Labor leader Ivana Basic said the proposed constitutional amendments to the definition of family and recognition of carers would be a “step forward” on the current wording.
He said that although he was initially disappointed with the two amendments, his party believes they are “a real step towards a more modern text, a fairer Ireland, a more inclusive and more equal society”. “I believe that will happen,” he said.
Mr Bacic said the party would continue to push for more support for carers after the March vote.
“We think this is a call for a ‘yes, yes and’. We want to continue the campaign beyond the referendum, particularly around better support for care.”
Labor’s campaign director, Senator Marie Sherlock, said Labor was “very keen” to expand the Constitution’s definition of family beyond the current “very restrictive” definition based on marriage. He said there was.
The party sees the Care Amendment as a “missed opportunity”, but said the 30,000 people who work in family homes need to be recognized.
On International Women’s Day, March 8, two referendums will be held proposing changes to the Irish Constitution.
One of these, the Family Amendment Bill, proposes to amend Article 41 of the Constitution to expand the meaning of family beyond that defined by marriage and include families based on “permanent” relationships. There is.
The second care amendment would remove Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2, which refer to women’s roles and duties within the household, and replace them with a new article, Article 42B, which recognizes family caregivers. is proposed.
Government parties, the Labor Party, the Social Democrats, the National Council for Women, One Family and Trewar, all insist on voting yes in both referendums.
Peerdar Toibin’s Aontu party and senator Ronan Mullen are among those advocating for a no vote in both referendums.
Some organizations, such as the Free Legal Advice Centers (Flac), advocate voting for one and against the other.
Flac supports the Family Amendment, saying it will have positive policy and legal implications in areas such as social welfare, family, tax and inheritance law.
He said the so-called “domestic women” clause was “ineffective, sexist and offensive”, while the proposed care amendment was “equally ineffective”.
“This amendment would constitutionally strengthen harmful stereotypes, such as the notion that the provision of care, including the care of elderly and disabled adults, is the personal responsibility of unpaid family members without the guarantee of state assistance. It will be something to express.”
“Along with the clearly sexist ‘women in the home’ clause, proposed section 42B would recognize that women perform the majority of unpaid care work and that there is a duty to redress this gender imbalance. It supports a status quo that imposes no burden on the state, making it an implicitly sexist fix.”
Mr. Bassick, the attorney, said he disagreed with Mr. Flack’s argument that the care proposal showed no improvement.
She said: “I disagree with their argument that the proposed wording of clause 42B on care represents a step backwards. I don’t think that’s right. This is clearly a step forward, and perhaps the one we want. It’s not a huge step forward, but it’s still a huge improvement over what came before.
“I also disagree with them and take issue with 42B saying it supports the status quo of gender divisions in home care. I don’t think that’s the correct interpretation.”
Bassic said the proposed language represents a “step forward” because the current constitution does not recognize fathers or male family members as caregivers.
“A lot of people will criticize it, but in the end it’s our choice,” she says.