In her column titled “Don’t use these referendums to cast a protest vote,” published on February 26th, Una Mullally expresses the standpoint, “Attempting to persuade ladies that archaic language within the Constitution doesn’t preserve a value system which subjugated them is essentially gaslighting.”
I concur with the thought of eradicating such outmoded and obsolete language from Bunreacht na hÉireann. However, the proposed addition to Article 42.B in the “care” referendum is harmful to the basic human rights of Irish citizens with disabilities and those who care for them. By constitutionally reinforcing patriarchal beliefs that the “family” is primarily responsible for care, coupled with a purposeful neglect of recommendations from citizens’ assembly and Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality with regards to state support for independent and self-reliant community living for those with disabilities, the government is strengthening inequality and disenshrining a whole segment of Irish citizens.
Indeed, persuading disabled citizens and their caregivers that the suggested language at 42.B for our Constitution doesn’t validate a system of values that subjugates them could be perceived as gaslighting. That’s why, as the guardian and parent of a wonderfully independent aspiring man with disabilities, I will be casting my vote against it.
Kind regards,
Senator TOM CLONAN,
Independent,
Leinster House,
Dublin 2.
I am rather befuddled by the correspondence authored by fourteen accomplished legal scholars, published in last Saturday’s issue of the Irish Times (dated March 2nd). They express the view that even if the 39th amendment is passed, “Article 41 will persist in demanding the State to ‘safeguard the foundation of marriage with particular vigilance and defend it from assault'”. In addition, they assert: “No recognition or safety is granted to other ‘long-term relationships'”. While I acknowledge their point that unique safeguards for wedlock will endure, these “long-term relationships” will certainly be awarded protection through the constitution. If changes are made to Article 41.1.1, the phrase “Family built on ‘long-term relationships'” will undoubtedly match the use of the term “Family” in Article 41.1.2, found immediately below – unambiguously stating that “The State, in essence, pledges to shield the Family via its constitution and power, being an essential cornerstone of societal organisation and critical for the prosperity of the Nation and the State”. With the successful initiation of the 39th amendment, I’d argue that this constitutes a blatant constitutional promise to secure the “Family” established upon “long-term relationships” to a certain degree, though not necessarily equivalent to a “Family” built on marriage, barring my visual capacity is inadequate to decipher the constitutional script.
A couple of paragraphs further, the scholars appear to reconsider their stance and elaborate that “the amendment is projected to broaden the definition of constitutionally safeguarded families to encompass families based not only on marriage but also those originating from other longstanding relationships”.
Now, as a legal scholar myself, this leaves me utterly puzzled. One can only conjecture what an ordinary citizen might interpret from this specialist viewpoint.
Sincerely,
Dr Brian Tobin,
Associate Professor in Legal Studies,
School of Law,
Galway University.
Sir, – The counterarguments posed against the future constitutional alterations have a flavour of an individual that owns a dilapidated three-decade-old vehicle, which is continually faulty, yet rejects a reliable decade-old vehicle in exchange, in the hope for a mint-condition model.
In the absence of an ideal alternative, pragmatic individuals select the most favourable possibility accessible.
Show your support on March 8th; vote in favour to discard a handful of outmoded clunkers to the junkyard, where they duly belong. Sincerely,
John Thompson,
Dublin 7.
Dear Editor, I was reading your recent article relating to the financing of current referendum campaigns and saw your mention that part of the money for the National Women’s Council comes from public coffers. I find this to be a bit of an understatement.
If one was to scrutinise the 2022 financial records of the Council, one would discovered that 88% of its entire funding, around €995,000, was sourced from six different government departments and State entities, which includes the Health Service Executive.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Council obtained €611,000 – 55% of its comprehensive funds – purely from the Department of Children, Disability, Equality, Integration and Youth; the very department which is pushing for the two referendum campaigns. The National Women’s Council, declaring to represent myself and the women of Ireland at large, managed to raise a minuscule €23,000 from its own fundraising efforts, merely 2% of its total revenue.
Considering these accounts, it’s hardly surprising that the National Women’s Council is advocating for a ‘Yes’ vote.
Sincerely,
SARAH-ANNE CLEARY,
Strokestown,
Co Roscommon.
Fellow reader, – You know a relationship is rock solid when firing up the dishwasher doesn’t cause a quarrel. –
Kind regards,
JOHN CRONIN,
Dublin 6W.
Dear Editor, – One can conclude with certainty here in the countryside of Ireland, that any relationship that can weather harsh climate and the pressures of birthing season for livestock, is truly unbreakable. –
Sincerely,
TOMAS FINN,
Ballinasloe,
Co Galway.