Referendums 24, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be? (1 Viewer)

[Jill Hives]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but do I have this right…?

Vote Yes: “caregiver” extends to more than just a “mother”, which is a good thing, however, in doing so, it allows the government to do nothing or less than they are currently doing to help those in need.

Vote No: It stays the same, only allowing the mother to be considered a “caregiver” to receive help but at least the government are tied to help, even if it’s not enough but they need to do something.

So, both options are bad, and they’ve spent how much money to publicise this, and most people don’t understand (including myself here) or don’t care about it?

It just seems profoundly sad and more misspent government money.

 

[ernesto]

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

A c u n t

 

[egg_]

it allows the government to do nothing or less than they are currently doing to help those in need.

This is the bit I have a problem with. I don't see how the amendment does this, and afaics the objections are because the amendment isn't forcing the govt to to more rather than allowing them to do less

 

[egg_]

Even the argument here ‘The care amendment and single issue feminism’ (which is the most reasonable argument for "no" that I've seen) isn't an actual objection to the new wording - instead it's basically saying "it's good to vote no because this part of the constitution is embarrassing, so there will be another amendment to change it and maybe that'll be one we like more"

 

[Jill Hives]

This is the bit I have a problem with. I don't see how the amendment does this, and afaics the objections are because the amendment isn't forcing the govt to to more rather than allowing them to do less

Language loop-hole, innit?

 

[egg_]

Language loop-hole, innit?

I don't see how there's more of a loophole in the amendment than there was in the original. Do you?

 

[Jill Hives]

I don't see how there's more of a loophole in the amendment than there was in the original. Do you?

Slightly, yes.

Endeavour is more earnest and industrious of a word than strive. Endeavour has more “taking it on” connotations. Strive seems more like …. “We’ll do our best “ which most assume that’s means, “we’ll do what’s best for ourselves.” I think it’s just mistrust of government and their disbursements of spending.

 

[egg_]

Ok fair enough - I mean I disagree, but fair enough I really can't see a legal argument being made on that basis, unless those words have specific legal meanings

 

[Cormcolash]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but do I have this right…?

Vote Yes: “caregiver” extends to more than just a “mother”, which is a good thing, however, in doing so, it allows the government to do nothing or less than they are currently doing to help those in need.

Vote No: It stays the same, only allowing the mother to be considered a “caregiver” to receive help but at least the government are tied to help, even if it’s not enough but they need to do something.

So, both options are bad, and they’ve spent how much money to publicise this, and most people don’t understand (including myself here) or don’t care about it?

It just seems profoundly sad and more misspent government money.

I haven't really been paying a huge amount of attention to the whole thing, but this seems to be a pretty succinct interpretation of it all as far as I've been hearing, and I guess that's why so many people are calling the new wording shit.

 

[pete]

Also worth remembering that the Irish language version takes precedence anyway, so start reading that one instead.

 

[ann post]

I really can't see a legal argument being made on that basis, unless those words have specific legal meanings

What basis do you think legal arguments are made on?

(this is a rhetorical question)

 

[egg_]

Not on the basis of a difference between "endeavour" and "strive"

 

[Jill Hives]

Ok fair enough - I mean I disagree, but fair enough I really can't see a legal argument being made on that basis, unless those words have specific legal meanings

I’m not disagreeing with you as they are synonyms BUT I can also see why people might be concerned or worried.

Slippery pricks.

 

[ann post]

Not on the basis of a difference between "endeavour" and "strive"

Well a quick search of the rest of the constitution of the country for times 'endeavour' is used it seems to carry some weight, while the one instance of strive is dubious enough so as much as people hate an evidence based arguement on the internet, there is that.

Anywhooo you are getting focussed on the meaning of two words and completely ignoring the other bit of the sentence that references 'economic necessicity'. If you can 100% prove that there is no legal difference in the words the other half the sentence is still being deleted removing the economic support side from the thing which does have a huge value for people. That's not like, my opinion man, that's what the proposal is.

