Yes/Yes campaign and misinformation

[knownunknown]

Long before reading this article I believe the campaign regarding ‘women in the home’ does nothing but remove existing rights for people.

This gript article puts it much more succinctly than I ever could.

Are the government spreading misinformation?

https://gript.ie/government-is-forfeiti ... ion-again/

Existing

• The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
• The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
• In particular, 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.

Proposed change

• The state recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision

The big difference I see is the change from a negative right to a positive right, like the right not to have your property stolen is not the same as you have a positive right for others to protect your property.

• mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
• and shall strive to support such provision

Negative rights are real rights, the right not to be stolen from, the right not to be murdered, the right not to be silenced. Positive rights are much more wishy washy, the right to a home? Someone has to pay for it.

If Barry steals from Anne then Anne has infringed on Barry’s right not to be stolen from, but if Anne has a positive right to his fortune then Barry must work to protect it.

Currently a woman could argue that the constitution is being broken because she has been obliged by economic necessity to leave a job in the home that she would like to do.

Carers could not argue in this new wording as all the government are committed to do is attempt to support carers and such.

[BrianD3]

As someone who is a male, full time carer for an elderly family member, this interests me. Old constitution: the State shall "endeavour to ensure" that mothers shall not have to engage in labour. Proposed one: the State shall "strive to support" provision of care.

As we know from the bullsh*t that spews from politicians' mouths, election promises etc., striving and endeavouring to do something mean nothing. In that case, does it matter if the s…login to view the rest of this post