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

[egg_]

I wonder are those parts of the constitution "non justicable"

 

[ann post]

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

TLDR if you don't throw the disabled under a bus by 10pm on friday you are sexist.

 

[egg_]

Afaics FLAC's argument is essentially this:

• The amendment would give constitutional expression to harmful stereotypes
• [vote no] because [the referendum] is a missed opportunity for the rights of women, carers, older people and people with disabilities
• The proposed new wording does nothing to enhance (and potentially compromises) the rights of people with disabilities

It's the bolded bit that would make me vote "no" if I could find a reasonable explanation for how it might compromise disabled people's rights

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

Can you give us a few links?

 

[ann post]

I wonder are those parts of the constitution "non justicable"

We have free education and I know for sure we have media law, we have single parent and child allowances, we have pretty crappy state care, the CCPC, we have laws around child labour and sick pay so who knows I guess?

@egg_ I mean like I could, but you keep coming back with progressively more pointless arguements. The FLAC are all legal professionals and you are failing to see why they'd make the arguement. The reason is the made it in english rather than legalese or what? Like this is going in circles man and all you've spent the day doing is try and deconstruct the idea that a disabled person might want to live outside a house in which an unpaid carer is their source of sustenance. I think you've gone into a haze an aren't really considering it all, you are just hoping you'll corner me but you've skipped economic issue at every turn.

It's on you to justify your reason to push that aside at this point dude, go for it.

 

[egg_]

you've spent the day doing is try and deconstruct the idea that a disabled person might want to live outside a house in which an unpaid carer is their source of sustenance

I absolutely have not, and that's an unfair thing to say. I've spent a big chunk of my day trying to figure out how I should vote in the care amendment.

 

[ann post]

I absolutely have not, and that's an unfair thing to say. I've spent a big chunk of my day trying to figure out how I should vote in the care amendment.

Are you sure? because you've skipped the economic question every single time including this time which think might be the 3rd/4th? and that is the outcome the econmic question is offering- that's what people from disability backgrounds are talking about.IF you want to decide how to vote you cant do it without considering that element.

 

[Cormcolash]

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

I will endeavour to make it more straightforward, you should strive to understand better

 

[egg_]

Yes I am sure. I just can't see see how removing a (false) constitutional promise that women won't be forced by economic necessity to work outside the home has implications for people with disabilities. If it does then how?

(I read the article about the mother suing the state because they didn't adequately help her to care for her kid ... but she lost that case!)

 

[ann post]

Yes I am sure. I just can't see see how removing a (false) constitutional promise that women won't be forced by economic necessity to work outside the home has implications for people with disabilities. If it does then how?

I've given you literal real life examples and you ignored them.

 

[egg_]

You've posted a single real life example about the child of a friend, in which you claim the amendment creates legal doubt about the kid's entitlement to support. I'm not ignoring you, I just (as I said) don't see the connection. Afaics the kid has no constitutional right to support NOW (only the child's mother has) and the amendment doesn't change that

I'm not trying to corner you, I'm trying to find a solid reason to vote no

 

[ann post]

You've posted a single real life example about the child of a friend, in which you claim the amendment creates legal doubt about the kid's entitlement to support. I'm not ignoring you, I just (as I said) don't see the connection. Afaics the kid has no constitutional right to support NOW (only the child's mother has) and the amendment doesn't change that

I'm not trying to corner you, I'm trying to find a solid reason to vote no

so removing the bit of text about econimic necessity to support care in the home - It will be legal to remove the economic supports for the above mentioned people*. It's almost like i've been trying to convince you to look at the economic support section of the sentence.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

I just can't see see how removing a (false) constitutional promise that women won't be forced by economic necessity to work outside the home has implications for people with disabilities. If it does then how?

From the FLAC website from last December:
“the addition of the proposed new Article 42B would create a situation where the only mention of people with disabilities in the Constitution is an implicit reference to them as the subject of family care.”

It’s not the removal of women from the article, it’s the framing of burden of care being placed on the family. I agree with @ann post that this has huge implications for so many people, from the increased cost of that burden to the dehumanising prospect of reducing disabled people down to just being precisely that: a burden. Which, as a disabled person married to a disabled person (both of whom work with the disabled), is horrific.

And if you’re pondering now over the meaning of endeavour or strive in terms of obligation, just think how satisfied you’ll be to find out exactly what a judge thinks the meaning is in a few years after some family take the government to court for a long, expensive battle to justify their existence and need for care?

 

[ann post]

And if you’re pondering now over the meaning of endeavour or strive in terms of obligation, just think how satisfied you’ll be to find out exactly what a judge thinks the meaning is in a few years after some family take the government to court for a long, expensive battle to justify their existence and need for care?

Meeting the expense of that might be based on what tier you, partner or clients are on too based on the (fucking) green paper

 

[Jill Hives]

I consider myself rather progressive but it seems a bit of “wag the dog” … pose it as progressive to distract that it’s actually regressive. If they merely wanted to change the definition of caregiver, why change any other wording while doing it?

It doesn’t seem right or maybe I’m just cynical. It is my default nature when it comes to people in power over those less fortunate.

My first instinct was “of course” but as time has passed, I’m more towards no now. Let them bring another one with better wording.

 

[pete]

Unfortunately there's no option for "No, try again". Just "No".

 

[Cormcolash]

No, organise the Thumped Christmas Party instead

 

[ann post]

Unfortunately there's no option for "No, try again". Just "No".

Spoil would be the closest but the cafflicks are backing no/no so not repping the yes on the other side would end up reflecting the minority rather than the the reality.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Unfortunately there's no option for "No, try again". Just "No".

There is. It’s called contacting your TD, supporting disability advocates, and voting for candidates who recognise that this is an issue. And letting those who don’t make it an issue know that’s why you’re not voting for them.

 

[pete]

There is. It’s called contacting your TD, supporting disability advocates, and voting for candidates who recognise that this is an issue. And letting those who don’t make it an issue know that’s why you’re not voting for them.

By friday?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

No, clearly not. Vote no and then move on with the above plan. It’s a referendum affecting the rights and entitlements of a huge section of society. This particular case isn’t an example of perfect getting in the way of good, it’s a bad proposal.