Address to the APOCC on the Family.
Leinster
House, 26th April, 2005.
Mothers' rights Article an unchanging, timeless,
self-evident, universal Principle
TIME TO CHOOSE.
It is our intention to show that Article 41.2.1 and
41.2.2 is a woman's rights article that is anything
but outdated. It does not stereotype woman, but
respects her in her role as mother and homemaker; it
is not oppressive but liberating, and is not an obstacle
to the fulfilment of woman. Mothers At Home
(MAH) find these assertions offensive and discriminatory.
We intend to show that the only thing that is outdated
is the flawed feminist ideology that has underpinned
political thinking, here and abroad, for far too long.
Art. 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 is an Article for all seasons.
It will never be outdated. It supports
a fundamental life principle that is universal, timeless,
self-evident and unchanging. It is as valuable
an instrument for social order today as it was back
in 1937 when the Constitution was introduced. Those
who claim that it is outdated are primarily influenced
by a strain of feminism that, while condemning authoritarian
and patriarchal practices, is itself guilty of authoritarianism
and the worst forms of patriarchy, purporting to KNOW
what's in the best interests of EVERY WOMAN and forcing
this knowledge down the throats of EVERY WOMAN. It
is also marked by a negative and indeed hostile attitude
towards men, marriage and motherhood.
MAH has been studying some reports of the debates
that took place in 1937 when the Constitution was introduced.
It is extraordinary how little has changed.
We have now, as we had then, two opposing
forces, the hard-line, tunnel-visioned feminists on
the one side, and ordinary decent family men and women
(and some politicians) on the other. And
the feminist argument hasn't changed either. The
language may have changed but the substance of their
arguments remain the same. The UN Convention on
the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) is their Bible. CEDAW is obviously unconstitutional
and sincere democrats are angry that the terms of this
blatantly unconstitutional treaty have been illegally
introduced into Irish law without any prior consultation
with the people of Ireland.
MAH members have directed us to ask why. Why
has successive governments failed to seek the will of
the people for the ratification of this deeply disturbing
Convention? No Irish government has authority
to cede power over the Family to anybody, least of all
to the un-elected, unrepresentative CEDAW Committee.
CEDAW Committee have shown themselves to be exclusive,
divisive, narrow-focussed and sadly, sectarian. MAH
respects their freedom to hold their opinions, but we
strongly object to them forcing their doctrines down
the throats of every man woman and child in this State.
The CEDAW Committee (CEDAW Report on Ireland 1999)
rapped Ireland on the knuckles because of Art. 41.2.1
and 41.2.2. They said it "stereotypes"
women by implying that "the proper sphere of woman's
activity is in the home and ONLY in the home".
MAH wish to state that this is feminist
SPIN-DOCTORING of the most offensive kind. The
Article does NOT imply such a thing. It was never
intended to so imply. CEDAW et al are either misinformed
or deliberately choosing to misinterpret this Article.
A similar minority of vocal middle-class feminist
groups attempted to put the same SPIN on the Article
during the debate on the Constitution in 1937. (See
Irish Press 11th May, 1937 Cottage to Crèche, p. 83).
Over and over again, it was repeated by the framers
of the Constitution that when they spoke of woman's
life within the home, they were dealing with ONE ASPECT
of a woman's life, and one aspect only. (PDDE,
Vol. 67, Col. 67 and 71, 11th May, 1937, and Col. 462-463
13th May, 1937, and Col. 1880 4th June, 1937). The
feminist argument is belied by Art. 45.4.2 of the Irish
Constitution which protects the rights of men and women
who work outside the home. Art. 40 also protects
the individual rights of women as well as men. Art.
41.2.1 and 41.2.2. does not stereotype women.
Far from it. Its real purpose is to elevate
motherhood to its rightful place one that demands
absolute respect and a duty of care from legislators
and the state. The Constitution Review Committee
(obviously influenced by CEDAW dogma) got it dreadfully
wrong and MAH calls on them to review their review.
This Article is NOT OUTDATED. It
is respectful of woman as wife and mother, and of a
woman's right not to be denied the right, "do dheasca
uireasa" (because of deficiency, need, want or
poverty) to choose the profession of full-time wife
and mother.
Commonsense tells us that marriage (as defined by
the Irish Courts) is the only 'state' that could give
the majority of women this freedom to choose. In marriage,
wives become co-carers, with their husbands, of their
families. I put it to you here today that successive
governments have abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities
to properly defend marriage and the marriage-based family,
particularly the rights of the stay-at-home mother.
And ordinary decent family men and women are asking
why. Why, for instance, was the recommendation
of the First Commission on the Status of Women disregarded
by the government of the day?
The First Commission on the Status of Women (1970)
acknowledged that "equality" legislation would
create major problems for the stay-at-home mother (and
the family where the husband was the lone breadwinner).
