother had to leave her (probably public sector) job at the time of her marriage in or before 1973, but for more than half a century, under the present constitution, that has not been the experience of Irish women. The marriage bar in the context of this referendum is a red herring, and I wonder why you want to suggest it is in some way relevant?

I don't have a massive issue with the proposed wording to replace the woman in the home wording. However, I will be voting no for a number of reasons. The wording, as it stands, has been of no benefit to women. The proposed wording will be of no benefit to carers. Voting yes would imply support to the government's attempts to pretend it will. I will not vote to replace one piece of wooly nonsense to another piece of wooly nonsense. I would, however, vote yes if it was simply to remove the articles and not replace.

The enduring relationship one is a definite no. It is an undefined term that could be interpreted in a myriad of ways with God knows what consequences. I voted against the 8th Amendment in 1983 for two reasons - I'm pro-choice and the wording was vague and could be interpreted by the courts in a myriad of ways with God knows what consequences.

The fact Roderic O'Gorman has anything to do with the wording also has me worried. He is an out and out misogynist and I fear anything he has a hand in cannot be good for women.

Oh, and I'm a feminist.

Well said @DeanElderberry . References to the marriage bar in this context are a sign of desperation almost. We have had two women Presidents and many Cabinet Ministers despite this Article being in the Constitution.

I think your meaning of robust is as flimsy as a wisp of straw

@TheLongRider

I said “less robust” and have made it clear that I agree that the current Article is NOT fit for purpose. However the proposed Article is even worse.

it exchanges

the state shall “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity [to work outside of the home]” for

the state shall “strive to support such provision [of care].”

If the original is useless then the proposed is worse than useless

Again, for those of the hard of understanding, the proposed amendments do not remove all references to women in the Constitution.

Again for the terminally hard of understanding the proposed amendments ABSOLUTELY DO remove reference to women as a discrete category.

I wonder why a misogynistic prick like ROG would think that was a good thing?

As a woman and a carer I am voting No and No. As previous posters have pointed out anything that has Roderick O’G’s fingerprints on it is not anything good for women.

My reference to the marriage bar was not a red-herring. It was an example of the historic wrongs committed against women under the guise of the Article. Wrongs which women protested and attempted to litigate against but to no avail. Are you denying my mother's lived experience under the Constitution? My own life has been lived with no access to contraception and no access to abortion. I recently had to explain to my own teenage daughter about the Abortion referendum that happened in her lifetime. This has all happened within my mother's lifetime, she was born in 1938, one year after the Constitution came into force.

My example does not reek of desperation, if we do not know our history we will repeat it. I will definitely be voting NO to the 39th Amendment.

I am personally undecided as yet about the 40th Amendment. I am here for a factual discussion about the actual proposed Amendments, not scaremongering about the motivations of any future government. I have absolutely no love for Roderic O'Gorman.

I would prefer that there was an option for a complete deletion of Article 41.2.1 & 41.2.2. A complete removal was proposed by the Citizen's Assembly and was rejected by the Government.

You have had the legal right to use and to import barrier contraception and spermicide since 1973, fifty years ago, the right to be prescribed the pill since the 1960s, sixty years ago, and openly available contraception everywhere since the mid 1980s, forty years ago. Under the present constitution.

The marriage bar was lifted in 1973 in the public sector, and became illegal in the private sector in 1977.

I do not doubt your mother's, or my mother's, or your, or my, lived experience, but the constitution was not in any way responsible for it.

The deluded and dangerous introduction of the issue of abortion into the constitution in 1983 was the result of a public campaign as dishonest, sentimental, waffly and impractical as that being waged by proponents of a 'yes' vote this time.

I am here for a factual discussion about the actual proposed Amendments, not scaremongering

if that’s true then you’d probably do better without the insults and hyperbole 🤷‍♀️

@TheLongRider
The marriage bar was in existence in Ireland for many years before the Constitution came into being, and was removed without any change to the Constitution. One has nothing to do with the other.
It would be a mistake to vote yes on this basis.

I can claim citizenship - I wonder if I can get it done before 8th March? Bet I would have had to have registered before then.

We have corned beef in Scotland. At least we do where I am (central belt)

I'm moving south so 😁.