The Republic of Ireland

[Suranis]

It pretty much snuck up on us. There was no build up for it and suddenly adverts poped up to let people know about it literally a week ago.

As these things go, the No side is talking about the Legal implications of the changes, and the Yes side is basically "Oh Tolerance. Its just tolerance! Tolerance! Why you no Tolerance!"

Personally, I think the fact that they stuck it up on us means that they its really about something else and they are counting on apathy to get it through before people really get a chance to look at it. I also see that they want to yank out the obligation of the state to ensure that families can afford to live without both parents working. I'm taking "Mother" as meaning "Parent" in this case.

My sisters and I had a chat about it yesterday and they were a solid no for different reasons. One was pointing out that a person having a long term affair could be counted as having a "Long term relationship. And that they would "Strive to help people with disabilities" means nothing, and that the two biggest Disability organizations in the country have called for a No vote. The other said that a campaigner for a Yes vote was on Radio last week and could not give a single good reason for a yes vote. And it's "the most pointless exercise ever."

So, ya. Vote is on Friday. I'm a No to both.

[sugar magnolia]

Obviously a 'no' vote is the way to go. Tolerance must be stamped out at the first sign.

[Suranis]

Thank you for the thoughtful and tolerant response.

[much ado]

Is there any information about who is funding the 'yes' advertising?

[Suranis]

Not that I know of.

I did a quick search and this Irish time article talks about it, but I cant read it as its subscriber only.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/202 ... ferendums/

War chest of at least €144,000 available to Yes side to campaign in ...
2 days ago The Yes-Yes side in the referendums on family and care has a combined war chest of at least €144,000, a level of funding that is vastly larger than the spending planned by prominent voices on ...

An Irish supreme court ruling years ago stated that the Government has to fund both sides in a referendum, rather than favoring one side. The Government typically resolves issue that by funding very little advertising at all.

[much ado]

My sisters and I had a chat about it yesterday and they were a solid no for different reasons. One was pointing out that a person having a long term affair could be counted as having a "Long term relationship. And that they would "Strive to help people with disabilities" means nothing, and that the two biggest Disability organizations in the country have called for a No vote. The other said that a campaigner for a Yes vote was on Radio last week and could not give a single good reason for a yes vote. And it's "the most pointless exercise ever."

Why have they called for a 'no' vote? What are they concerned about?

[Suranis]

Why have they called for a 'no' vote? What are they concerned about?

Well, that's what my sister said. I actually don't know. But this is what a disability group is saying.

https://gript.ie/equality-not-care-grou ... r-no-vote/

‘Equality Not Care’ Group will campaign for No Vote

A new group ‘Equality Not Care’ has been founded to campaign for a no vote in the forthcoming referendum on March 8th, with a focus on what they say is discrimination against disabled people and family members.

A a briefing in Buswells Hotel today, the group said it was made up of concerned citizens including disabled people, family members providing support, and others, and that their campaign will strongly focuses on supporting equality and rights of everyone in the family and ensuring people are not entrapped in the guise of recognising ‘care’.

The group feels the Government is discriminating against disabled people and family members. They believe the proposed amendment to the Constitution – 42B – is another way of saying, “to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

The group are of the view that 42B is ableist and ageist perpetuating the notion of people with impairments being burdens on families rather than rights-holders on an equal basis with everyone else.



A spokesperson for the group, Ann Marie Flanagan said “42B seeks to deny our autonomy, dignity and equality. 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. What is required is constitutional obligations to provide support services to enable everyone to participate in economic, social and cultural life,” she said.

“This referendum is made up of smoke and mirrors which is designed to confuse and mislead women and men, providing support and requiring support. It is a complete disregard for people’s rights. There is no dignity or autonomy in this referendum.”

Ms Flanagan went on to say that “the vast majority of carers are women. The replacement wording removes any mention of economic rights and denigrates the dignity of the family”.

Michael O’Dowd, a member of the Equality Not Care group also stated that “It is imperative that the constitution values and recognises everyone’s rights including independent living support needs”.

“The referendum fails to fulfil the comprehensive support promised by the Citizens Assembly, abdicating on creating a truly equitable society. 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.”

Another contributor at the meeting, Dr Margaret Kennedy said that “Equality of men and women, includes disabled woman and men and older women and men. No democratic State or Civil Society organisation has the right to discriminate based on disability or age. This is what 42B will do if passed. So together, vote no, and make sure the next referendum does what it is obliged to do; cherish all its children (and adults) equally.”

