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 state is striving/endeavouring to support carers or to ensure that mothers don't have to engage in labour. The striving/endeavouring part is the limiting factor.

Although if you removed that limiting factor, the old constitution would be much stronger (for mothers) than the new one is (for carers) The state currently "supports"" family carers but these so called supports and the health and social care system are an utter shambles and debacle.

[BrianD3]

Just read that gript article - yes, it does seems like misinformation and manipulation. E.g Roderic O'Gorman's recent comments where he implied that family carers (people like me and thousands of others) should vote Yes. When all this proposed change will do is oblige the State to "strive" to support us.

If this government wants to support family carers, pay us a non means tested, universal carers income. Have heavy penalties for any GP or anyone else who facilitates fraudulent claims. Also, do something about the decades long unregulated sh*tshow that is Homecare.

I get 1850 per year (non means tested carers support grant) for giving up a 20 year career to provide full time care. That meets the definition of "support". I provide a HIGHER STANDARD of care to my relative than would be provided in my nearest public nursing home which charges over 100,000 per year to the taxpayer/and or resident depending on what means they have.

[PureIsle]

Because I could see no benefit to any citizen in this change I had already decided to vote No.
I also considered that the government must have some reason for proposing this amendment that is not yet obvious or stated.
The safer course of action, IMO, is to prevent the unknown from being introduced later under the amended article.

[BrianD3]

Press release from Family Carers Ireland, a state funded NGO (one of many), calling for a Yes Yes vote.
https://familycarers.ie/news-press-rele ... referendum

Roderic O''Gorman has an "open mind" on socioeconomic support for carers. Having an open mind is even less useful than endeavouring or striving to do something.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41322703.html

i particularly like this bit below, this will fool a lot of people. Conveniently omits the fact that the proposed amendment won't place any onus on the state to support care, only to STRIVE to support care. He has no business implying that the proposed amendment will have any impact on future cabinet decisions or budgetary negotiations. Misinformation.

“What I do see is that right now, care as a concept isn’t recognised in our Constitution and there isn’t that explicit onus on the State to support that care,” Mr O’Gorman said.

“By placing that on the Constitution, whenever in the future there’s budgetary negotiations, whenever there’s Cabinet decisions, that the existence of that in the Constitution will have an impact in terms of the outcome of those discussions.”

[BrianD3]

Anyone who thinks that this or any previous government gives a sh*te about carers should consider the situation with homecare services. This is a vital support for (unpaid) carers. As far back as 2010, Prime Time uncovered shocking abuse in this sector. Also, Mary Harney had, according to the below article from 2010, been warned about the situation a year earlier.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/h ... 06651.html

15 fcuking years later where are we. We've had many "calls" for regulation, position papers, reports, press releases, programmes for government, public consultations. The Dept of Health is, apparently, working on regulations and this is at an "advanced stage". There was supposed to be something before the Oireachtas by the end of 2023, nothing. Then it was Q1 2024 which we are already over halfway through. Even when "something" happens, there will be further public consultations, faffing around and transition periods to allow the disgraceful HSE and private companies to get their houses in order. That should have started 15 years ago.

The nursing home sector has been regulated since 2009 and to this day, nursing homes are still regularly found to be non compliant with the standards when inspected by HIQA. Now consider what the homecare sector must be like with unregulated care being provided by for profit companies and the HSE to people in their home behind closed doors. Chaos, The abuse, incompetence and fraud are likely off the charts.

[jmayo]

Anyone who thinks that this or any previous government gives a sh*te about carers should consider the situation with homecare services. This is a vital support for (unpaid) carers. As far back as 2010, Prime Time uncovered shocking abuse in this sector. Also, Mary Harney had, according to the below article from 2010, been warned about the situation a year earlier.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/h ... 06651.html

15 fcuking years later where are we. We've had many "calls" for regulation, position papers, reports, press releases, programmes for government, public consultations. The Dept of Health is, apparently, working on regulations and this is at an "advanced stage". There was supposed to be something before the Oireachtas by the end of 2023, nothing. Then it was Q1 2024 which we are already over halfway through. Even when "something" happens, there will be further public consultations, faffing around and transition periods to allow the disgraceful HSE and private companies to get their houses in order. That should have started 15 years ago.

