Sir, — George Orwell, in “Politics and the English Language”, identifies “euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness” as three elements of insincere political language.
This rich tradition lives on in labels such as “family values”. Just as forbidding people full closure of unsalvageable relationships in the form of divorce cannot credibly be aligned with “family values”, neither is it very pro-life to uphold restrictive abortion laws which, according to the World Health Organisation, have no effect on abortion rates but do increase maternal mortality rates.
Fact is another much-abused word. Mr Stack speaks of “the simple fact that up to half of the State’s voters are being ignored”. Does he honestly believe that up to half of Ireland would oppose divorce in 2014? Furthermore, the most recent poll in this paper (June 12th, 2013) showed overwhelming support for less restrictive abortion laws.
If “family values voters” wish to see their views validated, they will need to abandon the mainstream media: the consensus Mr Stack identifies therein merely reflects a consensus in the population at large. Yours, etc,
WILSON JOYCE,
Main Street,
Chapelizod,
Dublin 20
Sir, – Jim Stack is of course perfectly entitled to express his views and his belief that they are underrepresented in the media and political life. What is objectionable is the hijacking of the term “family values” for a brand of social conservatism, ie anti-marriage equality, anti-divorce and anti-choice.
Are these views “pro-family“? I would suggest in the case of a loving gay couple or even a heterosexual couple wishing to remarry; or the case of a growing family that has to deal with the terrible dilemma of whether or not to carry a foetus with “a condition not compatible with life” to term, government enforcement of such “family values” would be most definitely “anti-family”. Yours, etc,
NEIL BARRETT ,
Shelford,
Cambridge,
United Kingdom