 

[egg_]

Not fair @ann post - you know that I'm all about evidence, where it's available. A word count is the flimsiest of evidence

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand that state support for disabled people is incredibly important. I just don't see that the following clauses consitute a promise to provide it:

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.”

Do you, personally, think they do?

 

[Unicron]

Also worth remembering that the Irish language version takes precedence anyway, so start reading that one instead.

Is it true that they nearly accidentally banned hetero marriage after the equality vote because someone drafted the Irish badly?

 

[ann post]

Not fair @ann post - you know that I'm all about evidence, where it's available. A word count is the flimsiest of evidence

I didn't do a word count, i read all six paragraphs in the constitution that use the term and considered wether they've been applied or not.

My opinon is largeley informed by A: The FLAC release B: people i know who are great at law who have disabilities returning to online life entirely to try and make the argument for people with disabilities C: as mentioned before the parallel action by govt which is going to 'grade' disabilities which i mentioned already. Personally, on balance of reading contributions from people who speak legalese and understand disability rights I personally think they do.

SPOILER (THE FLAC release for reference)

Spoiler: it makes the post smaller

FLAC is of the view that the wording of the proposed ‘care’ amendment is as ineffective as the current so-called ‘women in the home’ provision. It is unlikely to provide carers, people with disabilities or older people with any new enforceable rights or to require the State to provide improved childcare, personal assistance services, supports for independent-living, respite care or supports (at home or in school) for children with disabilities. The amendment would give constitutional expression to harmful stereotypes such as the concept that the provision of care, including the care of older adults and adults with disabilities, is the private responsibility of unpaid family members without any guarantee of State support. Like the explicitly sexist ‘women in the home’ provision, the proposed Article 42B endorses a status quo where women undertake the bulk of unpaid care work and places no obligation whatsoever on the State to redress this gender imbalance – rendering it an implicitly sexist amendment. It also would give constitutional expression to the harmful stereotype of people with disabilities as the subjects of family care rather than autonomous individuals and rights-holders. The proposed new wording does nothing to enhance (and potentially compromises) the rights of people with disabilities as set out in the UNCRPD. On the basis of this analysis, and 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.

 

[Unicron]

Well a quick search of the rest of the constitution of the country for times 'endeavour' is used it seems to carry some weight, while the one instance of strive is dubious enough so as much as people hate an evidence based arguement on the internet, there is that.

Couple of tweets from a con law lecturer on usage of the word strive in the constitution.

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

The term "non-justiciable" (I know going to a dictionary and getting a definition isn't a good idea always) means:

not capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court of justice.

 

[dudley]

Ye are all just making this waaaaay more confusing for my little brain

 

[egg_]

I didn't do a word count, i read all six paragraphs in the constitution that use the term and considered wether they've been applied or not.

Ok

Here are the relevant paragraphs, so everyone can judge for themselves whether "endeavour" is a stronger word than "strive"

2° the state shall endeavour to secure that private
enterprise shall be so conducted as to ensure
reasonable efficiency in the production and
distribution of goods and as to protect the public
against unjust exploitation.

2° the state shall endeavour to ensure that the
strength and health of workers, men and women,
and the tender age of children shall not be abused
and that citizens shall not be forced by economic
necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex,
age or strength.

the education of public opinion being,
however, a matter of such grave import to
the common good, the state shall
endeavour to ensure that organs of public
opinion, such as the radio, the press, the
cinema, while preserving their rightful
liberty of expression, including criticism
of Government policy, shall not be used
to undermine public order or morality or
the authority of the state.

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 state shall provide for free primary education
and shall endeavour to supplement and give
reasonable aid to private and corporate
educational initiative, and, when the public good
requires it, provide other educational facilities or
institutions with due regard, however, for the
rights of parents, especially in the matter of
religious and moral formation.

1° in exceptional cases, where the parents,
regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty
towards their children to such extent that the
safety or welfare of any of their children is likely
to be prejudicially affected, the state as guardian
of the common good shall, by proportionate
means as provided by law, endeavour to supply
the place of the parents, but always with due
regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of
the child.