Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will not try to compete with legal experts that dominate this House. Between Deputy Bacik and the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, I do not know what they are talking about half of the time but I do want to put across a perspective that is important for the vast majority of ordinary people because what this is about is removing a very offensive piece of wording in the Constitution. I will read it out for the benefit of anybody listening in. It states:

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 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.

The Constitution, which was brought in with the commitment of the Catholic Church behind it, led to very tough lives for women, particularly my mother's generation. Many of them could not get married and stay in their jobs. This did not change until way into the 1970s. The archaic view of a woman's place being in the home meant that it was natural, normal and accepted that women were barefoot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen sink for most of their lives and did not have access to contraception or economic independence so it is very good that it is being removed.

However, we should insist that we find ways of explaining that to the public because there are malicious and dangerous elements in Irish society that will want to portray this as somehow an attack on women and that the removal of the word "woman" from the Constitution is an attack on women. They are already lurking in on social media and phony television stations they have created trying to come across as defending women and saying that this attempt to change the Constitution is all about giving transgender rights and undermining women, a woman's body, a woman's sex and a woman's right to do this, that and the other. We must find simple and clear messages in demolishing that idea because otherwise the Government risks losing this referendum so it is important to get the wording right.

I will not engage in a big legal debate about the type of wording but the sentiment is very important. This is why when it comes to the next session, when we talk about the proposed new Article 42B, the Minister is making a big mistake in not giving a guarantee to people that care will be recognised in the home. The nonsense about "strive to" means nothing in real terms. Any future Government could say "well we strove but we failed". That is just nonsense. Why do we have a Constitution if we do not put parameters and obligations on governments to do things that are at the very basic level essential for society? On the one hand, we are changing the Constitution to recognise the family and give it inalienable and imprescriptible rights - all of the language that is already in there - and just restating it but on the other, we are saying that when they look after each other when they are frail and have disabilities and long-term illness, we will strive to recognise that - not that we will do it. It is full of contradictions.

I am not here just to give out to the Government. I genuinely believe it is pretty bad to hand us the wording one week and the following week say we will have this Second Stage debate on the last day of the Dáil before Christmas. It is really sloppy and is unfair. It is unfair to Deputies and the public. I think the reason given to us for the big rush and why we need to fit it in is because the Government wants this referendum to take place on International Women's Day. As Deputy Cairns said this morning, the Government does not have patronise women by holding a referendum to remove that offensive language on International Women's Day. We celebrate International Women's Day anyway, regardless of whether there is a referendum. It is more important that we get it right and do not give opportunities to hate-fuelled organisations to have a go at LGBT rights or the rights of trans people.

These are my few observations. If I had my way, the alternative wording would be that a woman's place is in the revolution. You might say "Bríd would say that". Take "the home" out and stick in "the revolution", and we might get real change in this country. Deputy Bacik made the point that we had the long process of discourse at the citizens' assembly with questions put to it. It took it very seriously and was very genuine about it. It came back with recommendations and to be honest, they were just ignored. If I was one of those 99 citizens, I would be really annoyed. "Annoyed" is a polite parliamentarian word but I would be in that sort of humour. As a member of the joint committee, I am also pretty annoyed about the wording we laboured and sweated over. Again, I am an innocent when it comes to legal terms but I really trusted and got what others were saying and the advice that was given to us by experts.

It took us ages to come up with a set of words we thought were correct. It was cross-party, it was genuine, we worked hard and it is not even recognised. On many levels, therefore, this has been something of an offensive process. I hope that when it comes to the next phase of dealing with it, we will get a chance to amend it and the Government will be open and decent about accepting amendments that come from Opposition Members, who, I reiterate, worked very hard to achieve a wording that would work.

Later, I will come back to talk about the provision of care.

See this speech in context