Referendum debate: Why Stephen Teap is voting yes and why Tom Clonan is voting no
Tom Clonan and Stephen Teap are urging Irish people who can vote in the referendums on March 8 to go out and use their vote. For details on ensuring you are on the register and entitled to vote in referendums, see link at the foot of this article. Picture: iStock
On March 8, citizens will be asked to vote on two proposed changes to our Constitution which focus on the definition of family, care in the home and references to women and mothers.
Unlike more recent referendums such as the vote to introduce marriage equality, the changes put forward in these referendums are perhaps more nuanced.
Yes campaigners have been calling for the removal of what has been described as archaic and sexist references from Bunreacht na hÉireann for many years. However, some say the wording put forward by the Government is not strong enough.
Those on the no side believe that the Constitution in its current state recognises the unique role of women and do not agree that the special link between marriage and family should be taken out.
Here, Stephen Teap and Tom Clonan outline why they will be voting yes and no respectively.
It’s only in the last few days that I’ve taken the time to sit down and read through Articles 41 and 42 in our Constitution and the changes that are being proposed in this referendum on family and care taking place on International Women’s Day, March 8.
When reading the words in Article 41, “the State recognises that by her life within the home, a woman gives the State a support without which a common good cannot be achieved”, I found it shocking. Shocked that there was a day in our country’s history when these words were somewhat acceptable by
society, and while I may have been shocked by these words, I was also not surprised they existed, given the mistreatment of women in our State in the past and the ongoing battle for equality between men and women today.
As I reflected more on those articles other feelings started to creep in. Feelings of anger, sadness, and disappointment. These articles cut much closer to the bone for my personal situation than I ever expected it would.
I’m a widower and a sole parent of two young boys because of losing my wife, the boys’ mother, to cancer back in 2017. Both those titles I never chose for myself were forced upon me by circumstances outside of my control. By my own choice, I chose, four years ago, to be a full-time stay-at-home dad, a decision I made in the best interest of my family as it is today.
But why the sadness, anger, and disappointment? Well, after reading the current wording of the Constitution, it dawned on me that my two boys and I get no recognition in our own country’s Constitution.
Due to circumstances outside of my family’s control, there is no recognition for a widower, a sole parent, a stay-at-home dad, and most importantly, for my children who are left with only one living parent to raise them.
How can someone say today that we are not a family according to our State? Imagine trying to explain that to an 11- and eight-year-old? Well, I’m just not going to bother saying anything to my boys. Instead, I’m going to go out and vote yes and yes and do my part to get this wording corrected.
This is an unusual referendum. Unusual because, unlike previous referendums, nothing will change for many within the home. I will continue to be a full-time stay-at-home dad for as long as I choose to. For those mothers who have chosen to be full-time stay-at-home moms or even those moms who continue to work, nothing will change for them either. Grandparents or aunts and uncles in other situations who are primary guardians to children, nothing will physically change for them either.
So why vote? Well, what’s more
important than immediate physical change is that we can change the wording of a document that the foundations of this country are built upon. Removing one line at a time in the best interests of equality between men and women is of the utmost importance when the opportunity presents itself.
Updating the terminology around the meaning of the word family in today’s modern Irish society, which is more inclusive for everyone while continuing to protect those that still choose the traditional route, is further extending equality and inclusivity for everyone, and that is the most important message of all.
There was a time in this country when women weren’t allowed to vote; thankfully, that is no longer the case.
There was a time when women were forced out of the workplace and into the home; thankfully, that is no longer the case.
While this country has made some improvements on equality between men and women, the journey is far from over.
This referendum is just another milestone we need to pass on this journey. An important milestone for us all to gain more supports and provisions for families like mine and yours from the State. But before we can do that, we need to clarify first in an inclusive and equal way for all of us on the different types of families that exist today.
Acknowledge the variety of carers in our children’s lives that give support, upholding love and protection with the family for the future generations of this country. This is why I’ll be voting yes, yes on March 8, for all the families of Ireland.
