Sir, - What a flood of passion I seem to have released in your correspondent K. Myers (February 23rd). To be Myered so patronisingly in syntactical correctness is an exquisite pleasure of whose guilty delights I feel quite unworthy. I shall try to restrain myself from reflecting that grammatical pedantry (even when, as in the case of Mr Myers, not very soundly based) is the last resort of the morally bewildered.
I do not intend to pursue Mr Myers down this particular cul de sac but rather to stick to the real issues. I am sure your correspondent is aware of a comment made by the novelist Tom Sharpe to the effect that nothing so effectively derails an argument as prolonged concentration on the inessential, and whatever my grammatical failings as perceived by Mr Myers it is quite clear that sufficient of my argument got through to cause him some discomfort. The volume and force of his fluxions is such that it calls to mind the late Provost Mahaffy's quip about a colleague afflicted by verbal diarrhoea accompanied by mental constipation. Indeed perhaps an Irishman's Diarrhoea rather than an Irishman's Diary would be a more appropriate heading for such a piece as last Tuesday's.
But enough jolly japes. To the argument! Mr Myers's first complaint is that I "pointed my finger" at the West alone, although the Soviets also supplied military hardware to Saddam. This misses the point. The West is supposed to be a democracy while the Soviet regime was a tyranny. I live moreover in the West and feel a moral obligation to protest at things that are done by Governments allegedly in my name.
Secondly, he attempts to parse and discredit the following sentence from my initial letter "Not only that but the political opposition was betrayed into his (Saddam Hussein) hands so that they could be murdered". I stand absolutely by this statement, both grammatically and factually. And yes, Kevin, you were right about one thing - it does make all those sanctions and downed Iraqi aircraft rather puzzling. Those very sanctions have left Saddam unscathed but have had a horrifying multiplier effect on rates of infant mortality in Iraq.
The final point raised is Mr Myers's very pertinent question - "Why bring homosexuality into the sale of hawks to Zimbabwe?" I couldn't agree more. That is the very question I asked myself when he did so without any prompting from me in his original piece, where he attempted to discredit what he called "Holland Park Lefties" by raising that particular hare.
Mr Myers characterises my letter as "silly, hysterical and inaccurate". I would like to suggest that any of your readers who are interested in the current little contention might care to dig out my letter, which they will find in your edition of February 21st and read it in conjunction with Mr Myers's piece. I leave it entirely to their judgment as to which of us is silly, hysterical and inaccurate.
Finally, I would like to thank Kevin Myers for giving me so much publicity accompanied by a nice photograph, but more importantly for allowing me a good laugh. Laughter is after all the best tonic and might even cure the diarist's dyspepsia if taken regularly over a period. I must also thank him for his kind invitation to "enlighten him in his ignorance". This is certainly a tempting offer and one which I shall carefully consider. However before I agree I would need some further information about terms and conditions before undertaking so heavy a responsibility. Most pertinently, is such a position to be salaried and pensionable, as it is likely to be a long term engagement? - Yours, etc.,
Senator David Norris, Seanad Eireann, Baile Atha Cliath 2.