Holding the referendum on gender on International Women’s Day is a “worthless, cheap gimmick,” Senior Counsel and Senator Michael McDowell has told the Seanad. It came as the House heard claims that the legislation was being “rushed” through both the Dáil and the Seanad.
Speaking on Monday, the first day the Seanad resumed since before the Christmas break, the former Justice Minister and Attorney claimed the legislation was being “rushed through” the Seanad “because as a gimmick, this government decided this referendum would be fixed for 8 March, International Women’s Day.”
“The commission has told the Government it must have the finalised text by tomorrow evening and that is the end of the matter,” he said on Monday, adding:
“Our amendments cannot be accepted because they cannot go back to the Dáil. To put the referendum on International Women’s Day is a worthless, cheap gimmick. This proposal deserves far more consideration and thought.
“To those who say it reflects the output of the all-party committee, I say that that is not so. It differs from it, and the members of that committee have expressed disappointment with it on that account,” he said.
Senator McDowell was contributing to a debate on the thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill, as it was read a second time in the Seanad.
Moments before, the House had heard from Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy Roderic O’Gorman, who said he was pleased to bring the two Bills, which he said aimed to amend the Constitution “to reflect the values of a more inclusive Ireland.”
“It should be a reflection of who we are and the values we hold dear, but right now the text of our Constitution does not reflect our values. It excludes thousands of people from the protection of being named as part of the constitutional family, it describes a very singular place for women within Irish society and it makes no allowances for care being a role for both women and men,” Minister O’Gorman said.
He went on to say that any change to the Constitution would be “significant and meaningful.”
“The amendments being proposed in these two Bills build on previous reforms to our Constitution, namely, children’s rights, marriage equality, and the repeal of the eighth amendment. They reflect the continuation of our journey towards a more compassionate, inclusive and equal society. There are a great many people in Ireland today for whom these changes will mean a lot,” the Minister added.
Addressing the Thirty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill, he said he understood there had been some concerns about whether the term “durable relationships” covers parent-child relationships.
“I can confirm that this is unequivocally the intention of this proposal and this is very strongly supported by the fact that the term “the Family” which we are discussing in Article 41 also appears in Article 42.1 and in that context, very clearly encompasses parent-child relationships. “
He also recognised that there had been “much focus” both in the Dáil and in media coverage of the proposals on the inclusion of the word “durable” within the proposed amendment.
“To be clear, the term “durable relationships” is intended to encompass relationships of strength, stability and commitment such that they are consistent with that existing description of a family in Article 41, one that is the fundamental unit group of society and a moral institution. This proposed wording would expand the concept of family to cohabitants, with or without children, and to one-parent families,” Deputy O’Gorman said.
Senator Pippa Hackett said she was voting yes to both amendments, telling the House that the referendums to take place on 8 March were important.
“As Members are aware, the first referendum proposes to amend Article 41 of the Constitution. It does so to support and value the family and to widen the concept of the family to reflect today’s Ireland. Many families in today’s Ireland extend beyond a family based on marriage,” she said.
“The Government’s proposed wording is a fairer and more honest reflection of the Ireland we have become,” Senator Hackett added.
Regarding the second referendum to insert a new Article 32.B into the Constitution, she said that while she welcomed “constructive debate to ensure that all perspectives and unintended consequences have been considered,” she was “more than taken aback” by some of the opposition to changing the wording.
“Not only is the language outdated, it was inappropriate when it was first proposed back in the 1930s,” Senator Hackett told the House.
“These referendums have been likened to blind man’s buff, a game many Senators may recall from childhood. It is a game of catch, where one child is blindfolded and spun around in an attempt to disorientate them before they are released on the group. It is the perfect analogy because what is at play here is an attempt to derail a simple and necessary update to archaic and sexist language through spin and disorientation.”
However, Senator McDowell – who wrote in The Irish Times earlier this month, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it: voting No is wisest option in upcoming blindman’s buff referendums,” challenged the contributions.
“One might not have understood from the Minister of State, Senator Hackett’s contribution, that this debate this afternoon and this section of it, is to deal with the definition of the family. It is not to deal with archaic language about women in the home or anything of that kind,” he said,
“It is not the same thing. Let us be clear about this. No insult is offered to anybody for querying the wisdom of what is being proposed here,” Senator McDowell added.
He disputed the assertion that the Constitution directly referenced a woman’s place being in the home, stating:
“The first thing we should remember about the Constitution is that “an teaghlach” is the Irish word used in the Constitution to cover the family. One will not find anywhere in the Constitution any reference to the proposition that a woman’s place is in the home. It is simply untrue to assert that. It is being asserted day in and day out. RTÉ uses that phrase “women’s place in the home”.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests women’s place is in the home. There is a recognition of their contribution to an teaghlach, to the family, that they should not be obliged by economic necessity to work outside the home against their wishes and that the State should back them up if they want to remain with their family and to abstain from work.
On the definition of the family, he said it was being proposed that the definition should be extended to families based on marriage and-or other durable relationships.
“Let us be clear about one thing. The Constitution, as proposed to be amended, would still say that marriage is the fundamental unit group of society and that the State must protect it. If this change is made, families based on “other durable relationships” will be given the same status as marriage and will be entitled to the same protection as marriage is at the moment. That is what is proposed because the family, based either on one or the other, will be entitled to the same protection.”
