Mary Kenny
Has the time come to abolish the concept of a written Constitution? As clause by clause is unpicked from our present Constitution – first composed in 1937, and with added amendments since – a self-evident truth emerges: what is accepted as a general good in one generation will often be dismissed as an outdated irrelevance 70 years on.
And so, referendum follows referendum to dismantle old values, to be replaced by more contemporary ideas. But 70 years hence, many of the values currently in vogue will seem as outdated as a 1930s fashion plate today. As the aphorism by W.R. Inge puts it: “Whoever marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next.”
Common good
Take the upcoming Referendum to delete Article 41.2 from the present Constitution: “…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.” This is colloquially known as “the woman in the home” clause, and there is reckoned to be widespread support in favour of deleting it, on the grounds that “This is 2018!”
Yes, but by 2088 whatever may be inserted in its place, or even otherwise, is likely to be regarded as “old hat”.
The usefulness of a written Constitution is that it can act as a “mission statement” for a nation, and describe the way in which the constitutional framework operates – the relationship between President, government, local government, and administration. It can also set a basis for certain rights, but as we have seen with the removal of the Eighth Amendment, rights can be withdrawn as well as extended.
A Constitution can, if considered thoughtfully, act as a guide to the values of a culture, and explain the context in which values arose. The “woman in the home” clause was, in its time, a tribute to the contribution women made to the common good by home-making.
Disadvantage
An agricultural society was aware that bachelor farmers were at a disadvantage: a farm thrives best when run by a family, and the “ban a tighe” certainly makes an equal contribution to that family economy.
Article 41.2 could be analysed like that, but it seldom is: instead, it’s seen through the prism of today’s values – a form of “patriarchal oppression”, seeking to chain woman to the kitchen sink and prevent her fulfilment in the public sphere.
Once this clause is deleted, I would predict that the next to be undone will be the preamble itself, which begins “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all Authority…”. This will soon be described as “offensive to secularists”, “sectarian”, and “divisive”. Wouldn’t it be a shorter cut to scrap the written Constitution altogether than to go through its dismembering section by section?
Sport certainly can be a force for good in the world, and the current world football championship seems to have been an occasion of a harmonious internationalism, while also making space for national pride.
The fans display their national culture with folkloric costume allusions – Viking helmets for the Swedes, Russian headdresses for the Russians, and, for the English, the Crusader costume of St George. Maybe many of the world’s political disputes could be better solved with a game of footie…
There’s more in a name than you may think..
Theresa May may not be in residence much longer at 10 Downing Street, as her leadership is so continuously challenged. But wherever she is, isn’t she entitled to be addressed by the title she chooses – which is “Mrs May”?
She was Theresa Brazier: she married Philip May, and she subsequently chose to identify herself by her married title.
Yet, all through her premiership, the Irish Times has always referred to her as “Ms May”, because it is their house style to dub all women with the marriage-neutral honorific ‘Ms’.
Every newspaper, magazine and mainstream publication in the world accepts that Theresa has chosen to style herself ‘Mrs’ – except the Irish Times.
I’ve taken the matter up with Denis Staunton, their esteemed London correspondent, who has occasion to write frequently about Theresa May, and he says he agrees with me – Theresa should be described as ‘Mrs May’, since that is what she wants.
Editorial panjan drums
He has often written “Mrs Theresa May” in his reports. But the editorial panjandrums at the Irish Times are implacable: the “Mrs” must be altered to “Ms”, the inclusive form of feminist address. It their decision, not the British Prime Minister’s, what she is to be called.
It is a civil freedom – and always has been – that an individual can style themselves howsoever they please. I can call myself the Duchess of Plaza Tora if it takes my fancy (not a bad idea, maybe!) And it is a universal form of politeness to respect whatever name or style of address that individual wishes to use.
