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.
LAST UPDATE | 8 Mar 2023
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE announced that referendums on issues relating to gender equality are to take place this November.
In particular, the referendum would focus on amendments to Article 41 of the Constitution, which contains references to ‘women’s life in the home’.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced that the Government intended to hold the referendum later this year, following recommendations from both the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality and a special Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality.
Speaking outside Government Buildings, Varadkar said that while the Constitution had served the Irish State well, it did need to be brought up to modern standards.
“86 years in existence, Bunreacht na hEireann has served us well, but it needs to be modernised,” Varadkar told reporters.
“The Constitution serves to protect rights and freedoms and its principles have a profound effect on the State and citizens and the power of the Oireachtas to legislate.
While predominantly positive, the Constitution is not truly reflective of the modern Ireland we all know today.”
He added that discriminatory language and language that “perpetuates gender stereotypes” does not belong in the Constitution.
He added that the referendum would “enshrine gender equality” within the Constitution.
Varadkar told the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party this evening that changing the constitution is never easy and referendums have been lost in the past due to lack of planning.
Party colleagues heard a lot of work has to be done between now and November to ensure the wording is right and a decision made on whether enabling legislation is necessary.
The National Women’s Council has welcomed the Government’s announcement this morning, saying that if passed, it would be a “significant change”.
“This is a timely and significant announcement for women, for families, and for gender equality,” said Orla O’Connor, Director of the National Women’s Council.
“It‘s a unifying proposal which, if passed, would replace the outdated, limited role for women with a recognition of the value of care, both in the home and in the community. It would bring a new legal definition of the family which would match the reality for one-parent families and all diverse families.”
The Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended in June 2021 that two Articles of the Constitution be amended: Articles 40 and 41.
Article 40.1 currently states that “all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”, with the Citizens’ Assembly calling for the passage to be amended to explicitly refer to gender equality.
The Citizens’ Assembly also recommended amending Article 41, which recognises families as a fundamental and primary group of Irish society.
It was recommended that this article be amended to continue to place protections on family life, but that protections should not be limited to the marital family.
Recommendations were also made for Article 41.2 of the Constitution, which currently reads:
“In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
The Citizens’ Assembly has called for it to be deleted and replaced with language which is not gender specific.
The Citizens’ Assembly also recommended that Article 41.2 contain obligations from the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and the wider community.
According to Varadkar, it was not yet certain whether multiple referenda would be required or if it would be possible to make the three amendments using a single omnibus referendum.
Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman said that an inter-departmental committee would be established, with the wording of the referenda to be decided on by mid-May.
Legislation to allow the referendum take place would then be published by the end of June, with passage through the Dáil and Seanad then to follow.
The campaign for the referendum is expected to begin at the end of September.
News of the referendum has been welcomed today, with Labour leader Ivana Bacik saying that it was good to see a date set.
However, she said that the referendum must cover all three recommendations that were made by the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality.
Bacik, who chaired the Special Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality, said that “sexist” language within the Constitution around women and mothers must be removed.
“The changes recommended to Article 41 would remove the sexist language currently in the text referring exclusively to women and mothers as having a ‘life’ and ‘duties’ within the home. Instead, the proposed changes would insert gender-neutral language to ensure that the role of care is recognised, valued and supported by the State,” Bacik said.
“The proposed changes would also ensure a more inclusive definition of ‘family’- beyond the family based upon marriage currently recognised in Article 41.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If women in the home are truly equal under the constitution then pay them their pensions in their own right and not as a dependant of their husband. How can a woman who gave up paid employment to raise her own children or care for elderly/infirm/disabled members of the family in times when there was no childcare or support from the state, now qualify for a pension as she will not meet the required 520 credits equivalent to 10 working years outside the home. The 2012 legislation which was supposed to recognise her contribution of home caring can not even provide for the credit entitlement if she does not have the 520 credits. It is laughable and insulting for Leo Varadker to talk of women suffering discrimination in the home when the state continues to deny them their own pensions while not recognising their contribution . All the non gender specific language will not change the fact that it was women , by and large with few exceptions who undertook the caring roles and who now find themselves in the unenviable role as paupers with no pension entitlements. How is it the citizens assembly made no mention of pensions to carers of yesteryear, the women in the home who the state were more than happy to ignore
@Honeybee: that is not gender specific, men do it also. That’s a law change, not a constitutional one
@Honeybee: It was also a recommendation that those women effected by the marriage bar be given their pensions. They are yet to give people with disabilities their basic human rights by enacting the optional protocol on the UNcrpd. This should be done, before any referendum on Equality, as women with disabilities live in constant poverty. And are discriminated in the work place, as are many disabled people.
