Why I am Voting 'No' in the Woman's/Mother's/Care Referendum on March 8th

Why I am Voting ‘No’ in the Women//Mothers//Care Referendum

Women in Ireland have inherited an imperfect legacy. In recent history it was illegal for a woman to own property, have a bank account, and work when she was married. She had to be ‘churched’ after giving birth as she was seen to be dirty until she did so. She could be raped by her husband with no retribution and could not leave her marriage even in instances of abuse. This created a horrible situation where some women felt (and were) trapped in bad situations and with no rights or ways out. This is without even mentioning the Magdalane Laundries for unmarried mothers.. And so of course in recent times, women wanted ‘progress’ from all the follies of the generations before, wanted feminism, wanted more recognition and rights in society. Of course. And yet, in our longing for green fields and fairer pastures, I wonder at times if we are unknowingly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Was not the great search for progress to have choice over our own lives and destiny? To have protections that supported our well being and the lives of our families?

This upcoming Women/Mothers/Care Referendum on the 8th of March is proposing to delete two very important articles that offer essential rights and protections for mothers, families and primary carers—indeed these articles were written a hundred years ago and are worded in a way that is ‘of their time’, and yet the protections these articles offer is timeless and essential for the healthy functioning of society. I do believe that it would be wise to update the wording to include fathers, primary carers and other guardians, and include the needs of disabled people—and yet the proposed replacement amendment does not include, or enforce, the protections that our society relies upon.

Our Constitution as it currently stands states in 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.”

And 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.”

The first of these two articles pay homage and tribute to the immense and immeasurable, unglamorous and essential, and deeply invisible work that women have historically and currently do for the benefit of society. It goes on to protect a mother’s (not woman’s) right to stay at home, if she chooses, to the benefit of her family and the homeplace, to not be ‘obliged by economic necessity’ to work outside the home. It does not say here, or anywhere, in our Constitution that a woman’s place is in the home—rather these two articles acknowledge the immense contribution women’s work has given to society from ‘which the common good cannot be achieved’ and offer a vital protection for a mother’s right to not work outside the home against her wishes due to economic necessity.

“Article 41.2 does not assign women to a domestic role. Article 41.2 recognises the significant role played by wives and mothers in the home. This recognition does not exclude women and mother from other roles and activities…the work is recognised because it has immense benefit for society.”

-Ms Justice Susan Denham, Former Chief Justice (Sinnott v. Minister for Education 2001- Supreme Court)

“[The Irish Constitution] does not say that [the women’s place is in the home]. It recognises that the work in the home is important for society and the common good.” -Justice Marie Baker, head of the Electoral Commission for the March 8th Referendum

In the upcoming referendum on March 8th—International Women’s Day—we are being asked to delete both of these articles of our Constitution and replace them with:

“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 a provision.”

This proposal that will replace the two articles, is watered-down, wishy-washy and does not offer or contribute any more Constitutional protections to anyone or any group. It also puts less of a duty on the government to act—in legal terms ‘strive to support’ is significantly weaker than ‘endeavour to ensure’. Additionally in our current Article 41.2 there is a clear path as to what we are endeavouring to ensure (that the mother or primary caregiver is supported to stay at home if she chooses) while in the proposed article what we are striving to support is very vague and unclear i.e. ‘the provision of care’ among family members. Independent Senator, Tom Clonan, has argued that the term "strive to" renders the provision meaningless. Saying that the wording "flies in the face of the aspiration for independence and autonomy, the right to independence and autonomy for disabled citizens as set out in Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities."

Many groups across Ireland that represent a wide variety of people that this vote directly affects have called for a ‘No’ Vote—these include Equality Not Care (representing disabled people across Ireland), Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Independent Living Movement Ireland, Free Legal Advice Centres and many groups that represent mothers and women. With the Irish Council for Civil Liberties saying that the proposed amendment “will not provide meaningful legal protection to any person who gives or receives care”. And disabled groups across Ireland saying that the amendment does not represent their needs at all, as it only recognises care among family members, and often disabled people want independence in their decision for care and do not want to be cared for by family members.