The group said over two thousand disabled people are living in congregated institutions, many of which are big, old outdated buildings, with a further 1300 young people living in nursing homes for older people, as investigated by the Ombudsmen in the Wasted Lives Report.

They said it was feared that Ireland “still operates from the workhouse mentality of warehousing people”.

“Furthermore, disabled people are effectively institutionalised within their own homes by the absence of essential personal assistance services. Homeless disabled children and adults make up a staggering 25% of the homeless demographic. This country’s treatment of disabled persons falls shamefully short of recognising human rights standards,” they said.

‘Equality Not Care Vote No 42B’ group is calling for a genuine constitutional referendum that expresses a modern interpretation of equality of the sexes with due regard for intersectionality as protected under the 9 grounds in Ireland’s equality legislation

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0221/14335 ... eferendum/

This is a group of Lawyers talking about the possible ramifications of a Yes vote.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/soci ... ferendums/

A Yes vote in next week’s referendums would mean “major uncertainties” for people in short-term relationships, a group of lawyers has claimed.

It would also have long-term consequences in areas of law including family, tax and property, and mean “no justiciable rights” for people either giving or needing care, Lawyers for No (LFN) said.

The ad hoc group has urged rejection of proposed amendments to the Constitution in referendums on March 8th.

The family amendment proposes to extend the constitutional definition of the family beyond that founded on marriage to include “other durable relationships”. The care amendment proposes to delete Article 41.2, which provides the State recognises the contribution of women’s work in the home to the common good and shall “endeavour” to support it, and replace it with Article 42B providing the State shall “strive” to support care provided by family members to each other.

Speaking at a LFN press conference in Dublin on Thursday, Independent Senator Michael McDowell SC said the McKenna principles – which prevent use of public funds to advocate for any side in a referendum – are being violated if the Government is using “proxy NGOs” to fight its case.

While he had heard there may be a legal challenge to any Yes outcome, he was not involved in that, the Senator said. He believed the referendums would be “beaten decisively, 60/40″.

The press conference was attended by about 10 lawyers, including Clare Independent TD and barrister Michael McNamara; senior counsel Cormac Ó Dúlacháin; barrister and journalist Brenda Power; and Maria Steen, a full-time homemaker and qualified barrister.

Ms Power said she is very concerned the referendums will be decided before the Supreme Court hears an appeal on April 11th by the mother of a profoundly disabled boy who was refused the full means-tested carers allowance because her husband’s salary is €850 weekly.

That appeal, which raises issues of systemic importance for carers, will involve consideration of Article 41.2, which pays homage to the significant work women do in the home and reflects the current reality that most carers are women who are poorly paid and limited in their career options, she said.

Mr Ó Dúlacháin said constitutions are built on historically relevant words and phrases, the meaning of which is “precise and certain”.

There is no universal agreement on what “durable relationships” means and putting family relationships into that category “downgrades the fundamental relationship between adult, parent and child, which is not one based on consent, agreement or contract”, he said.

The Government is effectively saying: “We will build a new house in the Constitution and sometime later, we will design the foundations and tell you what they are,” he said.

Mr McDowell, presenting a document outlining the LFN’s concerns, said the proposal to extend the constitutional family to those founded on other durable relationships is unnecessary because there is nothing a lone parent or cohabitating couple cannot be given by law as long as the Oireachtas wants to do so.

Because the Government rejected an amendment that would permit the Oireachtas to define the meaning of other durable relationships, the courts will have to decide that at some future stage in disputed cases, creating major uncertainties for everyone in short-term relationships, he said.

The door will be open to “concurrent and successive families with multiple partners”, he said.

Married families will still be required by the courts to make proper provision before a divorce but the proper provision requirements will be avoided by spouses leaving the home to form new constitutional unmarried families based on durable relationships, he said.

LFN agrees with the “grave concerns” expressed by some disability groups and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties about the care referendum, he said.

It is arguable that the removal of Article 41.2 could weaken the position of families with one parent working in the home and could result in the removal of tax protections for families based on marriage, he added.

