Robb

Breaking A Statement from Senator Sharon Keogan “I am deeply concerned and taken aback by the intervention of the Electoral Commission in relation to posters which I have commissioned advocating a NO vote concerning women being forced by economic necessity to work outside the home. Firstly, the Commission never contacted me in relation to the matter prior to issuing a statement in relation to me. Secondly, the Commission has consistently and completely ignored the obvious truth that the Supreme Court has on two important occasions in the L v L case [1992] 2 IR 77 and the LT v CT case [2002] 3 IR 334 relied on Article 41.2 to reject any suggestion that, when assessing alimony and maintenance, and in making proper provision for mothers in divorce orders to protect women who are parenting in the home, they can be obliged by economic necessity to seek work outside the home against their wishes. These decisions are referred to in the Lawyers For No document on the referendums on pages 29 to 36 (attached). Thirdly, the Commission is duty bound by statute and by the Constitution to be impartial in its information.  There is absolutely no excuse for its blatant failure to alert the public that the section proposed to be deleted has been relied on by the Supreme Court to protect women from being obliged by economic necessity against their wishes to seek work outside the home in such cases. Fourthly, the Commission has wholly failed to draw the attention of the voters to the fact that the Supreme Court relied on Article 41.2 in invalidating income tax laws that discriminated against families where the mother chose to parent their children in the home in the landmark Murphy case. Fifthly, the Commission has abjectly failed to name any minister and the NWCI for propagating blatant untruths about the Constitution suggesting that “womans place is in the home.” Sixthly, in today’s Irish Independent Minister Heather Humphreys is reported as saying that a Yes vote will mean more support for carers. That is demonstrably false. No contradiction was forthcoming from the Commission. The result of the O’Meara case which Minister Humphreys referred to had nothing to do with Friday’s vote. Her government and her Attorney General opposed Mr. O’Meara at every stage and lost. Many people who oppose the amendments are increasingly worried that the Commission’s public statements have been slanted towards a ‘Yes’ vote. When the votes have been counted on Saturday there will be plenty of opportunities to carefully re-examine the role, tone and content of the Commission’s statements to determine whether the Commission has ever identified any single potentially negative consequence of the proposed amendments as it ought to have done. I will hold the Commission accountable.  In the meantime, I am increasingly confident that voters will reject the amendments and prevent the deletion of Article 41.2 which will keep in place existing Supreme Court decisions protecting parenting women “from being forced by economic necessity” to work outside the home. I stand by my poster.