The Case For #VoteNoNo

My thoughts and those of other, more informed people, on the matter of the referendums, with sources.

The Irish Family

There is a double referendum coming up, in case you didn’t know, and there is a woeful amount of confusion coming from the originators of both proposals. This confusion is a direct result of government policy, which is to break the Constitution down into a trivialised mess and shift the power from the foundational document of the state into the hands of the government and it’s policy makers in the EU and the UN. In the Family referendum in particular, the government has refused to define the new term, “durable relationship”, and has also stated that this will be a matter for the courts to decide. This has the startling implication that this new open ended term could be used to introduce problematic practices into Irish society with full constitutional protection. I will link here the official page for the referendums, including the original text of both articles and the proposals put forward by this government.

The Electoral Commission Page regarding the referendums.

In the case of the Care referendum, there is already a resounding No vote on the cards and therefore I will quickly state here that you will be at a loss to understand its implications. The Care referendum, and also the Family referendum, seeks to appease a particular subset of the Irish population that chooses to identify with or live alternative lifestyles that do not enjoy the same recognition or importance as the Nuclear Family. Mothers, by virtue of the fact that they birth, provide milk and monitor their young, spend time within the home and are the primary caregivers naturally to all of mankind. The recognition of this important undeniable fact of nature, which offends the degenerate subset of society who have pushed this amendment, is the fundamental pillar of our existence as a natural species on this plant. The article exists in it’s current wording to prevent these very same people from exalting themselves to the same adoration and status that Mothers have within our foundational document. The amendment in it’s current form provides a written guarantee from the people of Ireland to protect the role of the mother in the home, not to enforce it, and to recognise all of the man-hours she puts it in terms of end of life care, disability care and also the education of her kids. It is defined that it is in the common good of society that a woman’s life in the home is not interfered with or obliged by economic necessity to enter the work force as that would cause a neglect of the family life, the home and the needs of those in their care.

Current wording

Article 41.2.1° “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.”

Article 41.2.2° “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.”

It goes without saying, that nobody is forcing women to stay in the home. However, the negatives involved with her not being a homemaker, in particular where kids are involved, are ever present in modern society. More and more we have children raised in creches, day care, after school etc as both parents leave the home to pursue careers. The traditional passing of the baton from mother to daughter in terms of homemaking brings with it higher morals, higher standard of care, better eating habits, preservation of tradition, defined roles and responsibilities and more. The real benefit however is the value of your carer also being your family member. When your mother, sister, daughter etc is also your carer they have a much higher value on your life than someone else, paid by the hour to do the job. The removal of this expectation on young women is no different than the removal of the expectation of young men to go out and win the bread. These roles are reinforced and affirmed by our Constitution because the alternative is not only sole destroying, but harmful to society. When nobody is responsible for anything, then the world itself becomes irresponsible by nature. Our immutable sex characteristics predetermine our suitability for the various fundamental requirements to not only create families, but to care for them too in the roles that are we are naturally predisposed to thriving within. The amendment seeks to destroy all of the above:

The “Care” Proposal

“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.”

You can see here clearly that natural woman is removed, replacing her with any member of the family at all. Although it says that the bonds between family members still provide Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, the amendment does not define what these “bonds” are. The importance of the natural mother in the home is equated here to the fat cross-dressing uncle who lives in the basement or the live-in nanny who clocks out at 5. There is nothing more insulting to the Irish mammy than this. This not by any means a gesture of inclusiveness or demonstration of grandiose sentiment, but rather it is an open doorway for social policy ( see article 45 below ) to skewed in favour of the elites by turning women, currently protected from the labour market along with children, into economic units of labour. A capitalists wet dream. In what may surprise you considering the amount of times you have been told that the constitution “chains women to the sink”. This article, article 45, already provides for a woman’s equal status in the workplace and completely destroys the primary argument for this amendment.

Article 45.2.

