Referendums 24, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be? (2 Viewers)

[egg_]

because it is a missed opportunity for the rights of women, carers, older people and people with disabilities, FLAC does not support the ‘care’ amendment

Does nobody else find this kinda stupid? They're calling for a "no" because this amendment is not some other amendment?

 

[ann post]

Does nobody else find this kinda stupid? They're calling for a "no" because this amendment is not some other amendment?

From the disability perspective people have been asking for full ratification of the UN protocol for years. Instead we get a lame watering of the current wording which is effectively a step back from what has been asked for a decade. rubberstamping somethign the govt is pushing for a yes on is only going to encourage them to do fuck all for another decade. making them look like dicks is a part of democracy.

 

[GARYXKNIFEDX]

It's not like they've been doing any more than fuck all for years.

 

[egg_]

Does anyone think a "no" vote will change that?

 

[ann post]

You can call me ann like.

 

[ann post]

meanwhile on the electoral commission website:

 

[Cormcolash]

Does anyone think a "no" vote will change that?

Is there any reason to think that a 'yes' vote will lead to any progression on the issue in the following decades?

 

[ann post]

Is there any reason to think that a 'yes' vote will lead to any progression on the issue in the following decades?

Leo sees it as a handover of state having a duty of care to it being a domestic matter in the long term.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ann post]

I couldn't find the clip without the tik tok style edits.

 

[therealjohnny]

Leo sees it as a handover of state having a duty of care to it being a domestic matter in the long term.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'd imagine this clip will ensure a no on the green ballot for anyone who sees it.

 

[pete]

I'd imagine this clip will ensure a no on the green ballot for anyone who sees it.

He was on the wireless saying the opposite just there now.

 

[therealjohnny]

He was on the wireless saying the opposite just there now.

 

[pete]

Also I’d like to have heard what the question he was asked was, and the second half of what appears to be a cut off sentence that may or may not form part of a longer answer. Context does matter.

 

[egg_]

Is there any reason to think that a 'yes' vote will lead to any progression on the issue in the following decades?

Well no, but the "issue" this referendum addresses is women being characterised, in the constitution, as carers. Or at least I thought it was the whole point of this referendum? Why would a 'yes' vote lead to progress on any other issue?

 

[egg_]

And c'mere - does anybody think kids are the State's responsibility? I fully support the State helping out parents, but the parents surely bear the primary responsibility for their kids.

... and what the fuck is that tweet going on about "if ur on less than 200k a year" - is anybody here on more than 200k a year? Anyone here failing to look after their children because they're not?

 

[dudley]

eh, is anyone here *not* on 200k a year??

 

[ann post]

Well no, but the "issue" this referendum addresses is women being characterised, in the constitution, as carers. Or at least I thought it was the whole point of this referendum? Why would a 'yes' vote lead to progress on any other issue?

You have to read the other posts rather than continually repeating the same question sexy Gandalf.

Ignore the women in the home bit
It's the detail in the position of care being state/family responisibilty that all us boring people with disabilities keep harping on about.

Lookit:

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.”

being replaced by

“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.”

So looking past the gender part - what it's doing in terms of care is removing

" not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home"

So that's a nice loophole to have no legal basis to support carers.

Further on that end

replacing 'ensure' with 'strive'.

I can ensure this post is written, or I can strive to finish it, in which case it may not be finished.

Maybe it's easy for me to see this difference because I'm a state dependent adult with a chronic pain condition?

Example: A friend of mine has a child who will be dependent for life due to their condition. Once the parents are out of the picture that kid is in the hands of whatever family are left over under the new wording, or if the family have all died too, then we need to have a state system in place to be decent society. This new wording is putting that in legal doubt.

 

[ann post]

eh, is anyone here *not* on 200k a year??

Before or after tax?

 

[dudley]

Before or after tax?

Don't you use the Thumped off shore?

 

[Unicron]

And c'mere - does anybody think kids are the State's responsibility? I fully support the State helping out parents, but the parents surely bear the primary responsibility for their kids.

I think the citizenry and other residents of the state are to varying degrees the state's responsibility yes and no one should be living in poverty in a wealthy society. What is the point of a state if not to try to make things as good as possible for the people that comprise it?

I'll never have kids so will never benefit from these but when it comes to kids I've no problem with the state paying for the education of children, the children's allowance payments their parents receive, the GP cards that all under 8's are entitled to, the other medical benefits available to under 16s and in some cases under 18's regardless of whether their parents are entitled to a medical card, the childhood vaccines they recieve etc etc.