Villagers 04-01-07
Email us at villagers@villagemagazine.ie, write to us at Villagers, Village Magazine, 44 Westland Row, Dublin 2 or fax 01 642 5001.
The deadline for receipt of letters is 10am on the Monday before publication. Please keep submissions under 300 words and include a contact number for verification. Village retains the right to edit submissions for reasons of length or libel.
Hanging of Saddam Hussein: Saddam's barbaric killing
The execution of Saddam Hussein is barbaric and the ultimate crime against humanity. All executions are abominable; state-sponsored executions are particularly reprehensible as they seek to legitimise such acts.
The invasion of Iraq, by political powers who purport to represent democracy and to stand for human rights, has reached its nadir. By proclaiming the execution of Saddam, the US president's hypocrisy is ultimately exposed; by celebrating the pre-determined murder of a human being in a most brutal fashion while, at the same time, expressing concern for human rights. The British government's nauseating, ambivalent reaction – theoretically opposed to capital punishment but stating the execution meant that Saddam was “called to account” for his crimes – demonstrates the lack of real concern for justice and human rights.
I trust that all leaders – political, ecclesiastical, etc – who are genuinely concerned about human rights, justice and morality, will condemn this barbaric act and propose an alternative political and civil paradigm.
Nessan Vaughan, Baldoyle, Dublin 13
America's inconsistency on dictators
Such was the delight of the US administration upon hearing that Saddam had been hanged that one could almost visualise these wonderful upholders of democracy and freedom dancing in a big circle around the White House and singing ‘Ding Dong the Witch is Dead'.
It was a different matter a few weeks ago when another tyrant died peacefully in his bed. General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who murdered thousands of his own fellow citizens, was America's trusted friend.
In the early 1970s, he and his fellow fascists overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile, with enthusiastic US backing via the CIA.
Pinochet replaced a democratically-mandated government with a cruel un-elected dictatorship, trampled all over human rights, and the Americans not only failed to check his tyranny: they openly backed his vicious regime from day one because it was anti-communist. So it seems that being a power-hungry, murderous dictator is okay in the eyes of the freedom-loving USA as long as you don't start messing around with “vital US interests”.
And that, one presumes, was why President Bush and his allies in the great “war on terror” hadn't a word to say when the Wicked Witch of the West quietly passed away.
Pinochet received a fully-fledged military funeral, if not an official state one. And not a whimper out of the USA, without which the man would never have been able to seize power.
The hanging of Saddam Hussein, after his conviction by a kangaroo court, was a victory for hypocrisy and political double standards. Still, I'm glad that his execution was televised. If it helps to galvanise support worldwide for a ban on the death penalty, then perhaps Saddam may not have died in vain.
John Fitzgerald, Callan, Co Kilkenny
Legal problems with Saddam's trial
Some legal questions must be answered as to whether Saddam Hussein received a fair trial.
Firstly, the judges in this case were trained by the United States of America in the various aspects of international law. This training should not have come from one particular country but from a neutral international body which holds no heavy bias against Saddam Hussein. Also, it is unclear as to the experience and backgrounds of the judges. As a result of this, there has been a lot of speculation about the degree of independence and impartiality in the decisions reached by them in the course of the trial.
Secondly, has the security given to the legal teams on both sides been adequate to give a fully fair trial? Should it not have been the case that this trial should have taken place in a neutral territory which is not still suffering from an occupation and an internal war between the Sunni and Shiite factions within the country?
Thomas Patrick Devine, Mullingar, Co Westmeath
The ‘war against drugs': Decriminalise drugs and dealers go bust
In his letter (Villagers, 21-27 December), John Fitzgerald suggests that “respectable” drug users are complicit in gangland killings. He refers to them as “a silent army of accomplices”. I respect John Fitzgerald's opinion and concede there is a grain of truth in his assertion, a certain simplistic logic to his argument.
The same logic can be used to say, for instance, that car owners are destroying the planet. Perhaps John Fitzgerald owns a pair of runners – is he therefore not responsible for child labour in the Far East? If someone buys an Israeli orange, are they contributing to the murder of Palestinians?
These gross over-simplifications would be laughed out of a secondary school debate, never mind the Dáil. Astonishingly however, John Fitzgerald's views have been espoused recently by Micheal McDowell no less. I find it worrying that a man in such a position is so stuck for ideas that he resorts to this fuzzy logic.
Essentially I believe Mr McDowell is afraid to rock the boat. A truly radical move such as decriminalisation could cost him the conserative reactionary vote his so-called radical party needs for their survival.
Regarding John Fitzgerald's point about Garda informers, and how respectable folks should be informers, I would suggest that the most useful informers are usually criminals themselves, acting out of a sense of self-preservation rather than civic duty. Am I to understand that a guy who profits from drugs and crime, then informs on his accomplices/rivals is a respectable citizen? If you can ally with people like this in the “war” against drugs then your tactics are badly flawed. My solution would be decriminalisation – put ‘em out of business. It's all about economics, as every good PD knows.
David Ryan, Ballinacurra, Limerick
Class of drug user not important
The tragic drug-related killings in Ireland are being accompanied by an argument of misplaced “classism” like that of John Fitzgerald (Villagers, 21-27 December). I doubt very much if emphasising to drug users in “respectable” parts of south Co Dublin that their recreational habits are leading to the deaths of young people in “less well-off parts” of the city would change anything.
Given that one Sunday newspaper even runs a column parodying the negative attitudes of affluent youth to the less well-off, a deadly outcome could even be seen as a bonus. Similarly, drug use, regardless of type, is hardly the sole domain of the well-off, so why should one sector of the community bear the responsibility for the demand for drugs?