He said that people were being asked to accept the proposition that the “other durable relationships” are “effectively the same as marriage.”
“For that reason, we should pause and ask ourselves if this is either necessary or desirable,” he added.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to uphold a constitutional challenge of a man who was denied access to the widower’s pension as he was not married to his long-term partner.
“I mention that today the Supreme Court delivered in the O’Meara case a hugely important decision. It has effectively looked at Article 42 in its entirety, and has looked at it with a view to determining whether it is legitimate, for instance, for the State to withhold pensions from widowers with children, and from people who are not in the same position as a married couple would have been for social welfare purposes,” he added.
‘DEVALUING CONCEPT OF DUTY’
“It found that the State’s obligation to children is such that distinctions between non-marital and marital children for the social welfare purposes mentioned in that case are not constitutional. We have to take a very close look, and I am surprised the Minister’s speech did not deal with the O’Meara case because it came out today.
“It is the Supreme Court, prior to this referendum, saying that the State may not discriminate against a parent of children on the basis that he or she was not married to the other as a basis for distinction between entitlement and non-entitlement to social protection.”
Senator McDowell also told the House, “I believe in marriage,” explaining: “It involves simply more than cohabitation.”
“It involves more than that, in that it is a solemn decision by two people in the eyes of the law to make commitments to each other and to any children they may have. It is a commitment between two people and the State as to their obligations and – if I may use the terrible “D” word – their duties.
The senior lawyer told the Seanad he felt that the concept of duty “seems to be” one that “we are devaluing to some extent.”
“Once one gets married, one has a duty to one’s spouse and to any children one may have. Those duties are inherent in the concept of marriage. As the Minister said on the provisions of the Constitution dealing with education, in that area again not merely do parents have constitutional rights regarding their education of their children but they have duties in respect of the education of their children. The whole concept of duty seems to be one that we are devaluing to some extent.”
Senator McDowell said the point he was making was “why get married at all, if one can cohabit and have exactly the same status in the eyes of the law?”
“From now on, will people who have been cohabiting for a long time – or a short time, because length of time does not seem to have much to do with it according to the jurisprudence I have seen – be entitled to call on the State to treat them on the same basis as are married people because they also constitute a family?
“There are other issues. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond said on television the other day that from the point of view of family reunification, long-term cohabitation will be of relevance. Of what relevance, we do not know.”
He went on to say that the decision to put the referendum on 8 March was “a worthless, cheap gimmick,” adding:
“This proposal deserves far more consideration and thought.
“To those who say it reflects the output of the all-party committee, I say that that is not so. It differs from it, and the members of that committee have expressed disappointment with it on that account.”
Senator Rónán Mullen and Senator Gerard P. Craughwell raised concerns about the democratic process.
Senator Mullen said the “lack of respect” shown for the Oireachtas process was “an absolute disgrace.”
“These were supposed to be referendums related to gender equality, yet here we are with two Bills, one on care and the other on family, which would appear not to advance anything for people’s practical day-to-day needs but which remove the words “mother”, “home” and “woman” from the Constitution, and gut the meaning of “family.” he told the House.
“The mystery of how we ended up here is compounded by the fact that we have not had pre-legislative scrutiny on either of these Bills. My friend and colleague, Senator Warfield, talked about the risk that people would be misinformed or exposed to misinformation. It really looks like, looking at this in all honesty, the State is trying to minimise the risk that people would actually be informed about what this referendum contains.
“The lack of respect for our Oireachtas process on show here, with it going through three Stages in the Dáil in one day and four Stages to be got through this week, is an absolute disgrace.”
He also claimed there was “massive insiderism” at play, adding:
“It is not the entire Government, but a coterie within the Government, certain NGOs, and certain people on the inside, who get to decide what the people must think, and there is to be minimum discussion, analysis, scrutiny, criticism and amendment of that by the directly or indirectly elected representatives of the people.
“Here, the Government shows its absolute disrespect for the people of Ireland in going about these referendums in the way it is.”
Senator Mullen argued that “no pre-legislative scrutiny” was taking place regarding the bills, telling the House:
“Now we have two rushed Bills taking three Stages together in an afternoon of the Dáil and four Stages in the Seanad, giving nobody any time to read the digest prepared for us, never mind propose amendments.
“What is the rush? What is there to hide?” he asked.
Senator Craughwell also said he was concerned, stating: “For something as serious as a constitutional amendment, to come to the House and give a couple of hours of debate to two major changes to the Constitution is repugnant to the very House itself and everything we stand for.”
He also referred to the legislation being “rushed,” as he claimed that the level of opposition to the government’s proposals were “growing.”
“I make a prediction today. Referendums frequently turn out not to be about the question but about the Government that is asking the question. I can tell the Minister already that the level of opposition to what the Government is trying to do in this constitutional amendment is growing.
“What will happen is €20 million will be wasted on a referendum that nobody I know is asking for, although perhaps the Minister knows who is asking for it, and it is going to fail. Both of the referendums are going to fail. We will talk about the other referendum on care later. They will fail because the Government is not trusted. People are asking what the rush is. What is the Minister afraid of in the debate?”