Sir,– Senator Michael McDowell has expressed concern that the Government breached the McKenna principle by using NGOs as “referendum proxies” to fight the recent campaign on its behalf (“Ethics watchdog had ‘no role’ to query State-funded NGO referendum spending”, News, March 14th).
Surely Michael McDowell has this the wrong way around? It’s become clear in the course of the last week that it was the NGOs who were using the Government as their proxy, to fight their campaigns and implement their policies.
Why else would the Coalition prioritise referendums on issues which are of huge concern to a small number of NGOs, but which didn’t even register on your recent poll of voter priorities (News, February 26th). Why else would the Government spend up to €20 million on a standalone referendum when there are local and European elections already scheduled to be held in just 12 weeks?
And why else would the responsible Minister, Roderic O’Gorman (News, January 1st), use his first public comments on the referendums to call for support, not from voters or Opposition parties, but from NGOs? These referendums were a textbook illustration of the corrosion of Irish democracy over the last decade whereby tiny, unelected left-wing groups dictate the agenda of an elected Government, which then scratches its collective head wondering why voters desert it in droves.
To quote Shakespeare’s King Lear, “may not an ass know when the cart draws the horse?” – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – In the article “NGOs must ‘listen hard’ to those they represent after crushing defeat of care referendum they backed” (News, March 15th), Senator Tom Clonan is quoted as saying that defunding the NGO sector would hand victory to the “wrong kind of people”.
Who among his fellow citizens are the “wrong kind of people”?
History teaches us that those whom society regarded as being the wrong kind of people have not been treated kindly. I assert that it is completely inappropriate for a member of the Seanad to refer to anyone in those terms. – Yours, etc,
MARIA MHIC MHEANMAIN,
Enfield,
Co Meath.
Sir, –Since the referendum, the blame-shifting, finger-pointing and self-exculpation has been intense, but no politician or commentator has admitted to being completely out of touch with the mood of the Irish people.
Do they all live in Dún Laoghaire? – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
Sir, – What a relief it was to read such an insightful opinion piece today by Newton Emerson on the implications of the recent referendum result (“In the UK and Ireland even the left is now moving right”, Opinion & Analysis, March 14th).
It may have taken until Thursday for a calm appraisal to appear on your Opinion & Analysis page but better late than never! – Yours, etc,
EAMON CLARKIN,
Foxrock,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – What is the point of a referendum if people refuse to accept and respect the result?
Since the results were announced last Saturday there has been a lot of name-calling and finger-pointing. Who is to “blame” for getting the “wrong” results?
The people of Ireland, who chose to exercise their democratic voice last Friday, have spoken loudly and clearly.
In my view, the results do not speak of stagnation and retrenchment, rather it is now the challenge to see how we can progress and move forward with a clearer knowledge of our values and views that will include and promote the welfare of all the people of Ireland. – Yours, etc,
DÁITHÍ Ó hAODHA,
Cork.
Sir, – I was quite shocked by the negative responses on your letters page (March 15th) to Kathy Sheridan’s article “Where were the Men for Mothers lot when there was caring and cleaning to do?” (Opinion & Analysis, March 13th), when I thought that her article was balanced and fair.
At least half of Sheridan’s article was highlighting the fact that the referendums were rushed, the wording fudged, but what was not commented on, and to me was a shameful fact, was that 2 million of the 3.5 million Irish vote holders did not vote. Surely this points to a very big gap in our education systems.
I hope your readers take in the facts in Justine McCarthy’s piece on “How can Constitution serve us if we cannot find ourselves in it?” (Opinion & Analysis, March 15th) where she refers to the 98 references to man, men, he, his and him, which does not include the numerous other mentions and the exclusionary patriarchal language throughout the Constitution, ascribing only two roles to women, that of housewife and mammy.
I believe that sexist language in the Constitution not only undermines the principles of equality and fairness but also reinforces harmful stereotypes and prejudices.
Maybe if we could find a way of encouraging the two million non-voters to use their privilege to vote, we will find our way to removing such language, and to creating a more inclusive and equitable society where all individuals, regardless of gender, are treated with respect and dignity.
However, sadly we have a way to go and we are not there yet. – Yours, etc,
ELLEN O’MALLEY DUNLOP,
(Adjunct Professor,
University of Limerick Law School),
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – Not knowing the real opinions of some politicians remains a greater mystery following the referendums. – Yours, etc,
MIKE MORAN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.