The National Men's Council of Ireland

The National Men's Council of Ireland, in keeping with the Irish Constitution, extols the virtue and value of the two-parent, Marriage-based family as the foundation of society. We hold that Marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman and is intended to be life-long.

We decry unlicensed procreation and believe that the state and community should at all times promote and encourage the philosophy that sexual relations should be confined to lawful Marriage.

A Report to THE EQUALITY AUTHORITY

A call to the Equality Authority to champion THE FAMILY FOUNDED ON MARRIAGE AND ITS RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RULE OF LAW

A Report by the National Mens Council of Ireland & the Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland - May 2011

It is not a little curious considering the importance and money expended by the Government on the Equality Authority and “equality” issues that the Irish Constitution does not mention the word “equality” in its text save for where it talks about how a vote should be recorded where there is “equality” of votes within the Oireachtas. Similarly the word “equal” appears several times also when indicating how votes should be dealt with where the numbers are the same? So one wonders where the Equality Authority obtains its mandate?

There are however two instances where the word “equal” is used other than to do with voting.

They are in Article 40 titled, the Fundamental Personal Rights where at Article 40.1it is stated, “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.”

and in Article 40.3.3. wherein it states, “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

equal – adjective
1 being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value : add equal amounts of water and flour • (of people) having the same status, rights, or opportunities.
Noun
a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality :

It is noteworthy that the amendment in the form of Article 40.3.3. acknowledges that it is necessary to state that even though both a child and its mother clearly are “human persons” and so should be held equal before the law, it was considered necessary by the Attorney General to pose this amendment by way of referendum presumably on the basis that the child and the mother have different physical attributes and different societal function.

Thus it can be seen - and this is reinforced by the explanation of the Irish text (below) - that “equality” is not a fundamental right but a qualified right that is necessarily subservient to the physical, moral attributes of individual citizens and/or their Family status i.e. their gifts/attributes/accomplishments and in their societal function. This clearly makes redundant and doomed to failure any argument that chalk should be treated like cheese because of the need for absolute “equality” between them.

It is only where pieces of chalk are treated differently to other pieces of chalk that this Constitutional provision comes into play. The basis of any criticism of the Equality Authority is that they are guilty of championing causes for ‘cheeses’ and using the rights of ‘chalks’ as their reference point and target. Whilst the rights of ‘cheeses’ are promoted it is at the expense of those that are due by right to ‘chalks’ and this, in itself, is a cause of a form of invidious discrimination against ‘chalks’. Hardly a useful tool.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee in 1997 published, “Bunreacht na hÉireann: A study of the Irish text; Staidéar ar an téacs Gaeilge” by Micheál Ó Cearúil in which the primary meaning of the Constitution, as provided by the Irish text is compared with the English text and some of the terms used are further defined and explained. Thus for article 40.1 the entry shows –

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,
BUNCHEARTA
ARTICLE 40.1 AIRTEAGAL 40.1

TÉACS GAEILGE
BUNCHEARTA
Cear ta Pear santa

Áirítear gurb ionann ina bpearsain daonna na saoránaigh uile i láthair an dlí.
Ach ní intuigthe as sin nach bhféachfaidh an Stát go cuí, ina chuid achtachán, don difríocht atá idir daoine in a mbuanna corpartha agus ina mbuanna morálta agus in a bhfeidhm chomhdhaonnach.

LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION
BASIC RIGHTS
Personal Rights
It is reckoned that all the citizens are equal as human persons in the presence of the law.
But it is not to be understood from that that the State will not duly, in its enactments, have regard to the difference there is between people in their physical attributes and in their moral attributes and in their societal function.

ENGLISH TEXT
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

DIVERGENCES BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL TEXTS
1. ‘Differences of capacity’ is expressed in the Irish text as ‘(an) difríocht atá idir daoine ina mbuanna’ (‘the difference which there is between people in their gifts (attributes / accomplishments’).
2. ‘Ina bpearsain daonna’, expressing ‘as human persons’, might not so readily be understood today; as well as being a variant plural of ‘pearsa’ (the standard plural being ‘pearsana’), ‘pearsain’ is also the dative singular and following ‘ina’ might be read literally as ‘in their human person(ality)’.
3. ‘Shall … be held equal’ is expressed as ‘Áirítear grub ionann’ (‘it is reckoned that they are equal’) in the Irish text.
4. ‘Before the law’ is expressed as ‘i láthair an dlí’ (‘in the presence of the law’) in the Irish text.
If we take as an example the championing by the Equality Authority of Civil Unions towards acquiring the same rights as those which rightly belong to the Family founded on Marriage it is clear that there is no basis in law for what the Equality Authority has done.