The nursing home sector has been regulated since 2009 and to this day, nursing homes are still regularly found to be non compliant with the standards when inspected by HIQA. Now consider what the homecare sector must be like with unregulated care being provided by for profit companies and the HSE to people in their home behind closed doors. Chaos, The abuse, incompetence and fraud are likely off the charts.

Don't worry it is all in hand.
Nursing homes are too much trouble so they are shutting to reopen as asylum centres.
Problem solved.

Anyone that trusts the current shower of C U N T S (and that goes for all major political parties in the Dail including all opposition ones) is an eejit.

And anyone that actively campaigns at this stage for their policies is no better than a quisling and a traitor to the Irish people.

If they really wanted to make a difference they could make sure home carers were properly looked after.
They do a huge job as it is of saving the state a considerable amount of money with little respect being shown to them.

[Bucky]

Bucky's hot take is that there is an awful bang of angry Boomer about this thread. Bucky is not saddened. Just disappointed.

[knownunknown]

Bucky's hot take is that there is an awful bang of angry Boomer about this thread. Bucky is not saddened. Just disappointed.

If Bucky had anything interesting to say to challenge the boomers then that would indeed be a hot take, instead it’s a cold, boring, incessant cliche of a take.

[Bucky]

If Bucky had anything interesting to say to challenge the boomers then that would indeed be a hot take, instead it’s a cold, boring, incessant cliche of a take.

Bucky's hot take is that based on the age demographic of this site he feels its best not to challenge the Boomers to directly as serious health complications could arise if they are challenged to strenuously. Bucky is mindful and respectful of those of a greater age.

[knownunknown]

Bucky's hot take is that based on the age demographic of this site he feels its best not to challenge the Boomers to directly as serious health complications could arise if they are challenged to strenuously. Bucky is mindful and respectful of those of a greater age.

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.

[Bucky]

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.

Bucky understands your sentiment. And not wishing to cause any more distress to those of a certain age chort. Bucky will no longer post in this thread.

[nlgbbbblth]

Is anyone voting Yes / No

or No / Yes

?

[nlgbbbblth]

I know someone who got two polling cards for the Repeal The Eighth referendum (one for his house, the other sent to his parents house)

He voted yes and no.

[Berties_Horse]

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.

Little point in engaging pondlife that were subject of bans from the other site. The same scum that would slavishly follow the Covid narrative and rat on their neighbours. They lick posters of Tony Holohan in their spare time, the Stasi wouldn't get a look in. Boomer this and boomer that, their intentions are rather transparent...an exercise in futility engaging pathetic creatures.

[Berties_Horse]

End of the day, and Guburnor can boot me off this platform - Holohan was the lowest form of vermin during Covid madness. Imagine an unelected defacto dictator neatly sidestepping responsibility in February 2022 after instilling irrational fear in the populace. Lost two friends to suicide in quick succession, yet King Tony abdicates all responsibility courtesy of high level contacts. An embarrassing shitstain on our state, however one must grovel in subservient fashion. Holohan will eventually be brought to reckoning, and not a moment too soon. Imagine condescending to the Irish public for 18 months and gaining €400,000 p/a in the process. Utter swine. Anticipating 'WokeHogan' and his "why don't you kill yourself" palaver, unique talent for drawing petty trolls out of hibernation. Ultimately I own them.

[BrianD3]

A lot of waffle about this on Katie Hannon's show last night. Re: the care amendment, the message seems to be, just vote Yes and trust us that we will recognise the work of carers and "strive" to provide support for them. LOL.

Let's consider the current situation where the state "endeavours" to ensure that mother's aren't obliged by economic necessity to work and consider how successful that endeavouring has been.

Revenue distribution statistics for 2018:
Number of married couples with both earning - 494,451
Number of married couples with one earning - 441,562

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/doc ... status.pdf

No doubt every one of those 494k couples are both working because they just LOVE working and it's got nothing to do with being able to get and pay a mortgage or pay their rent.

