Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Will we get 50% turn out ?

I wasn't living in Ireland at the time so missed all that but I heard that that was true - and it looks like it was.

What I do know is that contemporary progressive leftists go for the if you don't agree with us your some kind of hateful person angle so I wouldn't be taking your comments on McDowell with much heed. I don't get what the hate would be in respect of these amendments anyway - like you think he does think a woman's place is in the home or what.

Complete nonsense coming from cabal.

How would anyone vote for yes when the wording is a fog...

I doubt it. It seems the goverment are getting a bit of a hiding over this. Can't see them going again.

I looked at the Pervaiz v Minister for Justice [2020] IESC 27 case again. (A Judical Review case)

I previously did not emphases the main point of the case. Where the judge gave a very broad/vague definition of "durable relationship"

With relation to the duration of the relationship and its relevance the Court found:

"Thus, a durable partnership will tend to be one of some duration, but that is not to say that the duration of the relationship is, in itself, a defining feature. The length of a relationship will be an important, and sometimes compelling, index of the degree of commitment between the couple, but it is perfectly possible for a committed long-term, what is often called a “serious” relationship, to exist between persons who have known one and other for a short time."

With regards to whether cohabitation is required the Court found:

"It would seem to me that cohabitation is in most cases a useful yardstick by which the durability of a relationship is assessed and by which it is possible to test whether persons are genuinely in a committed partnership"

Also the solicitors website which I linked stated

"It is beneficial to applications to now have confirmation that the Minister does not impose a mandatory two year cohabitation requirement and that the Minister should assess each case on its own particular facts."

--

So that seems to me to rule out familial relationships such as  Grandfather and Granddaughter for example, from falling into the definition of "durable relationship"?

The courts clearly intent durable relationship to me a committed cohabiting relationship. And there seems to be no set time limit on what a "durable relationship" is.

Potentially. These referendums aren’t really asking the if the public consent to the spirit of the change, rather the wording of the change - the government have decided this is something they need to change to allow the law to be expanded. Like the Nice treaty changes were reworded after the no vote. Had we voted against gay marriage, it’s likely it would have been reworded and asked again.

So I expect a no vote will result in a review and rewording with more explicit terms, which wouldn’t be the worst thing.

Helen McEntee on Virgin Media tonight with Michael McDowell in the last tv debate.

He was dead right, Africans were taking advantage of that loophole but as usual lefties wanted it to remain as it was.

The amount of anchor babies who got automatic citizenship was ridiculous.

McDowell will show us how clueless McEntee is in her job. She will get McEnteed tonight and its going to be glorious.

Again, it doesnt say it will do as much as possible.

Once again I repeat: I know it doesn't and never said it did!

Do you think the current government are doing as much as they possibly can to ensure women who are carers don't have to work?

Absolutely 100% they are not. Unfortunately none of the women's groups calling for a Yes vote have ever advocated for stay at home parents but only for the rights of women in the labour force.

If the government actually asked stay at home parents for their input and did not ignore studies they themselves conducted that found children would much prefer to be taken care of in their own homes by family members then they would be able to invest the resources they are putting into state subsidised child care into support for stay at home parents.

The Supreme Court will be hearing a case next month in which a mother providing 24 hour care for her son in her home is claiming her rights under Article 41.2 have not been fully vindicated by the state.

And they aren't, which is wrong and it should be change put to the electorate to change. I can only imagine the foaming atnthe mouth outrage at the proposal from some quarters.

It would be a complete waste of taxpayers money if they proposed it because as I said on numerous occasions here, the Constitution is read as gender neutral.

I didn't notice many people foaming at the mouth with outrage when we had a female Supreme Court Judge or President of the country. I can well imagine there would be a few FFFG supporters foaming at the mouth if Mary Lou becomes the first female Taoiseach though!

Ill rephrase, this will be the first time that the Constitution will place obligation on the State to attempt to provide support to families who have a a member who is disabled. It is also not possible for a person with a disability to being a Constitutional challenge either.

No it won't that is the reason so many the disability organisations are calling for a No vote. There is a Constitutional challenge being heard next month brought by the mother of a disabled person. Or do you mean a disabled person is unable to bring a Constitutional challenge on their own?

The debate shows such a world of difference between McDowell and McEntee. We have McDowell quoting case law, statutes, and examples, while McEntee is basically saying a whole lot of nothing, and contradicting other government TDs and Ministers.

Presenter is very good here on The Tonight Show. She has McEntee squirming.

Head kick and Ko to finish at the end by Mr McDowell 😂