Article 41 THE FAMILY
AN TEAGHLACH
TÉACS GAEILGE

Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir, agus gur foras morálta é ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

ENGLISH TEXT

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Article 41.1 in the Constitution forces the State - and all its agents including the Equality Authority - in its policies and legislation to acknowledge and endorse the Family founded on Marriage “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law”. In Article 41.2 “The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.” In this context in Article 41.3 “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”

The recent Royal Marriage ceremony [extract below] gave perfect evidence of the internationally understood – to this day - nature and extent of the commitment that a couple makes when they wed and these same promises are held in law – secular as well as Church - as a contract that they can seek the specific performance of through the courts. It also shows the concept of a “same-sex marriage” is clearly an oxymoron and that it would be irrational and ridiculous for anyone to promote that it should ever be accepted in law.

“Dearly beloved, We are gathered here in the sight of God and in the face of this congregation to join together this Man and this Woman in Holy Matrimony, which is an honourable estate instituted of God himself signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church, which Holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee and is commended in Holy writ to be Honourable among all Men and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly but reverently, discretely, soberly and in the fear of God duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
“First it was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the will of God and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise of His Holy name.
Secondly it was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections implanted by God should be hallowed and directed aright, that those who are called of God to this Holy estate should continue therein in pureness of living.
Thirdly it was ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other both in prosperity and adversity into which Holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
I, William Arthur Phillip Louis, take thee Catherine Elizabeth to my wedded Wife to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to Love and to cherish till death us do part according to God’s Holy Law and thereto I give you my Troth.
I, Catherine Elizabeth, take thee William Arthur Phillip Louis to my wedded Husband to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to Love and to cherish till death us do part according to God’s Holy Law and thereto I give you my Troth.”

Clearly the Family founded on Marriage has duties that require them to have rights to fulfill those duties. There are absolutely no corresponding duties for participants in the form of association known as a Civil Union, in particular the duty to procreate and to be faithful. Therefore it is a misuse of taxpayers’ money for any government body to push for such “equality” of rights.

We would argue that a legitimate role and aspiration of an Equality Authority could be to ensure that the Rule of Law operates in Ireland and this would be a worthy mission statement.

The Rule of Law (see Professor Dicey, “Law of the Constitution”, 1885) embodies three concepts:
(i) the absolute predominance of regular law, so that the government has no arbitrary authority over the citizen;
(ii) the equal subjection of all (including officials) to the ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts; and
(iii) the fact that the citizen’s personal freedoms are formulated and protected by the ordinary law rather than by abstract constitutional declarations”

If we continue with the example of the Family founded on Marriage the Rule of Law should operate so as to ensure that the rights and duties of the Family can be easily exercised by those of authority within the Family. This is so especially where it relates to the care, education and protection of children.

The National Mens Council of Ireland and Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland provided an analysis to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children of the misuse of “equality” considerations when dealing with children who were born inside and outside of wedlock which was driving needlessly and harmfully the call for a Constitutional Referendum on the Rights of children with the Equality Authority in the vanguard.

It is clear that the State has failed to honour its existing guarantee and pledge in the Constitution to protect the Family and so is failing to protect the welfare of all the Nation’s children.

