Letters

Canvassing for Yes and voting No – is this the new normal in Irish politics?

This is so blatant as to be pitiful

Thu Mar 14 2024 - 00:10

Sir, – Can we assume that Fianna Fáil candidates will vote for themselves in the forthcoming local and EU elections? Or will they go for a better choice, where this is available to them? – Yours, etc,

TIMOTHY LYNCH,

Dublin 2.

Sir, – It is heartening to know that, in future, pledges to politicians to vote in a certain way will imply the opposite! – Yours, etc,

READ MORE

HELEN NOONAN,

Ranelagh,

Dublin 6.

Sir, – How unedifying it is to see politicians, in both Government and Opposition, scurrying to jump on the populist bandwagon following the defeat of both referendums last Friday.

I am particularly disappointed in the leaders of Sinn Féin and the Labour party who are joining some TDs of the Government parties in attempting the contortionist feat of being a Tadhg an dá thaobh, with an eye on the upcoming elections.

You might fool some of the people some of the time, but this is so blatant as to be pitiful. If these politicians did not agree with the referendum propositions then the time to say so was in advance of the poll; the wheels have surely fallen off this particular bandwagon. – Yours, etc,

TERESA GRAHAM,

Tramore,

Co Waterford.

Sir, – The Lisa Chambers principle: do as I canvass for, not as I vote. – Yours, etc,

PAUL DELANEY,

Dalkey,

Co Dublin.

Sir, – It’s such a pity that these Fianna Fáil luminaries did not announce their voting intentions in advance of the referendums. Had they done so, it would have enabled me and many others to have ended up on the winning side. – Yours, etc,

PJ McDERMOTT,

Westport,

Co Mayo.

Sir, – In “Coalition reeling after reversal on both referendums” (Analysis, March 11th), Jack Horgan Jones reports “polls on a right to housing or public ownership of water are, privately, being ruled out entirely”. For this, I am grateful to those who voted No. – Yours, etc,

MARGARET LEE,

Newport,

Co Tipperary.

A chara, – Fair play to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who believed in a Yes vote in both recent referendums, campaigned and voted accordingly, and took defeat on the chin, accepting his responsibility for the result.

Equally, Éamon Ó Cuív TD, who has a record of voting with his conscience in referendums, did not agree with the proposals and behaved honourably by neither campaigning nor voting for them.

What then to make of Senator Lisa Chambers, who was photographed campaigning for Yes votes but promptly announced she had voted No after the public backlash became clear?

I’m not sure whether this reflects more poorly on her capability to understand the issues or her credibility as a political advocate, but it certainly gives the electorate something to think about. – Is mise,

DAVID CARROLL,

Dublin 2.

Sir, – Surely we can expect resignations. – Yours, etc,

ROBERT SHARPE,

Cootehill,

Co Cavan.

Sir, – Somewhat belatedly, politicians from Government parties have come to the realisation that in proposing the recent amendments, they were not in tune with the priorities and mood of the electorate. It might be worth some of your columnists’ time to reflect on whether they have made the same mistake. Such reflection and a small dose of humility might not go astray in that quarter as well. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL O’DWYER,

Clogheen,

Cork.

Sir, – What this result tells me is that the Irish people are fed up of the “woke” agenda being peddled as the only game in town. But what is more worrying for democracy is the cross-party consensus on these important issues. Irish people have been silenced for the last four years if they tried to raise concerns about the direction the country is going. In the last four years, this referendum has been the only chance Irish people have been given to have their say. And by gum did they have it.

The so-called “hate legislation” needs to be scrapped now and the cross-party consensus on assisted dying needs to be looked at again.

I will remind all parties that the Irish voting public are not stupid. We understand well what is going on and, with European and a general election looming, I would say to them, take the voting public for granted at your peril. – Yours, etc,

ROISIN NEYLON,

Corofin,

Co Clare.

