Sir, – We live in a society that too often defaults to a paternalistic viewpoint, herding thousands of disabled individuals into institutions without a second thought. A society where abuses against disabled people are a daily occurrence, often met with silence even upon exposure. Many disabled people find themselves effectively institutionalised within their own homes by the absence of essential personal assistance services. Homeless disabled individuals make up a staggering 25 per cent of the homeless demographic. This country’s treatment of disabled persons falls shamefully short of recognising our full humanity.
Article 42 isn’t aimed at bettering the lives of disabled people, older people, or anyone in dire need of State support. It places continued responsibility for support on family members who are women in the main.
Can any politician, organisation, or legal authority convincingly explain how a Yes vote would genuinely benefit disabled people? To date, the discourse has been devoid of any substantial assurance. The mere suggestion that a Yes vote might lead to more funding is a damning reflection of a system that leverages essential rights for political gain.
I am utterly exhausted by the continuous mistreatment of disabled individuals. It must come to an end. This conversation needs a shift towards concrete action and genuine improvement in the lives of every member of all families on an equal basis, rather than empty promises.
It’s time to prioritise the rights and dignity of all individuals, especially the most vulnerable among us. Our voices must be included in this debate. Public debates, media coverage and other spaces where the referendum is being debated must include those of us who believe we are most affected in the conversation.
As a disabled person, I will not be patronised and ignored. I will make my voice heard. I will vote No. – Yours, etc,
ANN MARIE FLANAGAN,
Ennistymon,
Co Clare.
Sir, – We are being asked to delete reference to the “home” and to hand over to the courts a hot potato, that of redefining the “family” as they interpret the phrase “other durable relationships”.
The human rights implications of cutting our understanding of family adrift from being founded upon marriage has strangely escaped comment.
Our human rights codes have an article which specifically links the family to marriage: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Social Charter. These assert the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection.
In the same way as our capitalist economic system threatens the environment, it is also dismembering our families. Currently home break-up is the major cause of homelessness, while our birth rate has fallen unsustainably . Redefining the family so that it is cut off from its natural moorings (marriage) is merely an unwelcome distraction.
Last month’s Supreme Court unanimous decision that the exclusion of bereaved unmarried father of three John O’Meara from the widower’s contributory pension scheme was unconstitutional, an exclusion the State defended, demonstrates that politicians cannot predict how the Supreme Court will interpret cases.
It also shows that the real problem is not the wording of our Constitution, but that the legislature has failed to honour our Constitution’s wording. – Yours, etc,
GEARÓID DUFFY,
Cork.