There is a presumption in the Natural Law that Children’s Rights are protected by their Natural Parents in a Married Family. This is acknowledged in Bunreacht na hÉireann by Articles 41 and 42. This presumption is known as the Subsidiarity Principle and was cogently expressed recently by Justice Hardiman in the Supreme Court in N. & anor. -v- Health Service Executive & ors. [2006] IESC 60, wherein he stated,

“The effect of our constitutional dispensation is that, presumptively, the right to form a view of the child’s welfare and to act on it belongs to the parents. The facts of this case make it unnecessary to consider the difficulties which arise where the parents themselves are in disagreement as to how the welfare of the child may best be secured. There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution.
It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children.
The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child. If the prerogatives of the parents in enabling and protecting the rights of the child were to be diluted, the question would immediately arise: to whom and on what conditions are the powers removed from the parents to be transferred? And why?
There is, of course, no doubt that the form and content of our constitutional dispensation in regard to the Family and children was significantly influenced by Christian, and specifically Catholic, teaching on those subjects. But that is not to say that the preference for the natural parents as carers for a child is exclusively referable to those sources. In my judgment in North Western Health Board v. H.W. [2001] 3 IR 622 I expressed the view that this preference for the parents as the natural and primary guardians was equally consistent with quite different strands of thought, even a Benthamite one. I reiterate that view here, without repeating what was said in the judgment referred to.
A presumptive view that the children should be nurtured by their parents is, in my view, itself a child centred one and the alternative view, calling itself “child centred” because it is prepared more easily to dispense with the rights and duties of parents must guard against the possibility that in real individual cases it may become merely a proxy for the views of social workers or other third parties. That is not for a moment to belittle the need for State intervention in the nurturing of children in appropriate cases, but to emphasise that the presumption mandated by our Constitution is a presumption that the welfare of the child is presumptively best secured in his or her natural Family.”

The National Mens Council of Ireland and Family Rights Institute of Ireland are approached continuously by members of Families who are experiencing difficulties in carrying out the duties to their children that were outlined by Justice Hardiman. More and more parents are beginning to realise that the difficulties they experience are not actually created by their spouse and themselves but are directly created by the government not putting the Rule of Law into operation.

As stated the principle of Family subsidiarity governs how the law is applied. That principle simply states that no third party can act in any way that would affect the welfare of children within a Married Family unless they have in their possession an application for them to do so signed by BOTH parents/Guardians. This also means that there has to be bilateral agreements regarding their child’s health, their child’s education and schooling, how they are to be provided for and maintained and of course, where they are to live.

Where one of the parent/Guardians is no longer satisfied that any agreement between the Family and a third party is in the child’s best interests they can of course withdraw their consent and at that point the third party must cease their involvement.

It follows necessarily that a third party can not start acting in a manner that will affect the welfare of a child in a Married Family without the approval in writing of BOTH parents/Guardians and must immediately stop acting if required by EITHER parent/Guardian. A third party can NOT rely on the authority of only one of the child’s parents/Guardians to support any action they are asked to undertake in relation to a child of a Married Family if they are aware that the other parent/Guardian does not approve. This primacy of Married parents over any third party to the care, education and protection of their children is the founding principle of Articles 41 and 42 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

As the person in government who is responsible for the implementation of the law, the Minister for Justice must ensure that every other Minister and every worker in every Department of government is aware of the Subsidiarity Principle and that every Rule, Policy and Guideline issued by government upholds the Subsidiarity Principle. We are finding however that in almost every aspect of government policy this Subsidiarity Principle is being violated.

We can provide copious examples with certain evidence of this occurring and we would like to have the opportunity to present such evidence to the Equality Authority. We believe that any consideration of Children’s Rights and Children’s Protection must have at its core an investigation of the operation of the Subsidiarity Principle by the government and State bodies. We assert that where the Subsidiarity Principle is violated Children’s Rights are necessarily violated and certain harm will come to them.

We assert that the best guarantee for a Child’s Protection is for the State to honour its pledge to guard with special care the institution of Marriage and protect it from attack. We assert that all government primary legislation and subsidiary legislation in the form of policies, regulations and guidelines must be in conformity with the Subsidiarity Principle and support Marriage as the optimum institution for the procreation and upbringing of Children. We assert that, as has been done in the name of “Equality”, by the imposition of “Gender mainstreaming” throughout government there must be “Marriage mainstreaming and respect for the Subsidiarity Principle” throughout government if we genuinely wish to protect Children and their Rights.

The initial observation one must make on the urgings of the Equality Authority and those calling for a referendum which is allegedly to promote children’s rights is that there is an unhelpful conflation of the two circumstances that children might find themselves in. It would appear that, without making this explicit, we are supposed to accept that the two forms of marital status that children are brought up in are “equal” and can be treated as a single homogeneous circumstance. This ‘fudge’ of the ‘status’ issue and the Constitutional meaning of “equality” renders most of the proposed amendments to be either unhelpful to protect children or downright guaranteed to provide them with less protection.

