Sir, – Regarding the latest Red C/ Sunday Business Postopinion poll (Home News, October 17th), I cannot but smile at the naivety of Fine Gael and Labour. While they were devoting all their energies, in recent weeks to tearing strips off Sinn Féin and Martin McGuinness, the Fianna Fáil-trained candidate was quietly careering up the middle. It will be difficult to retrieve the lost ground at this late stage. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – So, according to a recent opinion poll, the Irish electorate is about to elect a new president who is a recently-resigned member of Fianna Fáil. Can this be true, after all that that party inflicted on this country? Pinch me somebody and tell me that this is a nightmare; or is it the greatest case on record of national amnesia? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Am I alone in being surprised that a self-proclaimed successful entrepreneur like Seán Gallagher earns a little over €12,000 in a year – only slightly more than a recipient of the job seeker’s allowance? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Noel Whelan’s crude and unwarranted attack on Michael D Higgins’s presidential campaign (Opinion, October 15th) was inaccurate in several ways. In particular, Michael D’s candidacy is supported by a range of people from inside and outside the Labour Party, and by many individuals with no party affiliation who are inspired both by his record on human rights and civil liberties, and by his great achievements as Minister for Arts. Mr Whelan was also inaccurate in asserting that the government has a “massive majority in the Seanad”. There is currently no clear government majority in the upper house. With two groups of independent senators (the university senators and the new ‘independent Taoiseach’s nominees’ group), votes are frequently close and outcomes unpredictable; as in last week’s heated Seanad debate on prostitution law. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Questions asked of Martin McGuinness by David Kelly, Miriam O’Callaghan and others are legitimate, in my view. As someone whose concerns are casually dismissed using pejorative terms such as “west brit” by the candidate himself, (this is a mild term when compared to the insults levelled on internet forums) I personally am satisfied that Mr McGuinness was subjected to robust questioning last Wednesday evening.
The assertions from the candidate and his supporters that such questions are unfair and amount to personalised propaganda or are somehow inappropriate in the context of McGuinness’s role in ending the IRA campaign of violence, show a naivety on Sinn Fein’s part about the nature of media dialogue in the Republic. Martin McGuinness has forged his political career in the relatively insulated environment of Northern Ireland where the d’Hondt system ensures that nobody is excluded from government and the whole political process is held together by a range of external pressures. Coupled with this, there appears to be a consensus there among politicians and the media that individuals trying to bring an air of normality to society and to fight about domestic political issues for a change should be free to do so.
This avoidance of a person’s history in relation to criminal activity should not necessarily extend to the Republic and unfortunately, from Martin McGuinness’s perspective, the office that he seeks is for the Republic where people are entitled to ask robust questions. A serious issue in this election is whether one candidate was previously involved in committing serious crimes and whether he was or is in rebellion against the very state that he aspires to be the head. This should be answered, Yours etc.
Sir, – There has been great comment and discussion of Mr Martin McGuinness’s character and fitness for office during the presidential campaign. This is an important question for all of the candidates.
I would ask your readers to cast their minds back to the events that were unfolding in Belfast and Derry in 1970 and 1971. At that time, the Irish Catholic populations of those and other cities in the north of Ireland were under daily attack by loyalist mobs, actively supported by a heavily armed paramilitary police force, which in turn was supported by the British army.
Your readers may recall the thousands who fled the North seeking sanctuary in Dublin and elsewhere from the violence that was being visited upon them by the Northern state and its agents.
There were three options open to Irish nationalists at that time, when they were under such attack; to bend the knee and submit to the attacks, to flee and seek refuge in the Republic or to stand and fight for their communities. An argument could be made in favour of any of these three courses of action. We know that Mr McGuinness chose to stand and fight, along with many others.
Heaven forbid that the people of the Republic are ever faced with an attack upon them (although the financial assault the nation has experienced is one form of serious attack). However, should we again face a crisis where we are under such assault (physical or otherwise), one of those who we will look to for leadership at such a time will be the president.
In the American presidential race, they call this “the 3am question”. We know Martin McGuinness is a man who has proven he can and will work with people from the polar opposites of the political spectrum. We also know, that in a time of crisis, he is not a man who will bend the knee or flee, but will stand and fight for his community. His character and resolve in a time of crisis is therefore easy to judge. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Martin McGuinness certainly epitomises the adage about having your cake and eating it too in his roles as a war wager and a peace processor. However, his response to his role in the IRA really takes the biscuit. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Some of the presidential candidates have promised – if elected – to improve their Irish language skills. If they are not elected, will they still try to improve their Irish? And if not, why not? – Is mise,