Heart Beat: Many people will have been profoundly shocked by the events of the past few weeks. I do not pretend to know the answers to the questions posed. I do not even know if the questions are reasonable, let alone know if satisfactory answers are possible.
What bothers me is the cynical endeavour to blur the distinction between right and wrong.
The word "ethics" has been bandied about; as if ethics are somehow malleable and changeable by dictate or whim. Ethics are a moral code accepted by a social, professional or other group and, in a democracy, by the nation state.
So I always thought. I also know that we are all human and that mistakes are made and errors of judgment occur. This, however, is beside the central point. What is most seriously worrying about this episode is not only that the principal refuses to accept that his actions were wrong but that his Government colleagues apparently condone this dereliction. One can only assume accordingly that they also accept this mindset and these dubious values. We have witnessed an endless orchestrated display of tautology and sophistry of the worst kind.
We have seen Ministers and party activists talk through interviewers and block access to public-interest broadcasts. The fact that these Ministers have ascended to the Cabinet and are seated at the left hand of John Bowman does not convey upon them any divine right of speaking ex cathedra in consequence. In matters like this they are like the rest of us, only an opinion. This has been unedifying to say the very least.
Blaming the Opposition is fatuous. They are not responsible for this debacle. They presumably, like everyone else, knew nothing about it until the time-honoured Irish "leak" occurred. This is nothing new and indeed the Tánaiste, in saving us all recently, gave information not otherwise available to a journalist, to the detriment of a certain Mr Connolly. His motives were doubtless of the very best. In this case the whistleblower, to use that inelegant word, is to be hunted down. The editor of this paper and the responsible journalist are to be reported to the courts to force disclosure of their source. We are indeed blessed to have independent courts.
I don't have much time for whistleblowers and I feel that often their agenda is to damage somebody rather than to serve the public good. This opinion of mine drew much adverse comment when expressed before.
We were led to believe a whistleblowers' charter was in preparation to afford protection to those who sought to lay charges or voice concerns. It would appear now that it all depends against whom you seek to lay charges.
It is all right to do so against clergy, doctors, teachers, gardaí. These are fair game. It seemingly does not apply to politicians. In all fairness I would accept that there are times when somebody cannot speak aloud. However, if after inquiry the allegations prove unfounded then the normal process of law should pertain and the person accused should be entitled to redress.
Otherwise, gossip and malice will be freely peddled with no threat of retribution.
The Taoiseach is a decent man. I know him personally to be so. This time he was wrong and his real friends should have told him. Convoluted explanations avail little except to raise further issues, and so it has proved.
I do not share the impression of those seated at the Cabinet table who boastingly extolled this week that we have created some form of Utopia.
We have great problems and growing inequalities in just about every facet of Irish life. I believe our prosperity has been squandered and left us ill-prepared to face the hard times that will come. I would like to finish this small expression of unease with a quotation from that great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer: "True ethics begin where the use of language ceases."
Another point, largely ignored in this sorry debacle but raised recently by Mary Raftery in this newspaper, was the indifference to the remark from the Taoiseach that he had made certain appointments to State bodies on the grounds that those appointed were friends and not because they had helped him in difficult times. So that's all right then.
Well no; actually it's not, Taoiseach. Appointments should be solely on merit and suitability. I do not for one moment suggest that those so appointed were not eminently worthy. I do suggest that there is widespread unease at such patronage. I don't want to hear the specious excuse that everybody does it. They shouldn't.
The majority of people belong to no political party. The majority recoil from this blatant "jobs for the boys" philosophy. It was alleged this week that in discussions between a singing lobbyist and a prominent Minister, the question of the lobbyist's client's political affiliation was raised. Is he one of us? It didn't influence the outcome, of course. It was merely a question like: "Is it raining outside?"
I would like to see only people of relevant experience appointed to such positions. Political affiliation or friendship would not disbar but it should not override appropriate qualification.
Perhaps some of our troubled and inefficient semi-State bodies would have benefited over the years from an influx of highly qualified people to their boards? In any case, this is not a victimless little perk. We are the victims and we pay for the whole bloody lot. We deserve better.
I have now lost 10lbs. I have been stopped feeding the birds lest I raid the peanuts.
Maurice Neligan is a cardiac surgeon.