- Stephen Teap is a healthcare advocate and a founding member of 221+ CervicalCheck Patient Support Group
The 40th amendment of the Constitution (Care), Article 42.B is a missed opportunity.
The wording of 42.B gives constitutional expression to the conservative ideological position that the primary responsibility for care resides within the family and family members. The article is not rights-based and is very carefully worded to indemnify the State and the HSE from any legal obligation to support family carers. 98% of unpaid family carers are women and girls.
The use of the word ‘strive’ is designed to ensure that State supports
for care are not legally enforceable or ‘justiciable’.
The wording carefully chosen by Government and its legal advisers omits any reference to rights to care in the community or outside the home as explicitly recommended by both the Citizens’ Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality. Ireland is an outlier in this regard. We are the only jurisdiction in the European Union where disabled citizens and carers have no legal right to treatment, therapies, interventions, surgeries, or supports. This is one of the reasons why disabled children and adolescents have become permanently paralysed, further disabled — or dying — on waiting lists in Ireland.
As a parent and carer for over 20 years, I have experienced first hand the lack of supports for disabled children and adults like my son. From the moment he was diagnosed with a rare neuromuscular disease, our family entered the parallel universe which exists in Ireland for disabled citizens.
Quite simply put, Ireland is one of the worst countries in Europe in which to be disabled — whether that be physical disability, intellectual disability, neurodiverse, or simply elderly with additional needs.
Our waiting lists, for even a basic assessment of need, are so chronic and catastrophically long that no cohort of disabled citizens receives adequate or meaningful treatment or care within the therapeutic window. This results in countless Irish disabled citizens suffering life-limiting, life-altering, and sub-optimal outcomes that would not be
tolerated in other EU member states.
The context for the wording of article 42.B is particularly interesting. Last year in Seanad Éireann I introduced the Disability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2023, which would give disabled citizens the legal, enforceable right to the treatments, therapies, and care
supports identified in an assessment of need. Our Cabinet gave an instruction to strike the bill down by an amendment that would ‘kill’ the bill.
In December, Minister for Disability Roderic O’Gorman told me that he would not support this bill as it would impose a challenging ‘burden’ on the State in terms of resources. Let there be no confusion here, our Government is hostile to the idea of conferring legal rights on disabled Irish citizens.
On January 31 in the Seanad, I proposed an amendment to a Government private members’ bill on ‘Care’, that Ireland immediately ratify all protocols of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — including the optional protocol. This would have conferred legal rights on disabled citizens — particularly under Article 19 of the UNCRPD — to live independent, autonomous lives outside the family. Government senators voted against this amendment.
When my son turned 18 and moved from limited paediatric supports to adult services, I contacted the HSE to find out what his care plan was. The HSE disability services manager expressed surprise.
“He lives at home with you doesn’t he? That’s the plan for him.”
I then asked what would happen to my son when I died. What care supports would he receive to live independently?
I was passed on to the HSE social worker. She asked me if my son had a sister. When I replied yes, she stated: “She will look after your son when you die. What are you worried about?”
This conversation occurred in 2019, not 1819. It is emblematic of the patriarchal and paternalistic view of the Irish State towards carers and disabled citizens.
The wording of Article 42.B was drafted by a polity that is hostile to the rights of disabled citizens.
It gives constitutional expression to an ableist view that disabled citizens must rely on family members for care — and deliberately excludes the right to an independent, autonomous life in the community.
I’m not part of a vote no campaign. Each Irish citizen will vote according to their conscience. I cannot vote for this amendment.
It subordinates the rights of an entire group of Irish citizens in a way that would not be tolerated for any other identity, by way of ethnicity, religious formation, LGBT+ status, or any other protected status. It is frankly heartbreaking.
The World Health Organization notes that every citizen will become disabled at some point in their lives. Many of us do not have or desire family supports. We all hope to live autonomous, dignified lives.
Anyone who votes for the wording of 42.B is subordinating the inalienable human rights of our most vulnerable citizens and wittingly or unwittingly engaging in an act of individual and collective self-harm.
- Tom Clonan is a retired Defence Forces captain and security analyst and a member of the Seanad.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
