referendum – Something Odd!

Here in Ireland, we are holding a referendum on changing two sections of our constitution.

If I were to summarise the changes, I’d say:

The family one is to recognise that marriage isn’t the only type of long-term relationship a couple or two people have.
The carer one has been called an attempt to remove archaic and sexist language from the constitution when it says, “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support”. That text will be removed and the replacement text recognise that family members care for one another.

On this, International Women’s Day, many of the woman I know are voting NO to both changes.

Women and men march in protest at the cervical check scandal. May 2018.

what defines a durable relationship?
what if someone is married and has a durable relationship elsewhere?
“endeavour” vs “strive” to support. Which is stronger? Which word puts more pressure on the Gov to provide care?

I’m still not sure how I’ll vote. It will probably be no-no, but I may vote yet to the family one, as any ambiguity about the definition of “durable relationship” may be less trouble than the positives of having more relationships recognised. That’s up to the courts, however, which makes voting for this change so hard. Many of the people urging a no-no vote are not groups I would associate with, being conservative or right-wing. Meanwhile, all the Government parties and even Sinn Féin support a yes-yes vote. Sinn Féin say they’ll rerun the carer referendum if it’s rejected, and they’re elected into government:

Ms McDonald said that if the referendum was rejected, it would be her ambition to put the question to the people again “early in our term” if the party was elected to Government.
….
She said the party would be returning to the recommendation from the Citizen’s Assembly which would include care not just at home, but in wider society.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has said it welcomes the referendum widening the definition of the family beyond just those based on marriage. But on the care referendum, it said the Government should have gone further.

“Based on our analysis, ICCL believes that the proposed text on ‘care’ will not provide meaningful legal protections to any person who gives or receives care.

Overall, we feel the Government should have gone further to implement the recommendation of the Citizen’s Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee. This would have represented a more legally impactful proposal.”
Sinn Féin would re-run care referendum if rejected on 8 March

There is an appeal by the mother of a disabled man who provides 24 hour care to him due to be heard in the Supreme Court in April. She wants to receive the carer’s allowance she deserves, but unfortunately for her, her partner has a job outside the home.

The appellant mother, who effectively provides 24-hour care to her son and has no means of her own, is disputing the Department of Social Protection’s decision that she is not entitled to the full-rate of the carer’s allowance because the weekly income of her partner, the man’s father, is €850.

If the constitution is changed, will it make it easier for the Government to ignore pleas for carer’s allowance?

Also, the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, says it’s not the State’s responsibility to look after those that need care. The joke is he said the quiet bit out loud but read on …

https://twitter.com/DrHaroldNews/status/1764705340610781225/

As I was writing this post, I discovered that Simon McGarr reported a couple of hours ago that The Ditch has uncovered advice from the attorney general to the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth about the referendums. Simon has some interesting commentary in his Mastodon thread. Here’s the bit from that doc about the Heneghan case:

The need for such clarity is particularly important when one considers this year’s Supreme Court judgment in Heneghan v Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government. This is a notable example of the courts finding that they are entitled to consider the background and campaign leading up to a constitutional amendment when interpreting its purpose or scope. While that occurred in Heneghan in the context of apparent inconsistencies between different constitutional provisions, it is nevertheless a reason to exercise caution in communicating the purpose of the amendment in the course of the referendum campaign.
Irish Attorney General to Roderic O’Gorman TD

Leo saying that family should take care of family speaks volumes in that case. On the other hand, Simon admits that the future is uncertain.

Just in case you want more:

Free Legal Advice Centres are recommending a yes-no vote. An interesting piece explaining their stance that I found very convincing.

Mario Rosenstock interviews Larissa Nolan (she will be voting no-no)

And I can’t believe I’m linking to an interview with Peadar Tóibín, leader of Aontú where he argues for a no-no vote.

The yesyes.ie website urges a yes-yes vote but covers none of the grey areas of the changes.

