Our Constitution was not written by a male-pale-and-stale politician, unforgivably taller than Leo, and nor was it supervised by an archbishop notorious for almost always being “displeased”. It was written by great Irish lawyers. And, most importantly, it incorporated many protections for the citizens against the State.
The decline and fall of the British Empire after WWII resulted in freedom for many colonies. The Irish Constitution became a template for their constitutions. It’s in English and Common Law. Our Irish lawyers assisted former British colonies, from Cyprus to South Africa; both as honest brokers, and as experts. Though wokery now rubbish it, our Constitution is very well respected internationally.
All Constitutions need to be amended. A State sometimes deems it necessary to amend, in order to protect the State from its own citizens. What is now happing before our very eyes may be along those lines? Common sense demands that we scrutinize both proposed amendment to learn why, and to see for whose benefit.
Seriousness, according to Oscar Wilde, is the refuge of shallow minds. In the debate about these two amendments, Oscar’s wry observation is borne out. The first seriousness is oft-repeated; the jibe that the Constitution says; “A woman’s place is in the home”. That is not in the Constitution. The next seriousness is horror at mention of a mother’s “duties”. The wokery have made the word “duties” a how-dare-you word. The third seriousness is oracular;
“the language of Article 41 has no place in a contemporary constitutional text”.
Happily, wokery has, not yet, dragged pronouns into this debate; so, we won’t all find ourselves locked up in Mountjoy. However, this article ain’ t about wordings; it is about the two substances.
Ladies First! We look first at the substance of the Bean a’ Tí Amendment; known to wokery as the “Care” Amendment.
In this amendment, the crucial difference, between what now is, and, what is proposed, is not the much-highlighted deletion of ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ – a disgraceful negation – or the insertion of the nebulous word ‘care’, in lieu thereof. It is the cunning and cheeky replacement of the proper noun, “State”, by a collective noun, “Society”. This crux is what is known as a Paradigm Shift – like a whole new ballgame. The State currently cherishes ladies for their contribution to the common good. Implicit in cherishing is the acknowledgement of a debt it “shall endeavour” to honour.
Happily, the state does honour its debt. But sadly, not to all the ladies mentioned in Article 41; only to women in dire straits does it pay allowances; unmarried mothers, prisoners’ wives, deserted wives, and, widows. This latter allowance, take note, is extended, as widowers’ allowance, to unmarried widowers.
There are calls for an allowance for all within-the-home-women. Such an allowance could tip the balance; allowing women to quit the workforce and become a housewives, if they like. Such an allowance would cost the State serious money. This may be why the ‘care’ amendment aims to get the State off the hook, and, cheekily proposes to place Society on the hook.
Everyone knows Society is not an institution that can pay any existing allowances, much less new allowances to every bean a’ tí.
But society can show its appreciation, in other ways, like during Covid 19; with a nice round of applause; a bualadh bas deas!
If Article 41 is amended, the State is off the hook. All the existing allowances are threatened. Allowance for bean a’ tí is just not on. And if Leo says different, he has been badly informed by his help.
Now let us look at the amendment concerning The Family.
Family is defined in reverential terms by Article 41, un-amended;
“… 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 necessary basis of social order and … indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.”
But now the State tells us the existing definition is insufficient; and, that amendment of the Constitution is the only way forward. Insert new clause containing buzz-words “durable relationship” and all will be well. But the buzz-words will comprise a new legal term – the meaning of which is desperately vague and uncertain.
Lately, as you noted above, our Supreme Court has deemed an unmarried man to be entitled to widower’s allowance on the death of his long- time partner, the mother of his children. This is one example of why a durable relationship does not require the proposed Constitutional amendment if justice is to be served. Because the Constitution, as it now stands, already promises all citizens that we are “held equal before the law”. – Article 40.1
Senator Michael McDowell, a most experienced and successful lawyer, says a vote for it is a vote for a “foreseeable and avoidable mess”. He is right.
The proposed introduction of a virtual alternative definition of ‘family’ could surely open a Pandora’s Box. How it will impact tax, inheritance, and, so controversially, immigration, we know not. And nobody knows. Not even the smiling wannabe influencers.
It is hard to see for whose benefit this amendment might be. The State? Nope! The citizens? Nope! The Wokery? A definite maybe?
The question of why now arises. Is it meant to attack the family?
St Charbal, loved by Lebanon’s Muslims and Christians, tells us
“The war of the evil one against the family is the core of his war against the Lord. Because the family is the image of God”
Summary: Impacts on Society of Amendments to Article 41
The “Family” Amendment is not necessary, and, intended, or, unintended, it constitutes a vicious frontal attack on the family.
Don’t be an unpardonable fool. Vote No.
The “Care” Amendment aims to get the State off the hook, and it even seems indifferent to harming our most vulnerable women.
Better safe than sorry. Vote No.
Cathal Ashbourne-Loftus
Christian Solidarity Party