Sir, – Your reporter Mary Carolan (“Supreme Court to consider issues of ‘systemic importance’ for carers in appeal by mother of severely disabled man”, News, February 13th) alerts us to a forthcoming case the Supreme Court deems of “systemic importance” to carers.
The court proposes to consider the separation of powers between Oireachtas and court in relation to public expenditure, as well as the meaning of Article 41.2, which, the judges note, has “never been examined in the context of the provision of public funds to a parent obliged to care full-time for severely disabled children”.
These questions are obviously of central importance to the referendum proposals.
But we are being asked to vote on the abolition of Article 41.2 a month before the Supreme Court has an opportunity to consider what, in fact, the clause does mean for those providing full-time care in the home. Why?
The Government would have been aware of this case when it made its decision to hold a referendum on March 8th. The democratic thing to do would be to allow the Supreme Court to rule, enabling voters to make better informed choices on the referendum proposals. The referendum should be deferred until after the Supreme Court judgment. That Government has chosen to do otherwise should be a concern to all of us who value our democratic institutions. – Yours, etc,
C LOFTUS,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – I notice that much of the substance of the campaigns opposed to the upcoming referendums on the Constitution are based on fairly far-fetched speculation on unexpected consequences. Perhaps a little speculation in the other direction is in order. I suggest for example that there is nothing preventing a future court judgment from applying Article 41.2.2 literally and requiring the State to provide a living wage to any parent (given modern equality standards) who chooses to engage in “duties in the home”. This is certainly not a public expenditure I would like to see. The more non-committal support promised in the proposed text seems far more desirable, not to mention the proper removal of the utterly outdated language and sentiment as it stands. – Yours, etc,
JOHN GILHOOLY,
Barntown,
Co Wexford.
Sir, – Like most women, I’ve never liked Article 41.2 of the Constitution. The problem had always been that while women were assigned low-status, high-responsibility work, the men of Ireland kept remuneration out of it. I’m not convinced this amendment is an improvement. Its another insulting “thank you” for free labour without gender specifics. Meanwhile women continue to do the most difficult work with no pension rights or payment.
Women who give birth get no special thanks or reward. Any man who experienced that level of pain, having their internal organs rearranged, genitals reshaped and sewn back together again, would be the subject of a ticker-tape parade, long-running plays about heroic achievement, a freedom of the city and Late Late Show specials. Women are “daughters of Eve” and so there are no statutes to acknowledge their daily acts of heroism.
The initial proposal by the Labour Party to broaden the definition of family has been taken so far by this proposed referendum that it appears to be a nonsense. Would “families” have to register to be considered “families” for the purposes of social welfare and if couples didn’t want to get married would they be more willing to register? What about the Family Home Protection Act? The thorny questions of polygamy have been avoided.
I am inclined to vote No to both amendments because while they are an improvement on the 1937 articles, I believe they are designed to silence women for another hundred years and provide no actual improvement. A No vote, isn’t a vote for the Ireland of Dev and McQuaid; it’s a vote for a world where all the people of Ireland recognise the labour and achievements of women with suitable reward, not just a pat on the head. – Yours, etc,
SE LYDON,
Wilton,
Cork.
Sir, – Can any Government spokesperson explain the precise difference between “shall support” and “shall strive to support”?
The verb following the first “shall” would confer a strong and measurable legal commitment to action whereas the second is merely aspirational. The first could be legally enforceable. However, if governments were to be held to account (as they never will be) for failing to live up to promises and aspirations, the courts would be exhausted. The Government has given itself a very handy get-out or wriggle-room clause by obliging itself constitutionally to “strive”. Whether it has done so through deliberate obfuscation or linguistic ineptitude, let the people decide. – Yours, etc,
RAYMOND SHEEHAN,
Las Palmas,
Spain.
Sir, – I see that there was a referendum wording recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly which included a more meaningful phrase: “oblige the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community”.
“Oblige” might move the Government a fraction closer along the very wide space between aspiration and implementation.
About the rationale for removing the word “home” from the proposed wording, I’m wondering whether it has anything to do with the fact that many citizens to whom this referendum should apply do not have a home, durable or otherwise? – Yours, etc,
INGRID MASTERSON,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – We are being asked to vote on changing the wording of our Constitution and await the Supreme Court’s ruling to tell us what we meant. Hmm! – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY HARRIS,
Dublin 6.