@Patrick McGarry: yes they do, but many more women are in caring roles and lower paid jobs,
Eg. Home carers, nursing homes, child care industry.
@Honeybee: Numerous governments have floated the pre election idea of some version of paying women working in the home and giving them pension credits etc, only to forget about them once elected, “but that’s just electioneering!” To quote one former politician.
This is being presented and spun as a positive development and equailty for women, but its not. You just have to ask yourself are any women working in the home suffering discrimination because of the wording of the constitution, or because of a failure by successive governments to financially support that constitutional recognition of women wording?
It could even be argued that this is a cynical move to prevent any woman or womans group, from taking legal action to gain those supports based on an existing constitutional right.
@Honeybee: family carers get credits but are still means tested on their spouses income for carers allowance. So if spouse is on a decent salary the carer of say a disabled child in the home gets nothing.
@Honeybee: 100% agree with you
@Honeybee: I wonder if, as soon as this referendum is passed, we’re likely to see various interested parties come out and make various financial demands, based upon the new constitution.
@David Van-Standen: Our laws are based on the Constitution, unlike the U.K. where they do not have a written constitution. Directly or indirectly, women working in the home are discriminated against because if it came to a legal case, the Govt could quote the Constitution. If it is written into it, they would no longer be able to do that.
@Honeybee: And up to 1976 a husband could sell the Family Home without his wife’s knowledge or consent rendering her and children homeless. That’s how valuable the Government considered how important a woman’s life in the home was. No income ,not even the Family Allowance was in the Mothers name.
Article 41.2 states:
1. In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives
to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged
by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the
home.
I can see why this would have to go as formulated, but I can also see it’s not a simple case of just taking it out, because of what it actually intends to express.
It’s meant to protect the situation where one parent goes out to work and the other takes care of the children. But efforts understandable in itself to make girls more self-supportive starting in the 70s/80s had an unintended effect: it’s forced parents to both get jobs because some of them did, who then outpriced the others (‘dinkies’ to begin with: double income, no kids, and it went from there).
So the constitutional article intends to protect a situation pretty much long-gone, since people are now being forced to afford life on double incomes plus paying through the nose for the obligation of childcare with both parents at work.
So while the proposal to remove the gender is fair, the consequence is a re-affirmation that it shouldn’t take both parents to have jobs, and I doubt this amounts to much of the thinking behind the drive to change the wording, so this could get interesting.
@Mick Tobin: I think it would be great if we could reverse that change and have it feasible to raise a family on a moderate single full time income or equivalent (why not a three day week each, if both have a career to grow that lets it happen).
I also think we should try because the current setup leaves many people without enough time to devote to their kids.
I have absolutely no idea how to get there from here.
A referendum to halt the proposed increase in the number of TDs should be held at the same time. We are completely over represented and instead of increasing the numbers we should do the opposite.
Liberal Leo thinks this will be an easy vote.
Let’s get a referendum on a woman’s right to own a home leo.
@Paul Gorry: Right of men also
@Paul Gorry: why can’t men have a right to own a home leo too?
@Ciaran O’Mara: and why can’t a transgender person own a home.
@Paul Crowley: That goes without saying!!
How pathetic is this government to pick such low hanging fruit. A load of hot air that will neither demand or require anything from Leo and Micheal only weak platitudes which they’re very good at.
@RogersRabbit: the real issue is privatisation of water. Dont be fooled by the big issue. I agree with equality but fgg and greens have their eyes set to charge us thrice for water.
@RogersRabbit: Couldn’t agree more! Well said.. Lip service at its finest
Article 40.1 … how do you get more inclusive than ‘All citizens’ ?
@Bri Lyons:
“Her” “women” I guess is where it’s at
@Peter:
Or “woman” rather
@Peter: or Scrooby do, tree, plant or whatever some might want to be addressed as.
@Bri Lyons: Agreed 40.1 seems fine as it is, it would even cover AI or non-human citizens if ever there were to be such.
Article 41 is rather less fine.
How is the suggested change to 40.1 gonna make any difference. Pretty sure “all humans” covers everyone. They more worried about being super duper inclusive than actually deal with some of the real issues as mentioned by other commenters.