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:–

(i)      That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

This section of the constitution should be all you need to read if you have any doubt whatsoever that a woman does not have the same freedoms as men. The women of this country should be particularly grateful for this extra layer of guarantee that is there for them, should they so wish to use it. This exposes, in my opinion, a fundamental breach of the intended purpose constitution by the Oireachtas in bringing forward such proposals as it shows that the primary intention, now disproven, is a total ruse and a scheme to destroy the unique role of motherhood in Irish society. They are lying to you. Period. You may also have the ghost of Eamon De Valera looming over you, having been brow beaten by pearl clutching 4th-wave feminists who claim that De Valera’s Ireland subjugated women. This is not true. The claustrophobia and sexism experienced at the time was a lingering symptom of the catholic church in Ireland and the natural social order that came with it. De Valera clearly addressed the feminists at the time and included them in his draft process for the 1937 constitution. He wrote a multitude of letters to figure heads of various walks at the time to instruct his final wording of the constitution. Here is one such letter:

---

“Draft letter from Eamon de Valera to Betty Archdale

Department of the President

28 September 1937

Taken from the Origins of the Irish Constitution, 1928-1941 by Gerard Hogan

Dear Madam,

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant in which you enquire whether the President has yet had time to consider your letter of the 14 June last on the subject of the position of women under the new Constitution.

The view conveyed in the statement that certain clauses of the Constitution are based on a fascist and slave conception of women' is evidently based on a misinterpretation of the particular clauses referred to, and of the Constitution as a whole, so far as the position of women is concerned.

In fact, complete equality of the sexes is presumed throughout the Constitution. Women have equal civil and political rights with men. It is expressly provided (Article 9.1.3°) that no person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person, and by Article 16.1.1° and 3° distinction of sex is prohibited in the determination of eligibility for membership of Dail Eireann.

In the matter of the parliamentary franchise express provision is also made against any distinction of sex (Article 16.1.2° and 3°).

There is no barrier to the holding by women of any office in the State.

A woman may be President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Attorney General, or hold any other office.

The Irish citizenship law may fairly be claimed to be one of the most liberal in the world in regard to women and this law is being carried over by the Constitution.

Where special reference is made to women, as it is in one or two places in the Constitution, such reference is made to safeguard them against being the victims of some of the defects of the existing social system. For example, it is declared in Article 41.2.2° that 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 in the home.' It is clear that the words obliged by economic necessity in this declaration have a definite meaning.Your organisation will, no doubt, agree that economic necessity does force mothers against their will to leave their home duties and become the breadwinners whilst their husbands are idle and unable to work. It can scarcely be suggested that the status of women is lowered because the State sets itself to remedy this evil.

In Article 45.4.2°, it is set down as a directive principle of social policy that the State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength. It is assumed that your organisation does not consider it wrong that the State should endeavour to ensure this. No barrier is imposed to the voluntary choice by women of any vocation. The clear intention is that economic pressure should not be allowed to compel men, women or children to engage in injurious occupations against their will.”

---

It is clear that back then, as is true today, there is never a shortage of idiots who can’t read simple English and will trivialise almost anything. De Valera’s answer to Betty Archdale, an accomplished woman in her own right but undoubtedly an ideologue and extreme feminist, is the only answer that was needed, then as in now, as to the question of where a woman’s place is. De Valera rightly puts Archdale in her place by explaining the basic and obvious meaning of the word “equality” and simply quoting the text of the draft constitution back to her. Note too that Betty Archdale referred to the constitution as “fascist”. Betty Archdale attempted to intimidate the sitting President of Ireland with familiar sneaky tactics as WW2 propaganda was in full motion and extreme use of Nazi/Fascist labelling was used at the time to enforce compliance with a whole range liberal and Marxist initiatives. Thankfully, De Valera didn’t budge and rightfully boasted about the liberal nature of the Irish Constitution. There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. The man who wrote the feckin thing is telling you what his words mean. Listen to him.

On the matter of The Family referendum, the attack on the family is evident in its pernicious use of the term “durable relationships”. The text of the current article draws upon the naturally understood family unit as being the primary and fundamental unit group of society, which it describes as being founded upon the institution of marriage. The benefit of cherishing the commitment of marriage as the base layer of what a family is cant be understated, but I must confess, there are many families out there not contained within the structure of a marriage. This makes the articles in question sound like they are exclusionary in nature but they are not. I am in a relationship with my child’s mother for instance. Our child is 8 now and we have not been removed from any aspect of Irish society on the basis that we are not married. The article itself does not state that there is to be differential treatment. It simply operates on the presumption that most couples would marry, as was the tradition at the time. The Natural Mother and Natural Father are in fact recognised in Article 40.3 thanks to supreme court rulings such as can be found in the following document:

The Constitutional Status of the Unmarried Family and its Constituent Members

Although the document highlights many cases in the past where the family unit was trivialised in the courts by hyper conservative judges, subsequent rulings that are mentioned clear matters up so far as the unmarried parents of a child are concerned. We are all recognised, married or not, thanks to the fact that the constitution holds many unenumerated rights within article 40 and presumed or eluded to elsewhere in the constitution. Now that that is clarified, here is original article as it stands.