“The amendments as currently worded will not deliver meaningful enforceable rights and stronger Constitutional protection for women, families and carers, as well as other groups who experience discrimination and disadvantaged such as people with disabilities….this is a symbolic change that is absolutely empty…I repeatedly classify myself as a very strong feminist but this is an insult, and a double insult to hold it on International Women’s Day.“ -TD Catherine Connolly, barrister

Changing our Constitution is a massive deal, it is interpreted by the High Courts into our laws and policies that affect our everyday lives and the lives of the generations to come. How many of our laws and policies currently are based on these two amendments? Could we not alter the wording to be more inclusive, including fathers, other primary care-givers, and the needs of disabled people in these articles without losing these vital constitutional protections? How will this change affect Single-Parent Payment, which thousands of single-parent families around the country are dependent upon? What will happen to the single mother living in relative poverty, now forced by ‘economic necessity’ to leave her children for a minimum wage job at unsociable hours? What will happen to the welfare and wellbeing of her children? How will this affect maternity leave and child benefit? Minor changes in our Constitution can have very severe and wild-rippling real-world affects, it’s not just words on a piece of paper that we like the sound of or not. Perhaps this government might not affect the policies that can harm single-parent families, mothers and children—but who is to say a government in 10 or 50 years might take advantage of these Constitutional changes for the worse? Our Constitution was written not only to protect us alive and of voting age today, but of the generations yet to come. I believe we should be taking this vote very seriously and cautiously. I have heard so many politicians say that they are for a Yes vote, and yet they don’t agree with the wording that was chosen, that it is not what they wanted—‘but sure this change is better than nothing’. I deeply disagree and I am very concerned by this sentiment.

Article 41.2.2. was written in part to protect mothers but most importantly, I believe, to protect children and the next generation. There is an overwhelming amount of research that shows how our childhood, the first three years of our lives being the most important, creates the foundation from which we experience the world throughout the rest of our lives. What happens or doesn’t happen when we are young, vulnerable and deeply sensitive children has deep and ever-lasting consequences. The love we are not given, the emotional support and security that was not available, the unintentional neglect from too many competing priorities. Rearing children is one of the most important and full-on tasks in our society, it is the future of our world, the link to the generations yet to come—and it is full on 24/7 job. I know myself as I am a mother to a 7-month old baba. Our task as mothers, parents, adults is great and generally overlooked—to pass on skills, culture, values, a world that is richer and more beautiful than the one we inherited. How much of our violent crimes, mental health challenges, suicide, and drug use would be prevented if we prioritised supporting healthy family structures and ensuring that the mother, or other primary caregiver, was well-resourced for the immense job that is required to healthily rear children and bring them up to full maturity? How much does it cost society in the long-term when parents of children are undervalued, under-supported, stressed and unable to meet the emotional and physical needs of their children due to ‘economic necessity’? The cost is immense and has serious consequences for our world.

When a person becomes a mother, father or other primary caregiver/guardian one does have a duty to their dependent children, and neglecting this duty has grave consequences on the wellbeing of the children and society as a whole. If I adopt a dog, I have a duty of care to that dog—and I am responsible for their wellbeing. If I get a flock of laying hens, I have a duty to them and am responsible for wellbeing. For me, the term ‘duties in the home’ is not offensive and, is just referring to the indisputable fact of life that one has a duty to their family when one is the primary caregiver. Historically in Ireland, and in every traditional country throughout the world, a mother has generally been the primary carer of children—yet, this historical structure no longer represents modern Ireland. Indeed this article should be updated to be more inclusive to represent the families of today.

Article 41.2.2 was written to protect the health of the family, to allow the needs of the family to not be neglected due to ‘economic necessity’ of the mother or other primary caregivers. This is an essential and important protection to the health of our society.

 In our current referendum on March 8th, the government is asking us to delete these two vital articles and replace them with the proposed amendment Article 42B. This proposed amendment waters down our Constitutional rights and does not provide any stronger protections for mothers, families, carers, people with disabilities or any other vulnerable peoples. It only acknowledges care among family members which is in direct conflict with the care that most disabled people need. The proposed article does not acknowledge the immense contribution to society women have (often invisibly) done or protect the rights of mothers or other primary carers to support the healthy rearing of dependent children. I am deeply concerned about the affect this will have on the benefits that single-parents are currently entitled to as well as many other supports that support mothers and primary guardians/carers.

This is why I will be voting ‘No’ on the Mothers/Womens/Care Referendum on the 8th of March.

https://www.flac.ie/assets/files/pdf/flac_recommendations_to_strengthen_the_proposed_family_and_care_amendments_0124.pdf