I’d be very suspicious of anything that Leo thinks is a good idea. Read the fine print before you vote for this because you can be sure they’ll tack something less favourable onto it in the hope we won’t notice.
Ffs
How can he pretend to be in favour of women/girls, when him and his cronies are so obsessed with diluting what that actually means? This was never mentioned until men started calling themselves women. Force fed rhetoric again. He doesn’t care one jot about actual women
@Séan Ó’Múrchú: same way he diluted what marriage means in the last referendum?
@Deirdre O’Byrne:
Who within Irish society lost their recognition within the constitution when same sex marriage was recognised?
The answer is nobody, in fact it recognised the equal rights of same sex couples.
Just because someone slaps the words gender equality onto an argument or course of action, doesn’t immediately make it a vaild argument or one that doesn’t have an alternative negative motivation behind it.
You are not comparing like with like, this isn’t about gender recognition, its about removing recognition from women that choose to be the homemaker for whatever reason.
The government would be better served giving those women equal pension rights and an income of their own, which thanks to same sex marriage, would also be available to a homemaker within a same sex couple.
Ah Leo – the same Leo who said no woman would have to go through the courts to get recompense etc Can’t wait for him to lose his seat – that aside what is this article to be change to? Or is it just to abolished? Should we not have something in there about man/woman/ non specific and their place in the home instead? (Serious question)
@Thomas Harrington: it said in the arrival that the new wording is to be worked out in may before going to both houses for approval.
So woman will be deleted and replaced with not gender specific language,does this mean that trans woman who have not fully transitioned are untitled to go into woman’s spaces, & women will have no rights in equality law to raise safety concerns
@M Nolan: correction untitled should be entitled
@Deirdre O’Byrne: This is a very specific point in the whole Trans-rights debate but could these “concerns” be more related to the possibility of an obvious male who is also a r*pist, dressed as a woman and entering female spaces unchallenged because he could be a trans-woman with a right to be there? I have no idea what a fair and acceptable solution for all would be, but the “concerns” mentioned above may not at all be directed towards Trans-women, but are a consequence and real concern of cis women (I couldn’t tell you if its a majority/minority that have these concerns).
@M Nolan: way to shoehorn anti-trans rhetoric into an issue that has nothing to do with it. These articles all seek to address gender equality, the areas were they are seeking to add gender equality generally already include all persons, including trans people, but they want to enshrine the specific language of gender equality into our constitution while the article on women’s place in the home seeks to expand this to include other parents etc who should have their role at home including as a carer recognised. Transgender people are already covered by equality legislation and already have legal gender recognition in Ireland and you have undoubtedly shared spaces with transgender people without noticing and with no issue. The fact that the existence of trans people and their movement through society has become such a hot button issue is because we are an easy target and widespread scaremongering that is not supported by actual incidences. You are presenting trans women as inherently dangerous which is both transphobic and purposefully excludes the existence of transgender men and non-binary people showing that there is only one real agenda at hand here and its based on groupthink bias and a fundamental ‘othering’ and lack of compassion towards fellow human beings.
@Chris Linehan: just on this, you see the rhetoric being faced by trans women resenting them as dangerous rather than towards men who may be r*pists. Including in the above post which makes a distinction between trans women who have fully medically transitioned and those who don’t though many trans people do not transition for a variety of reasons including personal choice, huge costs, health issues and lack of access to affordable healthcare (you will also see many of the same anti-trans groups advocating against access to such healthcare creating a horrible catch 22 for trans people and in a country were access to such care is extremely difficult). The thing is we have had legal gender recognition since 2015 and there have been no reported incidences of people availing of the process to abuse anybody or of cis men taking advantage of it in Ireland. But, should a cis man try to do something like that then we have existing laws that cover that and it doesn’t actually tackle the issue of violence against women, it just scapegoats trans women.
As it stands we have issues with sexual assault in Ireland and it is not being led by trans women but by cis men. There is far too much focus being placed on the less than 1% of the population who are trans and who like the rest of the population are for the majority decent people who just want to live their lives in peace and community in comparison to the number of actual assaults carried out. And this focus is very much being purposefully stoked by people who have negative attitudes towards trans people.
@Jensen Bhroin: There are currently two male-bodied sex offenders housed in the female estate of Limerick women’s prison. They got there via the GRA 2015.
