One of the sections of Bunreacht na hEireann that will almost surely be for the chop before too long is Article 
41.2.1 and 41.2.2, which says that women should not be forced out of economic necessity to leave the home. Speaking for myself, I will shed no tears if and when it does go.
Feminists in particular dislike this provision because it suggests a woman’s place is in the home, although arguably it doesn’t quite go that far. Instead it says that if a woman decides her place is in the home, the State should make it economically possible for her to fulfil that wish. But no matter, let there be an end to this section.
On the other hand, is this provision really so alien to modern thinking? The thought occurred to me this morning when I attended a public consultation on Ireland’s report to the UN on our implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Article 10.2 of that document reads as follows: “Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits”.
Is the spirit behind this provision really a million miles away from the spirit which informed Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 of our constitution?
The UN documents refers specifically to mothers, not fathers, and in so many words it says that women must not be forced back to work in the first months following the birth of their baby. (Admittedly, the Irish Constitution doesn’t refer to any particular period in a woman’s life).
As we know, feminists have long campaigned for paid maternity leave for women, and often with great success. With a bit of lateral thinking, however, Irish feminists could have used Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 to buttress their arguments in favour of paid maternity leave. Who’d have thought it?
And why quote a UN convention on this point, when all along they could have been quoting Bunreacht na hEireann instead?