The Constitutional statement at qualifying the meaning of the word “equal” in Article 40.1 means that it is legitimate and often of benefit to the Common Good for discrimination on the grounds of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function. The difference that exists between parents who have submitted themselves to the rigours of regulation and self-restraint required by the making of a covenant of Marriage with God and those who have opted to shun the customs of the people and act selfishly without regard to the Common Good requires the State to discriminate between them [and to properly explain the legal difference that exists even though the term “Guardian” is used for both].

Sadly having made such choices, those who spurn what is best for their children will inevitably create a circumstance for their children which is inferior in potential to children born within a Married Family. Given this reality of life that all children are not born in equal situations, and that some children are born outside of Marriage and are perceived as being at a disadvantage, this provision could entitle a socialist-leaning State, with Equality their banner rather than the Common Good, to take affirmative action to offer disproportionate assistance in favour of the unmarried ‘family’ on a child’s rights basis, massively increasing the already existing incentives to mothers and fathers not to get married and to have children outside of the accepted civilized rules for procreation and the stable institution of the Married Family that is the foundation of our society.

Prima Facie this is in conflict with the existing provisions and inevitably must throw the Constitution into turmoil. Anything that would act in this manner would reduce the effectiveness of the Constitution in its function of protecting the people from the possibilities of unfettered Statepower and increase the risk of harm to children. Additionally it can be argued and therefore presumably will be argued that an amendment, especially one specifically for children should outweigh the cherished Family rights so dear to the hearts of the people as so clearly demonstrated in the Reports to the All- Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution 2006, when despite an enormous campaign to persuade them otherwise, the people successfully defended their rights against this attack.

It is difficult to see this as anything other than a stealth attack on those rights in the face of that defeat. It certainly does not follow the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which advocated a simple amendment affirming “equality before the law for all children” as defined already in the Constitution.

There is copious evidence to show that in seeking our authorisation of these new provisions, which appear to entitle them to interfere with the Married Family rather than to protect children, the State are merely asking us now to legitimise, retrospectively, what they have been wrongfully doing for a long number of years.

Our recommendation in the light of our analysis would be to dispense with the proposed text in its entirety to be replaced by the addition of a new sub-article [and then follow that up with appropriate legislation] which will actually protect the rights of children by strengthening and assisting, in a practical way, parents to perform their duties in conformity with the Family Subsidiarity Principle. The evidence unearthed by the National Men’s Council and supported by other groups, many of whom made submissions to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, clearly demonstrates that the State has failed to provide for children born outside the Married Family. In the allocation of responsibility for children’s protection it is established that within the Married Family the parents hold that duty exclusively whereas for children born outside of the Family the protection of children is a duty shared in partnership between the parent(s) and the state. It is vitally important therefore that every citizen is aware of their parental rights in each circumstance in relation to the State. In the Married Family it is clearly detrimental to the children’s welfare if there is a failure by the Stateto facilitate the vindication of the rights of the Family under Public Law.

There is a need therefore, in line with the Rule of Law for an easily available remedy in the public domain to facilitate a parent/Guardian, as head of the Family founded on Marriage to make a finding in a Public Law court that a person or body, not being a guardian jointly with them, has violated the proper exercise of their authority. Such a public remedy is essential to entitle a parent/Guardian in a Married Family to restore their full custodial rights against any person or third party who refuses to acknowledge the applicable law.

The bringing into existence of such a freely available and widely known remedy would be a worthy ambition for an Equality Authority.

It is the experience of many parents that when they are dealing with schools, with Gardaí, with doctors, social workers and civil servants that their authority over their children is being compromised on the basis of legal advice given to the third party. Whereas this legal advice is more often incorrect, ordinary parents find themselves, due to their lack or resources, unable to challenge this position. What they need is a simple clear statement in Law which spells out for all to see that anybody who interferes with their authority and the subsidiarity principle will be punished under public law. Ordinary parents cannot be expected to have the resources to go to the High Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus every time that a third party acts in contempt of their authority especially where that third party has at its disposal the resources of the state.

