Sir, – I write with reference to the upcoming referendums.
The offending Article in the Constitution (41.2) deserves to be removed. Less appreciated in the debate about removal is the background to Article 41.2 which was almost copied and pasted from a papal encyclical in 1933 (Quadragesimo Anno). Much of that document was concerned with economic justice – with what we would call economic and social rights today. One issue in particular was of concern – the ingredients of a just wage. In this context the Encyclical said (paragraph 71):
“It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately.”
This was an engendered and utterly objectionable way of defining the ingredients of the “just wage” and ought to be purged. However, it should not be forgotten that the context was a theory of economic justice. It was a flawed theory of economic justice to be sure.
That same theory – or some theory – of economic justice should animate the debate about care. The implicit balance for the last few decades between formal (paid) and informal (unpaid) care was all wrong. There is, at last, a major debate brewing in the UN system about the future of care and indeed the rights of carers. About four years ago the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Committee denounced a state for “direct” discrimination against women carers in the form of pension disentitlements. Some steps have been made in Ireland to rectify this and the Government deserves credit for that. But I for one would be much happier voting Yes to the second proposed change if the Government would pledge to produce a new social contract for care and carers and would step up and take an important role in the evolving international debate on care. – Yours, etc,
GERARD QUINN,
(Professor Emeritus,University of Galway,
Former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities),
Ballinderreen,
Co Galway.
Sir, – The care amendment referendum places care as the responsibility (or “burden” as the wording implies) on the family. The wording “strives to support”, deliberately ignores the rights-based language recommended by the citizens’ assembly. The wording is very carefully chosen to indemnify the State against any legal obligation to provide supports to people with disabilities and carers as a right. It aligns perfectly with the State’s behaviour and actions in how it treats people in need of care. The wording is paternalistic and is toxic to the rights of people with disabilities and carers.
And yet so many NGOs and political parties, that I believe take rights seriously, are settling for this. And many are not just settling but enthusiastically supporting the amendment. They are meant to be holding the Government to account. They are meant to be asking why the Government is not using the wording recommended by the citizens’ assembly. Instead they are supporting an amendment by the Government that may sound progressive, and cosmetically better, but is only symbolic in nature and is demeaning to people in need of care. Surely we should not settle for this and demand better.
The amendment does real harm to a rights-based approach. It does harm as there is no substantive change and, if this amendment is passed, we will be stuck with this wording for a generation. And we do not know the type of government that will govern in that time. It is a massive, missed opportunity to further a rights-based approach to supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society. And it demeans people in need of care. The current wording is so outdated that there is every likelihood we could have a second referendum, within the lifetime of the next government, reflecting the wording proposed by the citizens’ assembly. We could have wording that is both symbolic and meaningful. Wording that respects the rights and autonomy of people who need care to thrive. Wording that we could hold the State to account over. Something of real substance and value.
If this referendum on care passes, that will be the day the campaign begins to replace this woefully ableist, paternalistic and degrading wording. Hopefully it won’t take 87 years to change. I wish that we as a society would demand better. Reject, and reword with rights and respect for the dignity and autonomy of people with disabilities. – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY HANNON,
Tallaght,
Dublin 24.