Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

It's more like arguing that you (the electorate) shouldn't step out into the road (pass a constitutional amendment) without looking up and down it for oncoming traffic first (understanding the potential consequences).

I can't read the paywalled IT article but I read the Mary McAleese one which contains her belief and hope that a Yes vote will open up more discussion about care but she provided no actual clarification on what changes voting Yes will make . Interestingly she refers to the outside agencies such as the UN:

"A large majority of national and other commentators, including United Nations Treaty Monitoring bodies over recent years have regarded it as anachronistic and no longer suited to an Ireland anxious to promote gender equality"

I wonder in the 40 years of it's existence did Ireland ever have a representative on the CEDAW? If so it would be very interesting to know who that was. And I wonder who will be selected by Ireland to be on the committee if the referendum passes? It's a great incentive to call for a Yes vote for anyone interested in a juicy UN committee position or indeed for a position with any of the "other commentators" who have for years been saying the Article is no longer suited to Ireland? There are plenty of *female TD's who might be interested.

*I say female because despite all the calls for gender equality, inclusiveness etc there is only one man and 23 women on the current committee!

I remember one particular line from Justice Marie Baker (in the recent Irish Times Article I posted.

It seemed to sum her attitude and whole viewpoint. Baker was asked is it just symbolic?

Her answer was telling “I would not say symbolic it is about values’

-

I recommend anyone to read the article no matter which way they are voting. Because it really said a lot beyond what was just written on the page. You can read between the lines as well,

-

The other part that struck me was Baker was very blasé about those who raised concern about disability/children’s rights.

She said it was a referendum on “the family” and “care” within the family not about the care received! The concerns of people could be addressed later in other referendums etc,

Why? Which scenario do you think is more likely once the right of mothers to stay at home to look after their families is removed and the subsequent removal of the right for a qualified adult payment to be paid to families is removed unless they are available for work.

Single parent families will be allowed to continue to be paid to stay at home to look after their families until the youngest is 7 and a similar payment will be introduced so that married or cohabiting spouses will now also be able do so? or

Neither single or married or cohabiting parents will have access to state payments unless they are available for work?

Enemy 🤣

Hmmmm. In the 90s we had the "hello divorce, goodbye daddy" scaremongering now the scaremongering is "they'll abolish child benefit"

You are the one who is saying single mothers and their children aren't a family and don't deserve any constitutional rights.

The only person who said anything about child benefit is you!

What part does not make sense?

You reference the ‘Durable Relationships” but single parents by the very nature of the term ‘single’ are not in “Durable relationships” / unless they have a partner living with them in which case it is not a single parent role family.

What would change for single parents living on their own is the status of marriage as the foundation of the family would be removed. Symbolic nothing more.

The proposed amendment takes away the obligation of the state to support women (and men) who choose to not join the labour force but to stay at home to look after their family. The Article will be deleted - it will no longer exist - the right to stay at home will be gone - for all but the wealthier section of society.

There isn't one non state funded carers organisation in the country that thinks this will be anything but detrimental for disability rights.

What they particularly object to is the fact that the government will be putting all the onus on care onto the family instead of pledging to improve accessibility, transport and other issues that prevent disabled people taking up employment and living outside the family as part of the community.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of these referendums fail on Friday. They’ve been low key, and seem rushed, and having two on the same day is confusing not just for people but people in the media. Anton savage tripped over which was which at the weekend, which wasn’t a great sign, and one texter said if they were that important, they shouldn’t have done on the same day.

I still think they will pass though but it won’t be a landslide. Also the parties on the dail bar Aontu are supporting them both but they won’t be straining their voices in their support.

Good point plus it is the same people at the (a lot of the time at same tables) year in year out the voting centres. If you move and still happen to have a voting card from that area, it could just require a quick flash of the ID. Not really looked at.

Has there being any big polls taken yet?

Or have the politicians gone off them as they might not be accurate/could influence undecided voters?

--

Edit - found an answer - but was a few weeks old

"The limited polling so far suggests that both will pass. The most recent, in last Sunday’s Business Post, suggests that 52% would support the Family amendment, 22% would reject it while 20% said they did not know and 5% said they will not vote.

On the Care Amendment, 56% said they would support it, 20% said they would not, and 19% did not know.

But there are many caveats that go with that, not least that it was carried out two weeks before polling.

A similar Red C Poll by the same newspaper one week out from the 2013 referendum to abolish the Seanad, suggested it would pass - with 44% saying they would vote ‘Yes’, 27% would vote ‘No’ and 21% undecided. The undecideds swung the vote to a defeat, or what then taoiseach Enda Kenny described at the time as a "wallop" for his government."

--

Political Scientist at University College Cork, Dr Theresa Reidy:

"When we are talking about turnout it's really about who is more motivated to go out and vote. For a long time it was felt some of the ‘No’ voters, conservative voters, were more motivated," she said.

"But there is definitely a broad liberal turn to the electorate. Two-thirds of the electorate now have liberal views and liberal values. So, if it goes really low that will favour the No’s. But if you go above 30% and approaching 40 - it will probably be more finely balanced," she said.

--

Just on the disability rights argument -

I believe the one against the care referendum because it implies that all care is provided by those within the family. It should have been framed in broader societal sense. Like the Citizen's assembly cleverly did (IMO) referencing "family life" not just "The Family"

The second more broader argument is that there should have been mention of groups in society such as the disabled, that they have the "right" to care. Yet instead we have this "strive to" wishy washy statement based on care within the family.

--

The proposed care referendum is not conducive for disability rights because it does not provide anything. As opposed to what could have been proposed instead.

Which care organisations are you referencing exactly that are advocating a No?