[Suranis]

The Irish Council on Civil Liberties, the Independent Living Movement Ireland (ILMI) and Free Legal Advice Centers have expressed concerns.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/202 ... -campaign/

Care amendment criticised by two more bodies in further blow to Yes Yes referendum campaign
Tánaiste disputes claim by Free Legal Advice Centres that ‘care’ amendment is sexist

Mary Carolan
Tue Feb 20 2024 - 06:00

The campaign for a Yes vote to the Government’s proposed “care” amendment to the Constitution has suffered a further blow after two independent human rights bodies separately voiced concern about the proposal.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) and the Independent Living Movement Ireland (ILMI) outlined their positions on Monday in the wake of criticism of the care amendment by the Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac).

In referendums on March 8th, the Government proposes expanding the definition of family in Article 41 of the Constitution to recognise those based on “durable relationships”.

The proposed care amendment involves replacing language in Article 41.2 around “duties” of women in the home with a new Article 42B providing that the State will “strive to” support care within families.

In a statement on Monday following a legal analysis of the proposals, Flac supported the family amendment but described the care amendment as “ineffective”, “implicitly sexist” and potentially compromising of the rights of people with disabilities.

Speaking to reporters in Brussels on Monday, Tánaiste Micheál Martin rejected Flac’s criticism of the care amendment.

“I thought it was more of a political statement by Flac than a legal one, and I was taken aback by the suggestion that the proposed amendments were sexist,” he said. “I would take an opposite view to that, and I would reject the assertions by Flac.”

There was “a degree of absurdity in labelling the amendments as sexist: they are not”, he said. The proposed changes “eliminate language that is archaic, in respect of the duties of women”, he said.

In a statement to The Irish Times, the ICCL confirmed that its position on the referendums remains as set out in a note issued previously to members by its executive director Liam Herrick.

The ICCL considered the care amendment “will not provide meaningful legal protection to any person who gives or receives care”, the statement said.

However, it considered the “family” amendment will expand constitutional protection for families to include those not based on marriage and said that is “very welcome”, as is the proposal to delete Article 41.2 which “negatively stereotypes women”, it said.

Article 41.2 provides the State shall “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties within the home”.

Based on its analysis, the ICCL said it will not be taking part in the referendum campaign but hoped it is “well informed, and that human rights and equality are given meaningful consideration during the debates”.

In the lead-up to the referendums, it made submissions to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality and the Government’s Inter-Departmental Group, the ICCL noted. The Government, it said, “should have gone further to implement the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly and Oireachtas Committee” which would have represented “a more legally impactful proposal”.

Separately on Monday, in response to queries from The Irish Times, the ILMI confirmed in a statement that it has withdrawn from the equality coalition, an alliance of civil society groups campaigning for equality, “as we are not in a position to endorse a YES YES campaign based on the realisation of disabled people’s rights and fully implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities”.

The board of ILMI had on February 7th last unanimously voted it has “no position as an organisation” on the forthcoming referendums and it reiterates that position, the statement said. It encouraged disabled people to register and exercise their right to vote, describing the referendums as “deeply personal matters to each individual”.

Working with other organisations in the equality coalition before the referendum wordings issued, the ILMI had built a shared understanding of the term “care” to mean a “system that empowers disabled people, older people, and anyone who needs support to live and be included in their communities”, it said. This was “consistent with the Citizens’ Assembly on Care and recommendations of the Joint Oireachtas Committee”.

After the wording of the care referendum “fell short” of what the ILMI and other equality organisations were calling for, the equality coalition lobbied politicians for amendments “to reflect our values about the supports people need, including disabled people, to live and be included in their communities”.

Despite much political support, no amendments were accepted, it said.

[much ado]

It would be really interesting to find out who came up with the idea that these amendments were needed and who drafted the language. Where do these proposed amendments come from?

One does get the impression that these amendments lay the groundwork for further changes to Irish law.

[Foggy]

Ol' Wifehorn and I were in our favorite (only) Irish restaurant last night - The Hibernian - and I found that my memory had failed me again. I was looking at the list of burgers and one didn't say anything about a burger but one ingredient seemed close, so I uttered the sentence, "What is a rasher?"

I thought it was a kind of sausage (it is a kind of sausage). The waiter said, "It has a hamburger patty AND a rasher."

Okay then.

[raison de arizona]

Ol' Wifehorn and I were in our favorite (only) Irish restaurant last night - The Hibernian - and I found that my memory had failed me again. I was looking at the list of burgers and one didn't say anything about a burger but one ingredient seemed close, so I uttered the sentence, "What is a rasher?"

I thought it was a kind of sausage (it is a kind of sausage). The waiter said, "It has a hamburger patty AND a rasher."

Okay then.

BACON!