The Constitution exists to protect the fundamental liberties of the people and to act as a shield against the awesome power of the State precisely because the State has a natural impulse to think that it knows best and to therefore interfere with and override the decisions of parents. In the current “Nanny State” climate emboldened by the EU superstate ideal, the state, on a daily basis, is seeking to invade the privacy of the Married Family, privacy that is a prerequisite for a society to be considered free and civilized.

We ask the Equality Authority, as has been done in the name of “equality”, by the imposition of “Gender mainstreaming”, to promote the policy of “Marriage mainstreaming and respect for the Subsidiarity Principle” throughout government and so genuinely protect Children and their rights.

Furthermore the aforementioned simple provision of a statute, championed by the Equality Authority, which would provide a Family with a criminal sanction against any interfering third party, including and especially the power of the State, would restore stability to society and enable parents to protect their children from such harm.

Submission on the Review of Lone Parent Allowance
and One Parent Family Payment Scheme to

(i) Steering Group chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach
and (ii) the Senior Officials Group on Social Inclusion

The law of Marriage is essentially the same today as it was thousands of years ago and can be paraphrased as the solemn vows that the prospective couple make to each other in their wedding ceremony. With only minor variations they each say that they take each, “to have and to hold from this day forth, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death us do part.”

In practice if something goes terribly wrong and one spouse deserts or otherwise abandons their commitment to the Marriage, the errand spouse can be forced, in law, to support the innocent spouse. The state also plays its part by making welfare payments available to support deserted spouses and their children and by seeking compensation for the public purse from the deserting spouse. That was the situation until 1989. Then common sense and the rulebook was thrown out of the window and feminist-inspired so-called non-judgmentalism took its place - all behind closed doors and contrary to the expressed intention of the Oireachtas!

This report exposes the story of how, it would appear, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Dr Michael Woods turned upside down the regulations governing desertion and covertly allowed deserting spouses to avail of the One Parent Family Payment and rather sought to penalise the innocent deserted parent by making them the Liable Relative and Maintenance Debtor.

Since that time the state, through the Lone Parent Allowance and One Parent Family Payment schemes, can be seen to be complicit in the destruction of the fundamental basis on which Marriage is founded and itself to have initiated the transformation of society in Ireland into what it is today - a haven for deserters and an immoral paradise for radical feminists intent on eradicating Marriage.

This modest report was compiled within a few weeks to comply with a deadline set by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It attempts two things - the first is to expose how the law of Marriage was corrupted and seriously undermined for the past sixteen years by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and secondly it provides an account in the words one Deserted Married Father, which stand as testimony to the hitherto untold human misery being caused by the Department’s misguided activities.

The Taoiseach has set up an All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution to review Articles 40.3, 41 and 42 which recognise inter alia the natural rights of the People of Ireland in the context of Family and Education.

In case anyone needs reminding the Constitution exists specifically to recognise and protect these rights of the People from interference or regulation by the state.

It is a very questionable exercise therefore when the state itself, without prompting from the people, initiates changes to the Constitution which will reduce the ability of Families to protect themselves from the state!

Read our most recent Reports and our Analysis of the work of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution:

National Mens Council of Ireland presntation to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution
The Taoiseach has set up an All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution to review Articles 40.3, 41 and 42 which recognise inter alia the natural rights of the People of Ireland in the context of Family and Education.In case anyone needs reminding the Constitution exists specifically to recognise and protect these rights of the People from interference or regulation by the state.

Parental Rights in Ireland, November 2004 - An Analysis
This extraordinary analysis of parental rights in Ireland in 2004 is of extreme public interest especially at this point in time when the Government have asked for a Review to be conducted into the position of the Family in Irish society.

We believe it is of vital importance that parents know where they stand in Law in relation to their right to protect and nurture their children.

Preliminary Report On The Family And Marriage In Ireland In 2003
Today the married family is under unprecedented attack. One of the prime activities of the National Men’s Council of Ireland is to monitor, on behalf of parents, how legislation and social policy impacts on the family and marriage and in particular for children.

Brides of the State
Open letter sent to all TDs and Senators exposing in graphic terms how the state is distorting and undermining marriage with its subsidy of illegitimacy that is denying young men the opportunity to marry.

The Family- Marriage and Children