Sinead McGarry on Twitter who is about as far from the dreaded Far Right as its possible to be has pointed about that if the care amendment is carried, that will likely be the last referendum on care for a very long time. We'll then be stuck with governments "striving" and failing to support carers.

[Del.Monte]

More wasting of money on pointless referendums and accordingly I will be spoiling my vote.

[marhay70]

More wasting of money on pointless referendums and accordingly I will be spoiling my vote.

Better to vote for the status quo in that case, if the Government is intent on changing something and you either disagree or are ambivalent, then spoiling your vote only facilitates them.

[marhay70]

They carried on similar attempts at brain fog at the time of the Seanad referendum. That time they made out that they wanted to abolish the Seanad, why would they, it's a retirement home for useless politicians, where they can have a nice little earner while waiting for the electorate to lose interest? That time they worded it in such a way that the removal of the Seanad, or even proposed reforms, would have meant debate on controversial issues could be stifled and the electorate quite rightly, threw it out. Hopefully, the electorate will do similar with this attempt at wool-pulling.

[Biggins]

I'll be voting yes. The state of the care sector aside, placing women at the centre of the home is sexist.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that tirade against Tony Holohan. A man who made a huge personal sacrifice when the country needed him. I found him very reassuring during those dark days. He even continued after his wife passed away (RIP). The lack of excess mortality we suffered especially compared to other countries speaks for itself.

[marhay70]

I'll be voting yes. The state of the care sector aside, placing women at the centre of the home is sexist.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that tirade against Tony Holohan. A man who made a huge personal sacrifice when the country needed him. I found him very reassuring during those dark days. He even continued after his wife passed away (RIP). The lack of excess mortality we suffered especially compared to other countries speaks for itself.

I don't know why you would consider women in the home as sexist, I hate these labels, products of the woke generation which seems to be offended if nothing offends them. I've met many women in my time who would have dearly loved to stay home and look after their families but were forced, by circumstances, to go out to work. When I first got married, married women in the workplace were frowned upon, women were encouraged to stay at home and most of them were happy to do so because it was seen as the natural order. In these days of not knowing what gender a person is who is standing next to you, it is easy for people to confuse what is the natural inclination, but women, to my mind, are the nurturers by design. Yes, they should work outside if they want to but it should not be a requirement and society has made it so, which is contrary to the 1937 constitution. The Government, in this amendment, wants to change that without inserting a similar provision for those whom destiny leaves to do the nurturing.

[Bucky]

I'll be voting yes. The state of the care sector aside, placing women at the centre of the home is sexist.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that tirade against Tony Holohan. A man who made a huge personal sacrifice when the country needed him. I found him very reassuring during those dark days. He even continued after his wife passed away (RIP). The lack of excess mortality we suffered especially compared to other countries speaks for itself.

Bucky's hot take is that he that he rates this post as excellent. Good to see someone willing to break the Boomer cosy consensus that this thread reeks off.

[knownunknown]

I'll be voting yes. The state of the care sector aside, placing women at the centre of the home is sexist.

This was addressed in the article in the OP.

Green Minister Catherine Martin asserted, completely falsely, that the current wording of the constitution “says that a woman’s place is in the home”. This is untrue.

It is not only untrue, but it has been confirmed as being untrue by no less an authority than the Irish Supreme Court’s Judge Marie Baker, who is also Chairwoman of Catherine Martin’s own independent electoral commission, who says that “The case law of the Supreme Court is quite clear that (the present wording) doesn’t mean that a woman’s place is in the home”. If you don’t believe me, you can watch her saying it herself here.

[BrianD3]

What's behind this "women's place in the home" misrepresentation? Has the government been advised that there are legal issues coming down the line with a worsening housing crisis and mothers being forced, even more so than before, to take up paid employment for economic reasons.

Or is it just some of desperate virtue signalling exercise - we're so progressive, we're removing "women's place is in the home" from the constitution and finally freeing ourselves from Dev and Archbishop McQuaid. And supporting (well, striving to support) carers at the same time, aren't we great. Now vote for us in the next election.