On March 8th, the people will vote in a referendum on proposals to delete articles from the Constitution around the issues of care and the family, and insert a new clause. The significant number of women’s voices now being raised against the referendum seem to have taken the government by surprise.
Women have been particularly exercised about misleading statements made by Yes campaigners regarding women’s work in the home – statements which have been corrected by authoritative figures such as Supreme Court judge Marie Baker and former Attorney General, Michael McDowell.
It’s interesting that it is now finally being clarified that the Constitution does not, and never did, say that a ‘woman’s place is in the home’. Of course, that misinformation has been so widely repeated over such a long period of time that the correction may be too late. That’s likely what the Yes campaign – and the entire political establishment backing it – are banking on.
The truth is that the government, and the advocacy groups it chooses to fund, have never shown any meaningful support in my memory for the entirely natural desire of mothers to raise their own children in their own homes, especially when those children are young and when full-time parenting is so important.
So, away from the media chatter and the snazzy equality campaigns, many women who undertook the unpaid and unappreciated task of raising the next generation deeply resented the barely-concealed contempt for mothers at homes – who were supposedly failing the sisterhood by taking time out from smashing glass ceilings to do what actually is the most important job in the world.
Many women are also angry at the persistent efforts by the establishment to eradicate the words ‘mother’ and ‘women’ from communications on vital issues like cervical cancer and maternity leave. How detached from reality is a government that believes any woman in full possession of her sanity wants to be known as a “person with a cervix”?
So perhaps the sheer number of women writing letters, tweeting, protesting and campaigning against a proposal to remove the only mention of women and mothers from the Constitution is indicative of a rising tide against the referendum proposal. Polls would seem to suggest otherwise, but only time will tell.
The high-profile women campaigning for a Yes are very much part of the establishment: Ivana Bacik of Labour and Orla O’Connor of the National Women’s Council (NWCI), for example. They’re continuing the well-worn argument that Ireland was always a repressive, terrible place and their vision for a shiny, new society is what we all need to get behind.
But who are the women’s groups campaigning for a NoNo – and why are they opposing the referendum which was heralded until recently as a step forward for women?
THE COUNTESS
CEO of The Countess, Laoise de Brún BL, says that the referendum is an “insult to womankind” and points to a lack of appreciation of the often “invisible and thankless” work that women do.
She says that Article 41.2 may be old-fashioned, but it is an honest and welcome acknowledgement of the often thankless but profoundly important work women do in the home, in the running of households, and in the rearing of children – the foundation of society.
“The wording of the Article does not create the inequality on the ground and in households across Ireland”, says de Brún, noting that women do double the number of housework and caring hours as men.
“Across the EU we are bottom of the league for equality in the home. This is an uncomfortable truth for our politicians whose chief concern appears to be selling Ireland as the most progressive little country on the world stage. But rather than the State stepping up to shoulder some of the burden placed on women, they intend to recast this reality and propose a gender-neutral diluted wishy washy word salad which does nothing to further women’s lot but instead robs them of this ennobling acknowledgment and legal rights upon which they might rely”, she said.
She said that while the language in Article 41 “seems outdated” that “in fact, if you revert to the Irish wording from which the article was translated, it refers to teaghlach, which means household or family, not home. Clearly, by ‘her life in the family’ presents a different picture than place in the home and recognises the unique role women and mothers have in bearing and nurturing children and that this is in fact vital to the good of all society.”
We are launching our VOTE NO referendum campaign.
We view Article 41.2 as explicit recognition of the contribution of women and mothers to society for the profound and important work that they do.
Mothers and the work they do should be valued, supported, and celebrated—not… pic.twitter.com/VtSf7oSQua— The Countess (@TheCountessIE) January 18, 2024
“Any argument that Article 41.2 somehow forces women to stay at home is clearly nonsense and has no basis in law or fact, and this was dismissed by then Justice Susan Denham in the Sinnott Case,” Ms De Brún added.
Their campaign on social media has gained considerable traction from women who identify as feminists and who believe that gender identity politics is “erasing” women, and that this is harmful to women.
