Sir, – The statement made by Michael McDowell, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it” (Opinion & Analysis, January 10th), concerning the impending referendum, has been weighing heavily on my mind.
Just because “it’s not broken” for the Senator doesn’t mean it isn’t broken. This perspective completely overlooks the daily struggles faced by many in our society, particularly family carers who battle each and every day for basic supports and services, often to the point of burnout.
How is it not broken when we have children languishing on waiting lists for essential therapies and supports? Every day spent on a waiting list represents a missed opportunity for these children to reach their full potential not to mention the physical pain so many endure. Families are left feeling helpless and frustrated as they navigate bureaucratic hurdles and endless waiting times.
Likewise, it is most certainly broken for the thousands of disabled people who face insurmountable barriers in accessing essential services such as personal assistants, and encounter systemic discrimination and exclusion, limiting their participation in society and infringing on their basic human rights. And then there are the thousands of unmarried couples and single parents who are not recognised or protected in our Constitution. This exclusion not only undermines the legitimacy of these family units but also leaves them vulnerable to legal and social inequities. How is that not broken?
This referendum, while by no means a panacea, is a small but significant step towards rectifying these major shortcomings. It will enshrine equality for women and men, reflect the diverse family dynamics and societal roles present today, and recognise the shared responsibility of care.
A No vote would mean the continuation of the status quo for family carers, leaving them without the formal recognition and enhanced support that the proposed constitutional amendments aim to provide. This outcome would likely perpetuate existing challenges such as inadequate support systems, limited policy development tailored to carer needs, and the ongoing invisibility of family carers within societal and legal frameworks.
Conversely, a Yes vote would acknowledge the indispensable role of family carers and place an onus on government to support this care, marking a significant, albeit initial stride toward inclusivity and equality.
I urge everyone to not let the quest for a perfect solution impede the progress this referendum represents.
The wording on care is far from perfect but it does signal progress.
Let’s move forward together and vote Yes Yes for a more inclusive, caring society. – Yours, etc,
CATHERINE COX,
Head of Communications and Policy,
Family Carers Ireland,
Kilkenny.
Sir, – Minister for Minister for Children and Equality Roderic O’Gorman wants us women and mothers to ask ourselves, Monty Python-style, “what has Article 41.2 ever done for us?” (Opinion & Analysis, February 12th). We have the chance to consign a narrow view of families and women to the past, apparently. It’s not Article 41.2 that has “delivered nothing for women in the 90 years since it was passed”, it is all the governments that failed to deliver on the promise of the article that no mother shall be “obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”. If I agree to vote to “extend rights and protections” to others, what guarantee do I have that any future government will do anything about them either?
In my view, all I will be definitely achieving is the deletion of the words “woman” and “mother” from the Constitution. Am I “big enough and kind-hearted enough” to do that? Or, Mr O’Gorman, am I just a big meanie? You’ll have to come up with a better argument than that to get me to vote Yes. – Yours, etc,
E BOLGER,
Dublin 9.
A chara, – What if the State, since 1937, had actually taken positive steps to implement Article 41, Section 2 of the Constitution so that the desired result had by now been achieved? “The State shall 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.”
If that were now the case, would there still be a demand for change in that provision?
Can anybody provide a full list of all the “endeavours” so far taken by the State regarding this provision? The current position is that mothers are now under more pressure than before “to engage in labour”.
If the State has not engaged effectively with this constitutional mandate, can we have any confidence that, in the words of the proposed amendment in the new Article 42B, the State will now “strive to support such provision” of care by members of a family to one another?
Can anybody provide a list of suggested “strivings” which it is proposed would be an improvement on what it is proposed to delete?
The Minister for Equality Roderic O’Gorman told the Law Society that Article 41.2 which the Government is proposing to delete “hasn’t delivered anything, not one extra benefit for women or mothers” (News, February 2nd).
He acknowledges total failure. However, he seems to lay the responsibility for this on Article 41.2 rather than on the State.
Perhaps some of our learned friends in the Law Society thought to remind the Minister that no law or constitutional provision, however admirable, will deliver anything if the State neglects its duties in the Oireachtas to take constructive action on it.
Is the emperor seeking to replace its original 1937 clothing with a grand new 2024 suit of care-free clothing? – Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Sandyford,
Dublin 16.