@Jensen Bhroin: Yes there are cases of this act being abused. Hence the violent males currently housed in Limerick Women’s Prison, and the male who puts young women at risk in Gaelic football matches. No one is scapegoating transwomen, they commit offences at the same rate as other males according to UK Gov stats.
If equality is to be enshrined in the constitution, men should be entitled to full parental leave the same as women.
Equality is a two way street.
@Black Iron Tarkus: both parents are entitled to parental leave.
@Sinead Burke: Yes, Men are entitled to 2 weeks paid parental leave and Women are 26 weeks paid leave and then another 16 weeks unpaid on top of that. How is that equal?
@Black Iron Tarkus: When men have transitioned far enough to learn how to get themselves pregnant, they too will get equal leave but until then I suppose we will have to accept, unlike the States, that women have learned how to ‘transition’ and we will gratefully allow them time off to recover.
@Black Iron Tarkus: Gender equality is not about equal measures for each sex, but rather it’s about ensuring that each sex is afforded treatment / benefits that will put them on level footing with the other. The reason women get six months’ maternity to men’s two weeks’ parental is because women need time to recover from childbirth and to nourish their babies. Nobody would be expected to return to work two weeks after a major medical intervention / procedure. If women were forced to return to work a few weeks after childbirth, the likelihood is they would drop out of the labour force (as is often the case despite generous maternity leave). Affording women six months’ paid leave encourages their return to work and evens the playing field.
@Siofra Cronin: I appreciate that women need time to recover after child birth. But you seem to think that the father has no or very little role to play for the first 6 months of a child’s life. Women will never get true equality with that mindset.
@Black Iron Tarkus: I don’t know how that’s what you picked up from my statement
@Siofra Cronin: Except in practice gender equality, is about equal measures for each sex, but only in the instances where women are the ultimate beneficiaries of the equalisation, but that is another issue.
The proposal to remove the consitutional reference to women in the home and the somewhat hollow in practice undertaking that it gives, to not force women through necessity to have to work outside the home.
It should, in my opinion remain as is, because it doesn’t represent the subjugation of women, in fact it respects their right if they so choose, to be a homemaker and the importance of their role in doing so, it also doesn’t prevent them working outside the home if they choose to.
@David Van-Standen: Amazing how you contradicted yourself in 2 paragraphs. The change to the constitution text gives men who are homemakers or carers for whatever reason additional protection; a measure directly affording men equality. Directly contradicting your statement that gender equality only affects women in practice.
The right to a Home is so much more Urgent
And at the same time on keeping our water
Just when you think Leo can’t go any lower,he does it again whit this rubbish
Not even a single sandwich joke to be had…
@Dave Wave: Get back into the kitchen and make me a sammich Dave…… How’s that?? I’m glad I got that off my chest, it was killing me!!
What’s does Enochs mammy think????
@ⓓⓔⓒⓞⓦⓐⓣ: She thinks it’s woke b.s. gone into overdrive.
While I support the equality changes…I would like to see the right to housing included in the referendum… for all citizens. Housing is fundamental to all other basic human rights. I suspect that this government is choosing the low hanging fruit and ignoring the fruits of basic human rights.
@Ronan Skelly: Agree.
OF equal importance is the Referendum on Housing which should be run asap.
The Referendum on Housing will put a stop to the Attorney General(AG) blocking every sane, obvious and adult initiative required to solve the Housing Crisis…. first proposed in 1974!!!!! (would have prevented the 2008 Housing Crash!) .. and deliver affordable homes for owners and renters.
See France, Germany, Holland, Sweden etc for proper Constitutions where property rights are not dominating their societies but are balanced against the common good / basic ‘human” rights. People before Property.
https://www.change.org/Irish_Referendum_on_Housing … deliver this now.
What about a referendum for the right to buy and own a home at an affordable price? I agree the way this is written in the constitution should be changed but at the end of the day it will change absolutely nothing. People will still be struggling to pay their sky high rent/mortgage. The price of bills and food going through the roof. Health system still broken…..
@Coke Santy: There is no right to buy a home. Some things must be worked for. Stop looking for others to fund your lifestyle.