THE NATURAL WOMEN’S COUNCIL
Founder of the Natural Women’s Council, Jana Lunden, says that her group includes many women who do not feel represented by taxpayer-funded bodies like the NWCI.
Working with Lawyers For Justice, Ms Lunden says that Article 41.2.2 places a “positive obligation on the state” to ensure that mothers are not forced to engage in labour outside the home.
She says the new article proposed to replace those which may be deleted – Article 42B – does “not provide the State with any positive obligation to financially support or protect carers in the home”.
“The Article [42B] is purposively drafted this way with no reference to carers being protected from being forced into work because of economic necessity so as to ensure that the State is NOT financially liable,” she said in a joint statement with LFJ and other groups in the VoteNoNo campaign, the Parents Rights Alliance and the Irish Education Alliance.
“Any enhanced supports for carers can only happen through legislative change as Article 42B will not provide any obligation for the State to take action. There is not even a mention of “home” in Article 42B,” Ms Lunden said.
“There are no benefits to the insertion of Article 42B but the potential ramifications to the deletion of “women”, “mother” and “home” in our Constitution are far reaching, much more so than what is being portrayed by the State,” she said.
“It has been a long and hard fight for mothers to secure special protections during maternity and beyond, including the right to return to work after a period of maternity leave, to the same terms and conditions,” she added, saying a No vote would protect those protections.
“Many women across our groups stay home with their children and many are in the workforce. The Constitution gives mothers the protections to care for children in the home and also to be able to return to work,” she asserted.
Their campaign will also underline what Lunden said could be a significant impact on immigration if protections granted to the family based on marriage was swapped for “durable relationships” – a term which she said the government had failed to define.
She said that amending Article 41.1.1 to extend the definition of family to include “durable relationships” could “lead to a massive upsurge of family reunification visa applicants”.
Fine Gael minister, Neale Richmond, told VMTV’s Tonight Show in December 2023 that changing the definition family in the Constitution to “durable relationships” was not just a move to “modern time vernacular” but a change that would have “serious consequences particularly when we think of immigration law”.
This was in relation to “proving that someone is a family member, or family reunification,” he said. “This would allow that to be accommodated as well.”’
For those that missed it #TonightVMTV, here's minister Neale Richmond admitting that redefining the family to be based on a "durable relationship" will have a considerable impact on immigration.#VoteNoNo https://t.co/n4NwODPJcJ pic.twitter.com/rG08htZHdp
— Keith Mills (@KeithMillsD7) January 31, 2024
Lawyers for Justice say that: “Under the International Protection Act 2015 as it stands a spouse or child can apply for a family reunification visa to join a person granted refugee status in Ireland. If Article 41.1.1 is amended to include “durable relationships” it will mean that the State will be obliged to consider the Constitution when deciding on any application for family reunification. The Electoral Commission recently stated “durable relationships” could be defined as widely as a “couple receiving a Christmas card” and the government confirmed it could include polygamous relationships.
“This has potential monumental consequences for immigration into Ireland,” the group said, claiming it could lead to a “spike in immigration”.
“We already know that when Germany extended the scope for family reunification visa applicants it led to the highest ever recorded figures of 121,000 under this scheme in 2022. If this amendment is made to our Constitution, which goes far beyond Germany’s changes, if could lead to the tipping point for Ireland.”
Jana Lunden says that the government “tried to erase any reference to women in the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 to 2004 and replace with “gender neutral terms” under The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022.”
“We fought back and they retreated,” she says. “Article 41.2 of our Constitution laid the foundation for legislation providing mothers with rights, protections and benefits to care for their children at home and not be forced into labour through economic necessity. Take that away and women are left to the mercy of successive governments as the right to care for their children at home will no longer be enshrined in our Constitution.”
She points to statements from Senator Michael McDowell who wrote that Article 42.1 regarding the role of women was “expressly relied on by the Supreme Court in the Murphy case in 1980, when it found that income tax laws were unconstitutional insofar as they treated a married couple less favourably than two unmarried people.”
