In the first days of 2024, ahead of two referendums which seek to change the Irish constitution, Minister Roderic O’Gorman has clarified for “progressive” NGOs who actually pays the piper, delivering an icy reminder that they will need to explain themselves if they oppose the government’s proposals.
A Non-Governmental Organisation is, as should be evidenced from the name, a body that is separate to and independent of the government, and, some would argue, which should assist in holding the government to account.
But many NGOs, as Michael McNamara observed, are now simply GONGOs – described in the Foreign Policy piece the Clare TD linked to as “government sponsored non-governmental organisations”, and yes, the contradiction is as risible as it sounds.
Many NGOs in Ireland are, in fact, GONGOs, dependent on Government funding. Hence, this Minister’s approach.https://t.co/PolOFgQVY9 https://t.co/Pc4auYSZdT
— Michael McNamara TD (@MlMcNamaraTD) January 1, 2024
What has happened in recent times is that governments take funds from the taxpayer to augment – or entirely fill – the coffers of supposed NGOs, and then both parties work together to increase the nanny state, or remind us ordinary, long-suffering plebs of our many sins, our outdated views, and our need to keep funding our betters.
Collectively, Irish NGOs have now morphed to a vast and sprawling behemoth, numbering some 33,000 organisations (no, that’s not a typo) and receiving more than €6 billion in state funding annually.
Now, obviously some NGOs do important work in healthcare and other areas, but far too many seem to have been established for the purpose of working hand in glove with the government to enforce change or shape public opinion, as summed up by this handy graphic I just saw on X.
Hence the vexed tone which seemed to emanate from the Irish Times interview with Roderic O’Gorman on the topic of the pointless referendum on Article 41 which is, I suspect the Minister now realises, attracting opposition from unexpected quarters.
Organisations who regard themselves as progressive will have to explain why they want to maintain the “status quo” if they campaign against a Yes vote in the referendum on removing the article from the Constitution about a woman’s place being in the home, the Minister for Equality has said.
Roderic O’Gorman said a rejection of the changes, due to be put to the public in March, “would leave a status quo saying that you and millions of women in our country, that their duties are in the home, or indeed that tens of thousands of families aren’t actually recognised”.
As an enthusiastic proponent of NGO funding, once can imagine the Minister’s annoyance at the thought that the same organisations might now not live up to his expectations and support his proposal. Biting the hand that feeds them, seemed to be the unspoken admonition.
These errant NGOs would have to explain themselves – like bold schoolchildren – because they need to publically explain why they are opposed to a measure that many think its a bad proposal, or a flawed one, or unnecessary, or ill-thought of by women who actually would have liked the State to have done more to help women raise their children at home when they are small and benefit most from having a full-time parent.
Those NGOs had better have a good excuse ready for Roderic. Many of them – usually the ones most vocally in favour of the latest change being proposed – are funded almost entirely by the taxpayer. Without this lavish support, they’d be reduced to seeking membership fees or the ignominy of fundraising the hard way without access to the government purse, and that hard graft is only for GAA clubs or community halls or people who actually enjoy widespread public support.
it remains to be seen whether the NGOs take the risk of setting in motion a sort of government ‘shadow- banning’ – where those who might step out of lockstep with the agenda find that their funding is allocated elsewhere, perhaps to another equally mostly useless but more compliant organisation.
But its also worth taking a look at what O’Gorman said regarding the actual constitutional change being proposed, both in yesterday’s interview and previously, especially in light of the ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ that we are led to believe will bedevil the coming months.
Voting No, the Minister claimed, would “leave a status quo” which tells “millions of women in our country, that their duties are in the home.”
It’s pretty close to what O’Gorman said before, when he claimed the referendum was necessary because “the current wording seeks to contain women in a very singular role, a role that’s completely divorced from the reality of women’s lives, of women’s careers across our state today,” he added.
This is, in my view, a misleading argument.
The Constitution does not tell Irish women that their duties are solely in the home. Neither does it say that women should be contained in a very singular role.
Here’s what it actually says:
Article 41.2.1. “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”.
Article 41.2.2. “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.
It could actually be argued the provision was forward-thinking: closer to a model where people were not seen simply as economic units whose function is solely to labour for corporations and pay taxes, but instead as forming vitally important family units which sustain society and allow people to flourish.
And of course the Article was of its time, when in most cases it was the mother of the family who raised children at home. That’s actually still the case, although there has been a welcome rise in the participation of dads in work in the home – and a not-so-welcome decline in people having children.
Clearly, Article 41 doesn’t compel women to work at home – and it absolutely does not say that she has a duty to stay at home or must take up duties in the home. Instead it says that the State recognises the importance of work done in the home and should seek to ensure that women aren’t forced to seek work outside the home because of economic necessity.
Nowhere does the Constitution say that women should be contained in a single role. O’Gorman, a law lecturer, should know this. The lived experience of women, and the application of law which has left women perfectly free to work wherever they pleased for decades, also confirms that there are no limitations put on women by the provision. The referendum is yet another window dressing exercise by a government which has failed to deal with the real issues most troubling women such as housing, healthcare, rising rates of sexual assault, and lack of assistance for families.
In fact, the State, under Minister Charlie McCreevey undermined the actual choice that women had in this matter when he introduced tax individualisation in 2000 with the encouragement of the EU Commission.
That measure forced families where one parent was home full-time with children (usually the mother) to pay a higher rate of tax at a lower band of income – penalising families by up €6,240 annually. It is a disgraceful policy and removes real choices from women, many of whom actually want to raise their own children at home when they are young.
So the only compulsion in regard to women working in the home that has happened in my lifetime was when the State moved to force families to pay a heavy penalty for opting for a full-time parent. If O’Gorman wants a woman’s place to be wherever she wants it to be maybe he could scrap the unfair and discriminatory tax individualisation law.
Instead, the government is proposing to delete Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 and replace them with the following:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
It seems to be a more neutral but also a weaker replacement. Why the removal of the reference to ‘home’? Why no reference to a bulwark against being forced to set aside care because of economic necessity? The answer seems obvious to even the least cynical observer. The government doesn’t want to guarantee that carers would not be forced to leave caring aside because it becomes economically difficult for them to continue.
There are other aspects to the removals of the Articles. Barrister Geoffrey Shannon, now a judge, said in 2017 that the removal of the clause from the constitution “could affect maintenance payments in family law cases”, the Times reported.
Will it be counted as ‘disinformation’ to refer to Shannon’s comments? Will Roderic O’Gorman be asked to clarify his statements in light of their possibly misleading nature? Who will decide what’s ‘misinformation’ when the government is pushing for a Yes vote? Will NGOs fall into line rather than “explain” their opposition to the referendum to the Minister? The next few months before the vote will be interesting.