Article 41

In Article 41.1.1° “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.”

In Article 41.3.1° “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.”

This article, a product of roughly 4000 years of social science and tradition, sets out a gold standard for Irish life in that we want to have a peaceful, moral and just society where we value the miracle of childbirth and the responsibility of that child’s life to be entrusted in both of it’s parents. This bond of man woman and child, reinforced by the commitment of marriage, has shown time and time again to produce the best outcomes for children, and therefore society as a whole. This is reinforced by 30 years of modern studies which show that when children are living with their married, biological parents, they have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. The following proposal aims to reward non traditional family units, with detrimental outcomes for children and wider society, the same level of veneration in the foundational document of the state:

The "Family” ammendment

Proposed to change Article 41.1.1° text in bold:

Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, 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.”

Proposed to change Article 41.3.1° by deleting text shown with line through it:

“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.”

Here we see the term “durable relationships” introduced. This term is not limited to blood relatives or unmarried parents. This terms is so open ended it can mean literally any self-identifying family can obtain this special status, normally reserved for conventional, child rearing couples and their children. In fact, so low is the bar for what counts as a durable relationship, the Chair of the Electoral Commission, Justice Marie Baker, stated that this could be as meaningless as receiving a Christmas card together. Two uncommitted people who attended a wedding together, just so they didn’t show up empty handed, could potentially be compared to the two folks at the head table, actually taking our species seriously. If this doesn’t constitute an attack on the institution of marriage I don’t know what is. This one reason why I oppose this as someone who would have been open to recognising the biological parents regardless of marital status, but not this. This durable relationship situation goes even further into obscurity though and even ventures into the debate around immigration and possible opens the door to pedophilia.

A durable relationship has routinely been explained as a relationship between two or more consenting adults. In other words, the state intends to legalise polygamy, again holding it up on the very same pedestal as conventional marriage. What happens if a pregnancy occurs in a “durable relationship” between a crowd hippies in a commune? Do we now value Charles Manson’s idea of what a family is? Or worse, make it constitutionally protected from the ridicule of the people and scrutiny of the state? It certainly opens us up to mass immigration in the form of reunification law. We would have Mohammad and his 7 wives in tow, none of the wives working. This single amendment would provide every single one of these single males in our hotels to bring ALL of their wives here. This would turn us into the UK overnight. The statistics around Muslim migration and employment in the UK should open your eyes wide. In 2021, people who identified as "Muslim" had the lowest percentage of people aged 16 to 64 years in employment (51.4% compared with 70.9% of the overall population); this resulted from the high percentages of people who were students or looking after home or family in this group.24 Mar 2023.

It doesn’t end there however. The definition of what is a durable relationship fails to limit it’s scope. Due to the legal age limit of marriage being 18 in Ireland, and this new, equally recognised, dynamic relationship does not have such a limit, this opens the door constitutionally for pedophilia. I have no doubt that this trivialisation of relationship norms is intentional in order to blur this particular line as there is evidence that the legal field, on an international institutional level is preparing to decriminalise adult/child relationships. You don’t have to look any further than the UN approved International Commission of Jurists report, titled: The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty. In the report Principle 16 states the following:

Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other genderdiverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized. With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.

This is one of many documents out there in the globalist field of thought on how adult/child relations should be perceived by the courts. Something tells me with our current judiciary these changes are already being implemented with suspended sentences now synonymous with this particular durable relationship and its associated behaviours. To compliment my worries here, you can see these concerns are absolutely shared by members of The Irish Law Society who are up in arms about the decision to announce that they support a YesYes vote without consulting any of its members or holding a vote. Top Child Rights solicitor Gareth Noble has resigned from The Irish Law Society as a result. If that does not concern you, nothing will.

One of the many cherries on the cake of #VoteNoNo argument is the fact the former Attorney General and Grandson of Eoin McNeil (founding President of the Irish Volunteers), Michael McDowell has formed a group called Lawyers For No who have released a damning statement on both referendums that totally destroys their legitimacy as potential amendments to our foundational document. Read this before you make your mind up.

To sum up my own words here, I am voting no to both. There is nothing to be gained from either amendments but societal collapse and ruin. Any positive reason to vote for these amendments is wiped out on the return swing due to the lack of defined scope, already admitted negative intended uses by the legislature and the blatant absurdness of the answers and explanations given to us by those who apparently authored these flaming arrows that have been aimed at the heart and soul of our country: Mothers and the families they create and care for.