‘Sexist’ reference in Constitution to stay

‘Woman’s place’ referendum put back for a year

THE protected place of ‘woman in the home’ is set to stay in the Constitution for another year after a rebellion by TDs and Senators yesterday.

They want to study a potential replacement for the wording, which they concede is discriminatory and demeaning to women, instead of the straight repeal of the clause favoured by Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan.

And the belief now is that a replacement provision, broadly aimed at giving due recognition to all carers, will not be available before the local and European elections next June.

The new provision will likely expand on the existing word, which says that no mother has to work outside the home because of economic necessity.

The proposed referendum in October, to coincide with the Presidential election, will now not happen. The sole other ballot paper that day will propose the straightforward deletion of the Constitutional prohibition on blasphemy.

Expressing his disappointment yesterday, Mr Flanagan said the referendum will not now proceed on October 26.

The decision by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice to schedule pre-legislative hearings had scuppered it, he said.

‘I very much regret that on the occasion of the centenary of women achieving the right to vote in Ireland, the Irish people will not have an opportunity to remove Article 41.2 from our Constitution,’ he said.

‘I believe the Article, which seeks to define where women belong in Ireland as being in the home, carrying out duties, is not just sexist and reductive, but at odds with the Government’s gender equality policies.’

The Constitution doesn’t seek to define the place of men, he conceded. ‘I believe it should not seek to define the place of women. To me, this is a straightforward proposition after many decades of inaction,

‘The time has come for the people to exercise a view on the retention or removal of the Article. But I look forward to receiving the committee’s recommendations in due course.’

Committee chair Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, explaining the committee’s position, said: ‘I think while it was clearly the unanimous view of the membership that the wording is sexist and discriminatory and must be removed or changed, some members were strongly of the view that an alternative wording should be drawn up. This is reflective of wider societal consideration of the position and members of the Constitutional Convention, the Irish Human Rights Commission, the National Women’s Council of Ireland, and a whole raft of other opinion going back for many years, have expressed that an alternative wording was indeed the way to proceed.’

He added: ‘Members expressed this is all achievable within the context of the local and European elections next June.

‘The Presidential election of October 26 just didn’t work and won’t work, and seemed to many members without a rationale,’ he said, with a veiled reference to the urgings of Mr Flanagan.

‘The view of the committee is there needs to be an informed debate and full discussion as to whether a replacement wording is preferable or whether simple extraction is in order.’

‘It is sexist and reductive’ ‘It must be removed or changed’