The Constitution should be amended to strengthen a person's right to his or her good name by criminalising all forms of character assassination, according to the men's rights group, Amen.
A citizen's right to live in his or her family home should also be expressly stated in the Constitution, except in extreme circumstances, such as failure to pay rent or mortgage, or criminal conduct endangering the safety and rights of other family members. Frank McGlynn, secretary of the group, told the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution that the rights of all parents should have express constitutional protection regardless of their sex or the relationship between the parents.
"A father's right to be a father to his child should not depend on his relationship with the mother," he said.
The Amen submission did not propose any amendment relating to the rights of children.
The Constitution should set clear limits on the extent to which the State can interfere in family life, evict spouses from their family homes and usurp parental rights and obligations, he said.
Because of the discrimination against men in the family law system, "the civil marriage contract is now the most lethal contract that a man can enter into," he said. Article 41.3(2) should be amended to clearly provide that a divorce could only be granted where both spouses had agreed, or where one had deserted for four years, and subject to other conditions.
Hope, the charity run by MEP Kathy Sinnott, stressed the importance of Article 41.2.2, which states that mothers should not be forced by economic necessity to work outside the home. This Article was primarily about children, not mothers, she said. "Maternity is necessary to the development of the child."
If the mother was to be an adopted mother then we should make every effort to ensure this started as early as possible, she said. "Presumably a father can mother, thought this has not been my personal experience," she said. As a lone parent, she found her children related to her as a mother.
She said there were cases where the courts had interpreted this Article in a gender-inclusive way, stressing the caring role. "I would not recommend tampering with the clear, if ignored, affirmation of carers," she said. "We need to recognise carers as the essential and valuable workforce they are."