“That wording also supports maternity leave, payment of child benefit to mothers, and might well have a bearing on future legal entitlements to work from home,” McDowell said.
KEEP MNÁ IN THE LAW
I was proud to stand united with such inspirational women & many more who were not able to attend the #KeepMnáInTheLaw #SilencedProtest outside the Mansion House, Dublin. Where the NWCI Launceston their Yes Vote campaign. They do not represent women! #VoteNoNo#MammySaysNo pic.twitter.com/gfHiDWCk6W
— Roisin Ni Chleirigh Confident Women Ireland🇮🇪🇮 (@Roisin_Ni) January 26, 2024
POLITICAL VOICES
Senator Sharon Keogan who spoke at Saturday’s Women’s March for No Vote, is advocating a NoNo in the referenda. She urged her Twitter followers to “unfollow the NWCI” saying the group did not represent the women of Ireland.
Today, I have unfollowed the @NWCI
Women of Ireland, do the same. They don't represent us. #Unfollow— Senator Sharon Keogan (@SenatorKeogan) January 31, 2024
Senator Keogan says that “the recognition of the uniqueness of motherhood is deemed politically inconvenient” and those who are seeking to strike “woman” from the constitution “can’t even define what a woman is”.
Aontú’s Emer Tóibín says that the party is calling for a No No vote – and that the amendments are “exceptionally poorly written”, unclear and confused”. She added that the Constitution is no place for virtue signalling and that “inclusivity should not mean deletion, it should mean addition”.
OTHER VOICES
The Women’s March for No Vote, also featured campaigner Rachel Ni Faoláin whose video on the proposal garnered significant views. She says she is “disturbed by the suggestion that Article 41.2 will be removed and replaced with language that devalues and undermines the rights and the role of a mother in society. The experience of motherhood is exclusive to mothers – we experience pregnancy and labour, and some of us choose to breastfeed.”
“Many women give up their jobs and careers to be a constant in their children’s lives at home, especially during the early years. Article 41.2 of the Constitution acknowledges and values this huge contribution to society.”
Rachel on why we should vote NO on 8th March Referendum. pic.twitter.com/BYpKORc1T9
— Lawyers For Justice Ireland (@LFJIreland) January 20, 2024
Colette Colfer, an academic and commentator, is also calling for a No vote. She doesn’t see the referendum as being a “right/left divide” though adds its is “being woven this way”
“All progress is not an unquestionable good. All conservation is not an unquestionable bad. I think we should conserve the words woman and mothers in the constitution,” she added.
She says: “my theory is that those who think gender roles are wholly socially constructed will vote ‘yes’ in the referendum to get rid of the ‘women in the home’ clause. Those who understand there are fundamental differences between the sexes that cannot be erased by the state will vote no.”
My theory is that those who think gender roles are wholly socially constructed will vote ‘yes’ in the referendum to get rid of the ‘women in the home’ clause. Those who understand there are fundamental differences between the sexes that cannot be erased by the state will vote no.
— Colette Colfer (@ColetteColfer) January 20, 2024
This post featuring a nurse on maternity leave arguing for more supports for mothers rather than the deletion of the words ‘mother’ ‘woman’ and ‘home’ from the Constitution has racked up 38,000 views in 24 hours.
Voters have been asking about our position on the upcoming referendums on International Women’s Day – one of our nurses on maternity leave has made a video #VoteNoNo @griptmedia pic.twitter.com/zu3v1rHAO9
— Nurses & Midwives 4Life Ireland (@Nurses4lifeIrl) February 3, 2024
The debate is being thrashed out on social media and in the letters pages of national and local newspapers with conflicting views being aired.
The referendum will “further diminish the valuable contribution that women have made and and continue to make not only within the family but also within society”, one woman said in a letter to the Irish Times
Others disagreed, and one association of women lawyers says it is supporting a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendums on family and care, claiming that Article 41.2.2 “has been entirely ineffective in its stated aim and further has prescribed a role for women which disregards the full range of contributions that women make to Irish society”.
With just over a month left to the vote, it remains to be seen what will happen, and which messages will be heard.