Sir, – Clearly smarting from the defeat of the referendums, Kathy Sheridan appears to go searching in all the wrong places for the reasons why. She completely ignores the very pertinent reason why women wanted to see Article 41.2 retained. It provides a “direct obligation” on the State to protect mothers from having to go out to work through economic necessity and clearly this is to benefit not just mothers who would like this choice, but children who might prefer to be cared for by their mothers – or fathers – who could have been added by name to this constitutional provision. Why would we want to see this obligation removed, especially when the mother who cares for her severely disabled son will cite it in her appeal to the Supreme Court next month? (“Supreme Court to consider issues of ‘systemic importance’ for carers in appeal by mother of severely disabled man”, News, February 13th).

A whole distraction of irrelevancies are made instead by Kathy Sheridan, which only serve to further insult the intelligence of voters who had good reasons to vote No to both proposals.

However, she has correctly identified the elephant in the room behind these proposed amendments to our Constitution. Those pushing gender identity ideology into our legislation are indeed creating division in this country and the electorate have just shown clearly that they have no appetite for this. – Yours, etc,

JILL NESBITT,

Bray,

Co Wicklow.

Sir, – Kathy Sheridan is bitter about the results of the referendums.

Her article is a study in how some on the Yes side are in denial.

She condemns the result as a victory for hateful men and as helping those who are “amplifying racism and division, inciting mobs”.

When I began writing or appearing on airwaves in January calling for a No vote, there were very few people putting their heads above the parapet.

Indeed, a couple of friends warned that I should be careful, that I would find myself in bed with undesirables and would suffer for it. I thought there were undesirables on both sides.

Now the people have spoken, and it turns out that far more media and political figures had their doubts than we knew back then.

If only this result could bury the outdated cliché of Catholic Ireland oppressed, to which some liberals cling as if to give their lives meaning. This is 2024. Very many who voted No last week had voted Yes previously for divorce, gay marriage and abortion rights.

Most women who rejected last week’s proposals are not racist, and most men are not indifferent to childcare problems, as Kathy Sheridan seems to think. Had there been a pragmatic proposal to support mothers, children and carers it would have passed, not least because mothers do bear a special burden and are special to their children.

During the recent campaign, some of your female columnists made what seemed to me to be decidedly sexist comments, directed at men as a group and taking little account of contemporary realities in most of the marriages of which I am aware. Male voices on the No side were dismissed as “mansplaining”, while men on the Yes side (such as the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Equality responsible for the proposals) escaped such censure.

I was in the yard of Dublin Castle on the evening that the marriage equality referendum was won. It was a good feeling to be part of that celebration. But the small number of women with banners whom I met there last Saturday celebrating are accused of “triumphalism”, for daring to be pleased that the great majority of Irish voters agreed with them. At a meeting of Wicklow Women4Women that I was invited to address during the campaign, some women gave striking details of their experiences with the media that suggested to them patronising disdain or prejudice toward the No perspective. – Yours, etc,

COLUM KENNY,

Professor Emeritus,

Dublin City University,

Dublin 9.

Sir, – Kathy Sheridan tells us that “functioning human brains are capable of accommodating several ideas at the same time” and then proceeds to demonstrate that her brain is a hostile environment for such activity.

It is reductive and lazy to believe that only conservative voters think that mothering and motherhood is a good thing, or demand that words are adequately defined before being introduced into policy and law.

The 39th amendment was rejected by voters because they did not know what the term “durable relationships” meant. The meaning of the word “hate” is also unclear in the proposed Hate Crime Bill Kathy Sheridan refers to in her article.

It may come as a shock to your columnist that liberal and conservative voters can accommodate the idea that hate crimes are bad while at the same time thinking it is necessary that legislation states precisely what hate is. The electorate has demonstrated that it can make distinctions between the intention and likely impact of words. Our politicians must do the same. – Yours, etc,

SANDRA ADAMS,

Dublin 13.