Independent TD Catherine Connolly – the first woman ever to be elected Leas-Cheann Comhairle – has described the upcoming referendum on the role of women as “absolutely empty” and “symbolic,” seeming to imply she may vote ‘No’.
The referendum, which is set to take place on March 8th – International Women’s Day – proposes amending Article 41 of the Irish constitution to modify the following section:
“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. 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.”
The proposal is to remove the word ‘woman’ from this and replace it with a ‘gender-neutral’ alternative.
“THIS IS A SYMBOLIC CHANGE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY EMPTY”
Speaking in the Dáil this week, however, Connolly said that she had “serious concerns” about this constitutional Bill, and went on to list concerns raised by the Free Legal Aid Council (FLAC) “which have not been dealt with.”
“The first [concern] is the lack of clarity about the amendments, what they are seeking to achieve and what they will mean in practical terms for law and policy – that has not been answered,” she said.
“The second is that, the amendments, as currently worded, will not deliver meaningful enforceable rights and stronger constitutional protection for women, families and carers, as well as other groups who experience discrimination and disadvantage, such as people with disabilities. Instead, they are focussed on symbolic recognition alone.”
She added: “I fully agree that this is a symbolic change that is absolutely empty.”
“I WOULD PREFER THE EXISTING WORDING, WHICH IS NOT GENDER NEUTRAL”
Connolly went on to assert that she “prefers” the Constitution’s existing wording.
“I will go out on a limb and say that I would prefer the existing wording, which is not gender neutral and is of its time,” she said, adding: “…I would have more hope of action under the existing wording in the Constitution than I have with this.”
She raised a further concern mentioned by FLAC, which is that the wordings “diverge significantly from the recommendations made by the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality and the Joint Oireachtas Committee,” and said that while she thanked both the Assembly and the Committee, they had been “absolutely ignored” by the government putting forward “unhelpful” wording.
“THIS IS AN INSULT – IT IS A DOUBLE INSULT TO HOLD IT ON INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY”
“I have serious difficulty with promoting this referendum,” she said.
“I have repeatedly classified myself as a very strong feminist. I would use many other adjectives, but this is an insult. It is a double insult to hold it on International Women’s Day.”
Connolly further said that carers deserved more than an “empty symbolic gesture” considering how much they contribute to society.
“AN EMPTY SYMBOLIC GESTURE WILL GO INTO THE CONSTITUTION”
“One would think at this point, after the Covid-19 pandemic and given the transformative change we need in this society, that we would be recognise the invaluable work done by carers in our society, putting a value on it and putting an obligation on the State to deliver on that obligation,” she said.
“Where is that transformative change? An empty symbolic gesture will go into the Constitution without any obligation whatsoever on the government.”
BROADLY AGREES WITH PROPOSALS BY THE RURAL INDEPENDENTS
Coming to the end of her speech, Connolly said that she largely agreed with amendments proposed by the Rural Independent Group.
“I agree, which the Ministers might find surprising, with the amendments, or certainly the tenor of them, tabled by the Rural Independent Group, Deputy Mattie McGrath and his colleagues,” she said.
“Why do I say that? The Constitution tells us that the mother should not be obliged to work outside the home because of economic necessity. Certainly, the wording needs to be changed and the consequences of zoning in on a woman…by a male-dominated patriarchal society were totally unacceptable.
“However, the concept behind it is the kernel of what this debate should be about, and it has not been mentioned. No carer, whether a mother, father or whatever category they work under as the primary carer in a house, should be forced out through economic necessity to a different or additional job. That was the kernel of the article the government is now changing in a very pathetic manner, perhaps without recognising that there was huge scope in that article, as judges have pointed out.
“Mrs. Justice Susan Denham did so more than 23 years ago in a dissenting judgement, pointing out that the article placing the woman in the home and giving that recognition in the Constitution was doing something valuable and could be interpreted in a modern day context, not to only apply to a woman, but put an actual value on the work. She is not the only judge who has referred to this. Hers was a dissenting judgement.
“Other judges have expressed surprise that the existing article has really never been tested.”
“I WOULD TAKE MY CHANCES WITH WHAT IS THERE” OVER GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL
Connolly concluded that she would “take her chances” with the current wording of the Constitution.
“Given a choice of what the government is proposing in this referendum and what is there, I would take my chances with what is there, and leave it to the judiciary in an appropriate case to interpret it in a modern capacity that does not limit the recognition to a mother, but recognises the value of care without which society and the economy cannot function,” she said.
“That is what the debate should be about. That is what the debate should have been on pre-legislative scrutiny.
“I am now left with a decision to make, which I have almost made, unfortunately. I will strive to keep an open mind.
“The existing article is stronger because of the possible interpretation by the courts if it were tested, than what the Government is proposing which takes away any obligation on the State to do something. It has gone away from the Citizens’ Assembly and the Oireachtas Joint Committee. They have simply been ignored. The Government has put this in and it is absolutely unacceptable.”
EAMON RYAN RESPONDS: “WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE IT IS NOT SEXIST”
In reply to Connolly, Climate Minister Eamon Ryan said that it was necessary to change the constitution to ensure it was not “sexist.”
“Anyone with experience of how our State works knows we need to provide greater support and value the endless, vital and precious caring work that happens for people with disabilities in our country,” Ryan said.
“We need to change the Constitution to ensure it is not sexist, but also leaves the family the choice of the best way to do things. We need to provide for the alternatives that people choose. The State must not be judgmental or centre stage.”
He added: “Families are best placed to decide on the most appropriate caring arrangements.”