Tomás Ó Flatharta

Let’s keep it very simple. These 2 constitutional provisions are symbolic. 

The basic information is provided here : Electoral Commission Explanation of Care and Family Referendums in Ireland. We are concentrating on the Care Referendum, as some people on the Irish left are advocating a No vote, meaning that the existing reactionary sexist wording in DeValera’s 1937 Constitution will remain in place.

In any referendum you are only voting on the question you are asked – not on the question you would like to be asked.

Voters should ask themselves : Is the existing wording worse than the proposed changes? 

Yes or No?

Any objective left-wing and feminist reading of the relevant texts can only come to one conclusion : The proposed changes are better.

Laura Cahillane offers a detailed guide here :

According to Ireland’s constitution, a woman’s duties are in the home – but a referendum could be about to change its sexist wording

An important change – but an opportunity missed
The wording is a disappointment for those who had pushed for reform. While it replaces the gendered language and removes the implication that a woman’s proper place is in the home, it fails to commit the state to providing support for people who work in the home caring for others. They can no more expect to receive benefits or rights that compensate them for this essential work than they would have before the referendum.
The proposed text merely replaces the word “endeavour” with the word “strive”. This means it is unlikely to lead to any concrete rights or any legally recognisable duty on the part of the state.
So, while one historical anachronism looks set to be corrected in this referendum, Ireland is still essentially being asked to replace a non-operative clause containing outdated and patronising language with a new non-operative clause with slightly more acceptable language.
But disappointing though it may be that no positive rights or duties are likely to ensue, the removal from the constitution of a 1930s mentality that does not reflect in any way the reality of Irish life in the 21st century is at least an improvement – and surely worth a yes vote.

Therefore Vote Yes and Yes.

A number of people on the Irish left have changed their position during the campaign, following criticism of the proposed new wording. However, voting No means that existing reactionary wording stays in the constitution!

This deeply mistaken policy is a classic example of ultra-leftism – interested readers can consult a document published by Mick Barry TD and Ruth Coppinger of the Socialist Party https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sv9Fn4yXm02RAHAU7qCnEPsbQMtR-3hTEseyAHsh9HI/edit

This irrational Coppinger/Barry argument, summing up the comrades’ new position, is a left-wing absurdity :

There obviously needs to be a referendum to remove archaic sexism from the Constitution but since the referendum is not conferring any new right to women and ignores the rights of disabled people, we feel a Yes/No is appropriate.

A number of PBP supporters have expressed broadly similar views.

This carry-on turns the debate into a laughable circus, as happened during the 1986 Divorce Referendum campaign – 

Father Ted style slogans worked for the No Side :

We want Love ❤️ Not Divorce

We want Jobs Not 😫 Divorce

Down with this sort of thing!

At the start of the campaign Bríd Smith TD outlined a rational People Before Profit policy, similar to the views of Laura Cahillane :

while it is “great to be ditching the sexist archaic language”, it is a “shame that there is no firm commitment to the women, children and men who are the carers in our homes and wider communities. The far right are using these referendums to lie and stir up fear about gender and equality and decent people should reject their failed rhetoric.”

Bríd Smith TD, Irish Times, February 3 2024

At the time of writing, I do not know if Bríd Smith still promotes this rational policy.

These words are a rock of sense. Unfortunately a number of Bríd’s comrades have been lured into the land of “Down With This Sort of Thing”. Just to be clear – Let’s, for the purposes of an argument, accept that every one of the left-inclined criticisms of the new proposed wording are accurate – they are not worse than the existing wording.

Most of the organizations on the No side are a coalition from hell – the Catholic Bishops [the Men of God who were builders of a Carnival of Reaction in both states of partitioned Ireland]; Lawyers for No (including anti-choice campaigner Maria Steen and ex government minister Senator Michael McDowell, joined by an assortment of far-right gombeens and poltroons. This newspaper report gives us a flavour :

The press conference was attended by about 10 lawyers, including Clare Independent TD and barrister Michael McNamara; senior counsel Cormac Ó Dúlacháin; barrister and journalist Brenda Power; and Maria Steen, a full-time homemaker and qualified barrister.

Ms Power said she is very concerned the referendums will be decided before the Supreme Court hears an appeal on April 11th by the mother of a profoundly disabled boy who was refused the full means-tested carers allowance because her husband’s salary is €850 weekly.

Vote Yes and Yes on March 8 2024

"We are to be no longer citizens entitled to enjoy equal rights under a democratic constitution."

Inspired by Journalist Gertrude Gaffney who – joined by over 1,200 women – protested against Art. 41.2 in the Mansion House in 1937 #VoteYesYes this Friday! pic.twitter.com/7tKgq7Ddn4

— Womenscouncilireland (@NWCI) March 5, 2024

John Meehan March 5 2024