As Anita says, most of the work done in the home will still be done by women, and that’s not going to change, no matter what happens today. My wife is meeting some friends this morning, but two have already had to cancel because they need to care for family members. Happy International Women’s Day.

I’m not a lawyer/solicitor. I just have a vote today. How will you vote? Did you vote already?

Edit: much later in the day:

Well done to all that voted, all 44.36% of you. Both changes were defeated by huge margins.
Family: 32.31% Yes, 67.69% No.
Care: 26.07% Yes, 73.93% No.

Now, let’s get back to not supporting the right-wing part of this country, ok?

Referendum results showing both changes were defeated:
Family: 32.31% Yes, 67.69% No.
Care: 26.07% Yes, 73.93% No.

The Irish abortion referendum is going to happen on March 6th.

The Catholic Bishops of Ireland released a leaflet describing their stance on the abortion issue. They’re calling for a YES vote. The Pope is also calling for a YES vote. Unfortunately they don’t have a website I can link to but here’s a Google search to find related links.

If you vote NO then the status-quo will still be maintained. That is,

The threat of suicide is a ground for abortion in this country.

Women will have the right to information and travel.

I think that it’s possible that abortions happen in this country already to save womens lives. At least that how I interpret point 3 below.

If you vote YES then:

Suicide will be removed as a ground for abortion.

Provide for a law on abortion that can only be changed by another referendum.

Give constitutional and legal safeguards to medical practices where interventions are made to protect the life of the mother.

Nobody likes to think about abortion. It’s easiest to simply vote NO and get on with life. Fortunately there’s been plenty of arguments on radio, television and other media so people are getting some information. The booklet provided by refcom.ie is also very informative.

Here’s some arguements for voting YES:

The threat of suicide is a phsycological issue that can be treated by councilling and treatment. Research and studies show that pregnant women are less likely to commit suicide. Other research shows that abortion itself appeared to be a significant factor for suicide.

Acting on the above, we should protect all life, this is how I perceived the Catholic stance. They want to protect life, full stop. Catholic priests read out a letter from the Bishops this morning at masses, in which they stated that (to paraphrase), “a YES vote is the most appropriate in this case”.

And for NO:

At present a woman can get an abortion in this country if she is suicidal. She should have as many options as possible for treatment of that condition.

It’s up to every woman to decide whether or not she should have an abortion, not someone else. (ie. the voter)

The Labour Party is advocating a NO vote. Party Leader, Ruairi Quinn says, “Whatever else this proposal is, it’s bad law and law making. What the Government through the Attorney General Michael McDowell is proposing to do is to write a Bill into the Constitution. What this means is that if it is passed, the only way it can be amended – even if it is found to be flawed – is through another referendum.” He also states that it is, “an attempt to roll back on women’s rights, and is asking questions of the electrorate that we have benn asked before.” The referendum of 1992 asked the same question.

The Mother and Child Campaign advocates a NO vote because it sees in the proposals the potential for the introduction of a more liberal abortion regime than currently exists in this jurisdiction. As Tommy Keaveney, a spokesperson on behalf of the group, explains, “The proposal allows for the intentional killing of the unborn. It states that abortions can be carried out based upon the reasonable opinion of an indicifual doctor. As far as we’re concerned this isn’t good enough, as it allows for unscrupulous doctors to dismember an indiividual child.”

Most of the above came from the Referendum Commision leaflet, and an Inside Cork article from last week. The second link here may expire by next Thursday.

The issues are not as clear-cut as they appear above. It does appear that the referendum is flawed in ways I cannot summarise here, but hopefully the links above may help you decide which way you’ll vote on Wednesday.

Feedback

“. . . but you didn’t mention that it’s a hack of a piece of legislation that Microsoft would be proud of.” – Liam.

“. . . that abortion will be only the second crime that is entered into our constition, the other being treason. Yep that’s right no murder, rape etc in the constitution. And considering that the recommended sentence being talked about is a 12 year sentence, whereas sex offenders etc get 6/12 months, me thinks the yes campaign is talking through their ass.” – Gearoid.