Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL change on care is ageist and ableist, a new campaign group has claimed.
An upcoming referendum proposes deleting Article 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 of the Constitution, which make reference to a woman’s role and duties in the home, and replace it with a new article, 42B, that acknowledges family carers.
However, the newly founded Equality Not Care group feels the Government is discriminating against disabled people and their family members and has called for a no vote on this referendum.
It believes 42B would perpetuate the notion of people with impairments being burdens on families rather than equal rightsholders.
It wants a referendum that “expresses a modern interpretation of equality of the sexes with due regard for intersectionality” as protected under the nine grounds in Ireland’s equality legislation.
These are gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and membership of the Traveller community.
“42B seeks to deny our autonomy, dignity and equality,” spokeswoman Ann Marie Flanagan said, adding that it “also seeks to deny us the right to State support such as personal assistance services”.
“We have a Disability Act 2005 that is still not fully commenced, already forcing parents into court for a Needs Assessment for their children,” Flanagan said.
She said that what is required is “constitutional obligations to provide support services to enable everyone to participate in economic, social and cultural life”.
“This referendum is made up of smoke and mirrors which is designed to confuse and mislead women and men, providing support and requiring support,” Flangan said.
“It is a complete disregard for people’s rights. There is no dignity or autonomy in this referendum.”
Given that the majority of carers are women, Flanagan said the proposed wording would remove any mention of their economic rights and denigrates the “dignity of the family”.
Michael O’Dowd said the wording fails to “fulfil the comprehensive support promised” by the Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality which recommended the referendum.
He said the wording was “abdicating on creating a truly equitable society”.
O’Dowd added: “We firmly oppose the notion that support should rest on families, as this unfairly entangles lives and overlooks the rights of adults with support needs to have independent lives.
“It further denies other family members that same right.”
Dr Margaret Kennedy said that 42B would amount to discrimination based on age and disability.
She said: “Equality of men and women, includes disabled woman and men and older women and men.”
It is one of two referenda to be held on 8 March.
The group said it had no collective position on the other referendum which proposes amending Article 41 of the constitution to extend the meaning of family beyond one defined by marriage and include those based on “durable” relationships.
O’Dowd is currently an Aontú representative in Co Louth. He was previously a representative for Renua.
Dr Kennedy is a disability activist and campaigner on rights for disabled people in Ireland. She (and her identical twin sister Ann) have a rare neuro-muscular degenerative disease.
Flanagan describes herself as a disabled human rights feminist, climate, social justice activist.
The group formed just this month and are currently just focusing on the care referendum. At present, the group is self-funded.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Not a mortgage holder, and I’m not unbiased, but fair play to the Govt for staring them down
No vested interests either, but I’m even more shocked that at the stance they took in the first place.
Like It takes guts to do that when the bank is state owned! Give yourselves a salary increase for help with our spin.
The PTSB are the biggest gangsters in this and are gettin away with it. They increased the rates 3 times recently and although they will be reducing this .25% they are still by far the dearest.
I think you’ll find Ulster bank are the most expensive at 5.1%
AIB only exists because stupid taxpayers pay their bills.
I can not believe that they are getting away with this. The Bank has 3,000 employees it does not need and coupled with a host of branches that should be shut the cost to the tax payer is truly astronomical. recent salary increases on top of inflated salary levels add to the pension fund cost.
Why is the EBS rate 1.5% higher than AIB and they are merged institutions?
The EBS borrowers are being excessively penalised….
I think every aib or bank worker on the journal is giving the thumbs down
What recent salary increase would that be?
I started with EBS, some years ago when they were among the cheapest on the market, and I liked the whole idea of a mutual. Because of the race to the bottom, driven in part by Anglo, AIB were at one (later) point the second cheapest on the market for mortgages, and this received some publicity, with the IT publishing a comprehensive “scoresheet” as it were of the rates available at that time-late ’06 or very early ’07.
So I called into them, just before the whole thing went South, and, like the guy on the bus, I didn’t know what a tracker mortgage was, but they offered me one, as well as the (declined by me) chance to buy another investment property, or take an ‘oul holiday.
Happily I took it, and even happier, they took on board a ridiculously high valuation of my family home, giving me a loan to value that bore no relation to reality. I still have that-and am gladdened by the fact that those on variable rates are getting a bite of the cherry-I could still be there myself but by chance.
if every aib account holder withdrew their deposits and moved them elsewhere, they’d get a rude awakening!
The Dutch did this a fews years ago over bonuses to top staff. They gave them back More power to the people
They didn’t rise rates in the first place like all the other wanks. People should do some research before judging.
People are just looking for money for nothing, now they are getting a better rate than before the ECB increases.
The ESB is state owned but does not entitle people to free electricity, why should it be different with the banks.
Still doesnt stop them giving there staff a pay rise
I think it was quite reasonable that if AIB didn’t pass on the recent rises, they should not have to pass on the cut. This turn around seems totally illogical to me. Nice for those affected & good luck to them but nevertheless quite daft!
Wow great, lucky us – taxpayer to pay back reckless mortgage holders loans
This is a direct transfer of cash from depositors to mortgage holders
Is there anything stopping the banks from raising their rates in say a months time, irrespective of any change in the ECB rate? It never seems to stop PTSB as far as i can see.
Great stuff, with govt interference like this how do they hope to get private investment in order to get the NPRF’s investment in AIB back? Very short sighted decision, especially given AIB never passed on the last two increases.
You couldn’t make this stuff up
Yeah but if you raise interest rates it pushes more people into the cannot pay bracket and so we end up paying anyway, at least this makes repayments more affordable.
More likely it pushes them to restructure or sell. Banks should not be in the business of giving away money.
Why does it feel wrong that banks are passing on a saving to customers ?
Oh no, wait a second ……
News flash – Banks claim PR error and state that it should of read raise rates by 0.25%. The error is set to cost taxpayers a Further 10billion for some reason but banks have decided the double the rate increase to 0.5% because a senior exec was afraid they mightn’t be able to fund the regular replacement of the gold chairs that they use while at their weekly meetings in their ivory tower in the Bahamas.
Instead of posting the new rates in papers banks have simply setup a very easy system in every branch to accommodate these new costs. All customers of the branches should empty their pockets into barrels that are marked “slush funds”. An Taoiseach should simply sign a blank cheque (as they might need more the 10bil, you never know) and make it payable to cash or C#^?s , either way the ecb will know who it’s for!
have your say