The failures of the family and care referendums have left room for embarrassment among many politicians. Even though the proposals were supported by the three Government parties, Sinn Féin, majority of the Opposition, and a variety of well-recognised advocacy groups, it ultimately amounted to naught.
On the contrary, the triumphs were claimed by individuals and groups who persuaded the public to vote ‘No’ on their Friday ballots.
But who are these figures, and what were their pivotal points during the campaign?
Michael McDowell, a notable but occasionally divisive political figure and senator, was arguably the most effective performer for the ‘No’ side in this campaign.
Having served previously as attorney general, justice minister and tánaiste, he has an impressive political track record and his expertise on constitutional matters is well-recognised.
His viewpoints were consistently communicated to voters through radio broadcasts and national newspaper articles throughout the campaign, creating a significant impact. Notably, his inquiries and clarifications about whether ‘throuples’ would be considered ‘durable relationships’ appear to have resonated with voters.
The ex-leader of the Progressive Democrats dismantled one of the key arguments of the ‘Yes’ campaign – the claim that the existing article 41.2 is a “stereotypical reference to women’s placement in the home”.
In an op-ed for The Irish Times, McDowell convincingly refuted this as simply “false”, substantiating his argument with relevant sources. He highlighted that the previous chief justice, Susan Denham, had stated that “article 41.2 does not restrict women to a domestic role”.
“Article 41.2 acknowledges the valuable contributions made by wives and mothers in the home”, Denham remarked. “This recognition does not restrict women from participating in other activities”.
Peadar Tóibín, the Aontú leader and the party’s lone representative in the Oireachtas, has seized a ripe opportunity during these campaigns, given the impending local and European elections.
In 2018, Meath West TD, known for his conservative social values, parted ways with Sinn Féin over differing views ahead of that year’s referendum for revoking the constitutional prohibition on abortion. The poll’s result did not align with his beliefs, but it prompted him to establish Aontú and maintain his position in the Dáil assembly.
Tóibín’s party, Aontú, was unique in advocating a double No vote, emphasising that his party might be more in tune with public opinion than its more seasoned competitors. However, this claim is based on a couple of specific issues. Advocating for “life, unity, and economic justice in Ireland,” Aontú’s flair has kindled optimism for a considerable existing demographic aligning with the party’s stance on various matters.
Throughout the campaign, Tóibín played a critical role in communicating potential undesired implications of Yes votes, an argument that resonated with a segment of the electorate. He pointed out the possible creation of a “solicitors’ paradise” following the recognition of “durable relationships.”
As for Tom Clonan, he spoke out against the proposed Article 42B, claiming it upholds an ableist perspective by constitutionally mandating that disabled individuals must rely on family for their care, intentionally excluding rights for independent and community living. His views chimed with some people, bolstering the No-vote campaign. Clonan, elected to Seanad Éireann in March 2022, cares for his son, Eoghan, a university student with neuromuscular condition who depends on a wheelchair. Clonan is lauded for his work as an Army informant on gender violence, advocating for disabled people’s rights, and maintaining Irish military neutrality.
Finally, Maria Steen, a homemaker associated with conservative think-tank the Iona Institute, is no stranger to referendum campaigns. The institute was previously active in campaigning against same-sex marriage and the relaxation of Ireland’s abortion laws.
In the abortion referendum campaign’s lead up, she made a significant impact on the ‘No’ side during a debate on RTÉ Prime Time. Some spectators noted that she was more effective than many opponents of repeal in swaying undecided voters. She was notably proactive in a recent campaign, participating in a Prime Time debate showdown against the Tánaiste Micheál Martin, whom many agreed fared poorly that evening.
In a fiery back-and-forth, Martin criticised Steen for being a “prophet of doom” in previous referendum campaigns. In response, Steen argued that Martin had done nothing to ease the burdens of stay-at-home mothers.
Flac – a voluntary, independent body offering free legal advice – aims to make justice universally accessible. Following a legal assessment of the referendum proposals, Flac voiced support for the proposed “family” amendment, but criticised the amendment on carers as “implicitly sexist” and “ineffective”.
In a campaign where the ‘Yes’ side emphasized the necessity of factual information from trusted sources, this was a severe setback. Flac intends to simplify access to legal state procedures and the courts for ordinary citizens, many of whom are daunted by the complexities of Irish legal language and systems.
Whilst explicitly stating that it would not participate in the campaign—which some might interpret as lending their standpoint more legitimacy—Flac argued that the care amendment might not result in newfound enforceable rights or improved services for carers or individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, Flac suggested the proposal could instil “damaging stereotypes” within care provision and “potentially jeopardise” the rights of individuals with disabilities.
‘Equality not Care,’ a group initiated to advocate for a ‘No’ vote in the care referendum, described the amendment as discriminatory against disabled individuals and their family members, claiming it was ageist and ableist. They stated that this could enforce the concept of individuals with disabilities being family burdens instead of equal rights recipients. The group declared that it was comprised of “worried citizens,” disabled individuals, and their supporting family members who funded it.’
The push has been made for a referendum that reflects a contemporary understanding of gender equality, factoring in intersectionality, as per the equality laws of Ireland. The amendment, along with the new article proposal, according to Ann Marie Flanagan, who represents the group, aims to undermine our individual independence, dignity, and equal rights. Additionally, she asserts it attempts to strip us of our entitlement to state support like personal assistance services.
Flanagan identifies as a human rights advocate for the disabled, a feminist, as well as a climate and social justice campaigner. Michael O’Dowd, an Aontú representative from Co Louth, who had also been a candidate for Renua, claimed that the verbiage fell short of delivering on the full scale support assured by the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality, which initially suggested this referendum. The group contingency statement on the family referendum is yet to be decided.
For the most current commentary and analysis tune in to our Inside Politics Podcast. Subscribe to our push notifications to get the top news, analysis and commentary directly on your mobile. Locate The Irish Times on WhatsApp and remain in tune with the times.