@Don Hogan: How much did you pay for your home Don? If you got it in the last 15 – 20 years ago I guess somewhere in the range of 80 – 150k. A very adorable amount given the wages at the time. Now a days we expect young people to shell out about 350- 500k or even more for the same property and go into debt for large portions of their lifes. But yeah… People aren’t working hard enough. Lmao
@Coke Santy: Bought my house 18 years ago. Was valued at €350k. 35 year mortgage. So, not as rosy in the garden back then as you think it was. It’s not a competition to see who had it worse. I do agree though, that affordable housing needs to be top priority for the shams in Leinster House.
@Coke Santy: We already have the right to buy and own a home and we always will and because we live in a ”free market economy”, including it in the Constitution would be a no-no, because it would deny people from making a ‘profit’ and ”moving up the ladder” of life. Of course, we want to see everybody safely housed and fed, at least most of us do but when you see the rising costs and declining lifestyles, amongst the lower 75% of society, it becomes more about self-preservation than compassion.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan: The average price to buy a house in 1995 was 76k, in 2000 that price rose to 179k and as of today, 2023, the average house price is 359k. Each generation having to pay exponentially more just so they can have the privilege of having a ‘home’. That normally wouldn’t be a bad thing if peoples buying power increased at the same rate which it hasn’t, it’s been largely unchanged since the 2000s. Then you have people that got a house when the prices were relatively cheap decades ago telling people to ‘work harder’, it just comes across as ignorant.
@Coke Santy: Housing should not be for speculators to make fortunes and produce nothing
@Coke Santy: Paid 166K for home ten years ago. Same or similar homes are selling for200-225K in Co. Cork.
@Coke Santy: average house price in 2005 was 368k, average wage was 43k
2023 is 359k, average wage is 45k.
@NotMyIreland: The euro had an average inflation rate of 1.41% per year between 2005 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 28.76%. 43k in 2005 could buy almost 30% more than 43k can today. Like I said in my post, the actual buying power of the average Irish person hasn’t changed much since the 2000s. And I don’t know why you brought up house prices in 2005, the year the bank’s were giving everyone infinite credit which they all defaulted on putting the country in so much debt that we still haven’t managed to put a dent in almost 20 years later. Yeah, 2005 should be the bench mark for adorable house prices.
What is a Woman? Can anyone define for me please?
@Michael Holland: Hope you were being sarcastic. If not, you are one poor sod.
@Don Hogan: The people who are pushing all this woke equality muck, cannot even define what a women is.!
@Michael Holland: a human being with a vagina and ovaries
If making changes to the Constitution why not remove religious references such as reference in the first line to the Holy Trinity and elsewhere to all power coming from God. I feel Ireland has moved beyond this viewpoint.
International Women’s Day was founded by violent Communists in an effort to remove women from the home and place them under closer control by their employers.
This is all about Other being enshrined in constitution. By Other anyone identifying as something other than Man or Woman. Varadkar & O’Gorman & Unelected Citizens Council are out to do further damage to Women but more importantly Irish Society haven’t They Done Enough. VOTE NO
Fisherthem
Women can never, ever be equal to men, wake up! Women carry new life in their wombs and have a hugely important role nurturing future generations. How can a Woman sitting in front of a computer for 40 hours a week feel more empowered than that! Everything is a lie.
I AM AN 85 YEAR OLD widow living alone.I have asked several times what criteria was used to choose people to sit on the the citizens assembly. I BELIEVE THEY ARE AN ELETIST COTERIE.
AT THE MOMENT I AM BEING ADDRESSED AS ” YE LADS”" IN THIS RUSH TO EMBRACE INCLUSIVITY.I Find it extremely degrading especially by WOMEN HO SHOULD KNOW HOW HARD ITS BEEN TO ACHIEVE THE SEMBLANCE OF EQUALITY WE HAVE..WHERE HAVE ^ Mna na hEireann” gone..??????
This is one of the most important rights for both men and women. In my view it’s in every man’s interest to vote for the change to gender neutral.
Who cares?
I mean it’s a benign provision it’s removal will not have any consequences I can think of.
Remove it. It is another relic from the past just like Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution had to be revised as part of the Good Friday agreement.
It’s a real shame we can’t take the power back through referendums. We would get so much done in that scenario.
This is horrible. It is a wake style attitude removing the value of motherhood in particular. The paragraph excels the dignity of women and has never been interpreted as locking women up in the home. By voting to change one will b taking a position which is showing in gratefulness to our mothers and our wives. It has nothing to do with Human rights and everything to do with the unhealthy changes in understanding human nature and the basic structures of society.
have your say