[Suranis]

Ol' Wifehorn and I were in our favorite (only) Irish restaurant last night - The Hibernian - and I found that my memory had failed me again. I was looking at the list of burgers and one didn't say anything about a burger but one ingredient seemed close, so I uttered the sentence, "What is a rasher?"

I thought it was a kind of sausage (it is a kind of sausage). The waiter said, "It has a hamburger patty AND a rasher."

Okay then.

A Rasher is literally a fried or grilled slice of side or back Bacon.

https://thisinterestsme.com/rashers-ireland/

What are rashers in Ireland?

[Sam the Centipede]

A Rasher is literally a fried or grilled slice of side or back Bacon.

In BrE the word "rasher" is used exactly as Suranis describes for IrE. It is well understood. However, in BrE one would probably say "I'll have some bacon with my breakfast" whereas in IrE one might say "I'll have a few rashers with my breakfast".

Put more simply, there are some cooked slices of cured porcine viand on your plate: in Britain you have "some bacon", in Ireland "some rashers."

Off Topic

I learnt the ScotE verb "sorn" today.

[much ado]

What are rashers in Ireland?

We call that Canadian bacon on this side of the pond. Not sure, though, what Canadians call it.

Scroll down this link...

https://www.hillcrestmeats.com/product/ ... bacon-1lb/

[keith]

Not sure, though, what Canadians call it.

Probably the same thing Australians call it: bacon.

A single piece of bacon is a rasher or a slice depending on the preference of the speaker. And you know how menu writers like to be obtuse sometimes.

I once saw a menu offering 'Dollar Coin Steak' WTF? The Australian 1 dollar coin has a mob of kangaroos on the back (tails side, reverse?).

[MsDaisy 2]

Ol' Wifehorn and I were in our favorite (only) Irish restaurant last night - The Hibernian - and I found that my memory had failed me again. I was looking at the list of burgers and one didn't say anything about a burger but one ingredient seemed close, so I uttered the sentence, "What is a rasher?"

I thought it was a kind of sausage (it is a kind of sausage). The waiter said, "It has a hamburger patty AND a rasher."

Okay then.

A Rasher is literally a fried or grilled slice of side or back Bacon.

https://thisinterestsme.com/rashers-ireland/

What are rashers in Ireland?

In Virginia we'd call them pork chops and grill it inside or out weather permitting. Applesauce is required, it's a sin before the food God to eat pork of any kind without applesauce.

[much ado]

Not sure, though, what Canadians call it.

Probably the same thing Australians call it: bacon.

A single piece of bacon is a rasher or a slice depending on the preference of the speaker. And you know how menu writers like to be obtuse sometimes.

I once saw a menu offering 'Dollar Coin Steak' WTF? The Australian 1 dollar coin has a mob of kangaroos on the back (tails side, reverse?).

So is there a different Australian/Canadian name for American-style bacon? Do you even have bacon like this in Australia?

You know, like this?

[keith]

Yes I see it occaisionally. I think I could get a local butcher to cut it 'properly', but I'm not 100% sure what to ask for. Possibly 'streaky bacon', a term I have heard but am not quite sure about.

[RTH10260]

This type is known in Switzerland as Schinkenspeck, or transliterated as ham-bacon, refering to the more meaty structure. Bacon is the American style with lard between the muscle layers. Though more recent going with the non-fat wave the bacon has become much leaner.

[Sam the Centipede]

So is there a different Australian/Canadian name for American-style bacon? Do you even have bacon like this in Australia?

You know, like this?

In Brutain and Ireland, that striped bacon is "streaky bacon". The type with a large roundel of pink meat as in the earlier photo is "back bacon". Back bacon is eaten more than streaky. Both types of bacon are sold in both smoked and unsmoked forms.

[jemcanada2]

I’ve seen recipes calling for streaky bacon and didn’t know what it was. Don’t get me started on aubergines and courgettes!

In Canada, we call streaky bacon bacon and Canadian bacon back bacon. Peameal bacon is a popular back bacon here.

And now I’m craving bacon

[Suranis]

Not Bacon... Rashers.... Mmmmmmmmmm

[bill_g]

So, the Things In Common Column between USish, Irish, and Bri-ish bacon would include pork, not lean, thinly sliced, cooked crisp.

I have to say the Irish rasher (tenderloin) cut looks pretty good.

[Suranis]

It is, trust me. It's the biggest danger to my Cholesterol.

[much ado]

My favorite method of consuming it...