Talking Referendums on Christian Morris TV
‘Surely there can’t be a woman in Ireland, no matter how propagandised by these harridans, who thinks it a good idea to remove references to “woman" and “mothers” from the Irish Constitution?’
The ‘Durable’ Future
‘The thing about robots, the moral crux of it, is this: The way that the discussion is going is that, because the human person who engages with a robot tends gradually to see this robot in anthropomorphic terms — as another human being — that the reason, therefore, that is is necessary to legislate for this is that they may well develop habits in relation to that non-human, quasi-human, let us say, and behave towards it — i.e. the robot — in a way that, were they to replicate it in relation to an actual human, it could be very dangerous or damaging. And therefore, the law will need to catch up in order to regulate the morality of the interrelationships between human beings and robots. That’s what the academic literature is now saying. Now if you transplant that into this, and you bring in jurisprudence on that question into the constitutional arena, what have you got?’
— John Waters
The proposed referendums, to be held in Ireland on International Women's Day, March 8th 2024, will seek to broaden the definition of ‘Family’ in the Irish Constitution beyond its current basis in marriage, and eliminate the special protection for mothers wishing to themselves care for their children in the home.
There are two separate proposals, designated the 39th and 40th amendments to the Constitution.
Both propose amending Article 41 of the Constitution to (a)— the 39th Amendment: provide for a wider concept of the family, beyond one defined by marriage; and (b) — the 40th Amendment: to delete Article 41.2 and its reference to the role of women in the home and insert a new article — 42B — that recognises care provided within a household by family members and pledges the State to ‘strive’ to support it.
The relevant sections of Article 41 as it stands are as follows:
1° 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.
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.
2 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.
3 1° 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.
Specifically, the 39th Amendment involves two changes: to amend Article 41.1.1° to insert the words ‘whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships,’ and to delete the words ‘on which the Family is founded’ from Article 41.3.1°.
The 40th Amendment deals with the role of women in the home.
It proposes to delete Article 41.2° and replace it with an Article 42B which reads:
The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.
In the Odysee video linked below, Christian Morris and I tease out the meanings and the implications of these changes.
Buy John a beverage
If you are not a full subscriber but would like to support my work on Unchained with a small donation, please click on the ‘Buy John a beverage’ link above.
‘If you have a law which facilitates Muslims coming into Ireland being entitled to bring their five wives in, and not be regarded as bigamous, there’s nothing to stop Paddy, then, from getting involved in bigamous situations. Or indeed Patricia.’
— John Waters
‘If you claim a durable relationship, the burden of proof is on your opponent. So, I’m saying, “I’ve brought in all my relatives here from Ukraine, and it’s a durable relationship — the Constitution says that it’s a durable relationship — and who are you to say it’s otherwise? Can you prove it’s not a durable relationship?’
— Christian Morris
‘There are four mentions in the Constitution in relation to females. One is [in Article 41] the word “woman.” That’s one of the things that going to be removed if this amendment succeeds. Woman’s place in the home. Similarly, “mothers” in the same Article — Article 41.2. That will go too. The other two are in Article 45, and they both relate in that context to “men and women equally.” And both have to do with the assertion of equality as between the sexes. And it uses the term “sex” very explicitly there. They will remain, those two Article 45 references to “men and women.” For the moment. But the other two — the references to “woman” and the “mothers” will be taken out and will not be replaced by any reference to females whatsoever. Surely there can’t be a woman in Ireland, no matter how propagandised by these harridans, who thinks it a good idea to remove references to “woman” and “mothers” from the Irish Constitution?’
— John Waters
‘You take, for example, Varadkar or O’Gorman or Eamon Ryan, or these people — they don’t care that they don’t know.’
— Christian Morris
‘The thing about dystopia — that word — is that people think it has only to do with imaginative fiction, with fantasy fiction. No, no! We’ve discovered in the last four years that dystopia is an actual thing, and a contemporary thing that can erupt at any moment in your society, if you take your eye off the dial.’
— John Waters
‘The Constitution treats people as equal, but nevertheless is recognising a special place for the woman.’
— Christian Morris.