The Commission, chaired by Dr. Thekla Beere, daughter
of a Church of Ireland rector, made a number of positive
recommendations to protect the stay at home mum and
the traditional family, including the recommendation
that a State allowance be paid to these women.
This was the one major recommendation of that Commission
that was never implemented. Obviously
the work of the stay-at-home mum and the importance
of the one-income family didn't count with the legislators
of the day. But some decent-minded sincere
political thinkers in Ireland were growing concerned.
The Second Commission on the Status of Women (Reported
in 1993) (which many have since described as the 'Commission
for Women of Status') was set up with a clear directive
from the Taoiseach to pay special attention to the needs
of women in the home. It is interesting
to note that the vast majority of submissions (603 in
all) to that Commission sought more favourable recognition
in law and policy for the full-time wife and mother
(the sleeping giant was stirring). Only one submission
sought the removal of Art. 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 from the
Constitution. This lone submission for the
removal of the mother's rights article became an official
recommendation, while submissions on behalf of the stay-at-home
mum were completely dismissed ignored!.
It was now becoming clear to right thinking family
men and women that the Second Commission on the Status
of Women, was indeed what many had described it a
Commission for Women of Status, controlled by old-line
feminists hostile to mothers at home. The stay-at-home
mum didn't rate too highly on their agenda. In
fact, she didn't rate at all. She was, according
to them "a private benefit to the earning partner,
and as such [didn't] warrant a State payment" (Second
Commission: 71)
Article 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 of the Constitution clearly
contradicts this feminist thinking, and this contradiction
was obviously behind their call (based on just one (1)
submission) for it be removed.
To their eternal shame, successive governments have
supported this feminist agenda, and in so doing, have
aided and abetted the downgrading and the de-valuing
of the work of stay-at-home mothers. To day, this All
Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution is being
given an opportunity to redress the wrong done to, (a)
the stay-at-home mothers of Ireland, many of them our
own mothers, who refused to abandon their chosen roles
as co-carers, with their husbands, of their families,
and have remained at home against all the odds; and
to (b) those mothers who were forced and are still being
forced not by choice but by economic necessity to seek
paid employment outside the home.
As the Great Pope John Paul II said when he visited
Limerick in 1979. "Ireland must choose". He
was speaking on the value of the Family and the need
to respect and protect this fundamental unit of society.
He did not undervalue or downgrade the stay-at-home
mother.
Survey after survey is exposing the damage being
done to women when governments buy into the flawed feminist
thinking such as that underpinning CEDAW. Mothers
are stressed out and their health is suffering. (See
BUPA survey). High profile men like the Governor
of Mountjoy has recognised the value of the stay-at-home
mum to society and called for more respect from legislators
for their work. John Lonergan said, "Without
them we are lost".
Patricia Casey and many, many other experts in this
field, have also pointed out the consequences of disregarding
the value of the work of the Stay-at-home mum. And
what about the rights of the child?
There is another very compelling reason for a change
of attitude to the value of the work of the stay-at-home
mums of Ireland. The greying of Europe is now
a stark reality and the future is certainly bleak for
the sick, the elderly and people in need of social security.
(See Hubert Krieger and others' Reports to Irish
EU Presidency Conference on the Family May 2004)). Back
in the 1930s the fall in the number of births in many
European countries, including Ireland and Britain was
seen by some people as the reason for encouraging women
to remain in the home. Fertility was a real
concern. (Cottage to Crèche Ch. 4 p.82)
We have recently seen this concern coming to the
fore again in the "Breed for Britain" campaign.
As already stated, falling fertility, the
'greying of Europe' and the Pension Dilemma, are very
real concerns today and political leaders can no longer
close their eyes and ears to these concerns in the hope
that somehow, if they ignore them, they will go away.
MAH has listened to the many EU and UN organisations
that have been sounding the demographic alarm bells
for decades. On behalf of MAH I have attended
numerous conferences both at home and abroad, including
last year's EU Irish Presidency Conference on the Family
held in Dublin Castle, where I was the official delegate
of MMM International World Movement of Mothers. The
genuine concern of ordinary decent family men and women
was palpable there and those in authority were left
in absolutely no doubt as to what people wanted.
The Articles on the Family in the Irish Constitution
are certainly not OUTDATED. What is outdated,
though, is the strain of feminism that has coloured
the thinking of the Irish government (and world governments)
for the past three or four decades. This type
of feminism, which is, as has been said, negative, discriminatory,
exclusive, divisive, sectarian, etc., is no longer accepted
and attitudes to women is already beginning to change
in many countries, as witnessed by the growing number
of national and international conferences supporting
the Natural-Law-understanding of the Family (e.g. Geneva
Declaration 1999, the Doha Declaration, 2004 etc.)
Mothers have found their true voice and this voice
will be heard louder and clearer on the world stage
in the future, because they now know their true worth.
They now know that the hand that rocks the cradle
rocks the system.
Nora Bennis President Mothers At Home.
[Back to Top]
|