What would change the situation dramatically is the legalisation of recreational drugs. It's no longer acceptable to concentrate on the supply side of the equation. Until we have an honest and realistic approach to the demand for drugs, the current situation of hand-wringing and finger-pointing in the Dáil and the media is likely to continue.
Olunkanye Omaboniem. Leinster Road, Dublin 6
Politics and the media: Bertie's hypocrisy about media
Recent statements by the Taoiseach about “begrudgers” who complain and people “who have agendas” being “hugely unfair” leave him open to the charges of hypocrisy and paranoia.
Is he not satisfied that the vast majority of journalists support his own agenda to be re-elected as Taoiseach after the next election? Is he not satisfied that he can spend significant amounts of taxpayers' money cultivating his image and making a celebrity of himself? Is he not satisfied that he has a public service radio and TV station at his beck and call and can command an obsequious interview on public service television at short notice if and when he wants it? Is he so paranoid that the few complaints that do appear are declared by him to be from “begrudgers” who are “out to get him”? Is he so contemptuous of his duty to be accountable to those whom he represents at the highest level of government that he deems it “unfair” that people be told that he was alleged to have received payments from private individuals while holding high public office? Does he deem it appropriate for a democratically-elected politician to issue threats “to bury” the person or persons responsible for leaking the information about alleged payments made to him?
I am an ordinary person with no connection to any political group, but I really get angry when I see what is supposed to be a free press and media becoming complicit in turning a blind eye to the attempt by the Taoiseach to hoodwink ordinary people and intimidate them into silence.
Anthony Leavy, Sutton, Dublin 13
Politics and society: Politicians as ignorant as voters
Jason O'Mahony (Villagers, 14-20 December) answers most of his letter himself near the end. With so many TDs being almost completely indifferent to the truth, how is the average voter supposed to know what is actually happening? When even serious TV shows are whipping up the latest “Invent an enemy” cod (country full of Muslim extremists) to keep the masses scared, how is anybody supposed to be informed?
Unfortunately, instead of leading voters back honestly into the real world, most politicians seem happy to pretend to be in some complete fantasy world themselves in order to keep their voters. And so the vicious circle continues. It is so absurd at the moment that I am forming the opinion that many TDs no longer know or care about the real truth themselves on many issues. The blind and willfully ignorant leading the blind and woefully ignorant?
Dick Barton, Tinahely, Co Wicklow
Moriarty report: Moriarty worth the money
Many are asking, was the Moriarty tribunal worth it? Even if it was to cost €100m, it was, in my opinion, worth it to show the Irish public in a clear and concise manner the corrupt person that was our former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey.
There is no doubt in my mind that corruption still exists in the body politic, and I would call on the Irish people to face it head on and tackle this disease in our society.
Paul Doran, Clondalkin, Dublin 22
An gaeilge: The function of language in society
When Ciaran MacAonghusa in his letter (Villagers, 21-27 December) stated that the Irish language was a minuscule part of Irish identity, he neglected to explain what he saw as Irish identity. I hope I'm not misrepresenting what he said, but I believe he may have missed the point about language and its place and function in a culture.
The main function of language is as a tool of communication for past, present and future generations, a vehicle of culture which carries the accumulated experience of generations through the ages giving people a unique way of responding to the problems of their time.
The fact that, as a people, we appear unable to overcome our colonial past by speaking a second language, when many in the so-called third world without formal education may speak two or more languages, points, I believe, to a dependant mindset that pours enormous sums of money into English sport, technology, household products, clothing, footwear, cars, newspapers and a multinational-driven economy.
When Ciaran sees the Irish language as “doomed”, he overlooks the fact that language is only doomed when a community lacks the will to be original and creative; when a community is accepting of a dependency that has them living through another's language, culture and products.
Brendan Pringle, Ballymun, Dublin 11
STATEMENT: Bush pushes through Saddam's execution
Saddam Hussein's execution last week received mixed responses from different sections of society. The US and UK governments breathed a sigh of relief as Saddam took with him the secrets of their support for him during the 1980s, when millions died due to this despot.
Anti-war groups have claimed that the trial and execution were orchestrated by Washington. Cian Prendiville, a spokesperson for Socialist Youth in Limerick, says, “The American and British elites ensured that Saddam wasn't tried for the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq war, as that war was fought with weapons of mass destruction supplied by the US, UK, France and others.”
Many have argued that the Saddam's trial was not fair or complete. They point to the fact that the verdict for the first trial was revealed just days before the US mid-term elections. Prendiville also claims that the execution was “an attempt by Bush to get some ‘good news' from Iraq as he plans on beefing up troop numbers, a move which will be opposed by most Americans”.
At the same time President Bush said the execution was “an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror”. Yet it does not seem that this execution will in any way reduce the strength of the Iraqi resistance, and it in fact highlights the lack of any independent democracy in Iraq.
Bush has attempted to paint all opposition to the execution and the invasion as being pro-Saddam, yet, according to Prendiville, “It is the US ruling class who have supported dictator after dictator, so long as they do what they say. Socialist Youth opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, but we stated that the Iraqi people themselves needed to establish a democratic Iraq where the oil wealth etc was controlled by the Iraqi workers and poor. That is still the only way out today.”
Socialist Youth Limerick, More at www.SocialistWorld.net /eng/2006/12/31iraq.html
Village review of Prime Time: Satardien is qualified to comment
I find your media report about the Prime Time documentary about Muslims quite unsatisfactory (‘Prime Time alarmism over Muslims', Village, 21 December). First Maggie Kenneally refers to Sheikh Shaheed Satardien, who had featured in a Would You Believe documentary, as having dubious credentials?
What evidence does she have for this statement? It is interesting that he has not had one full print interview since August when this issue took off. She claims, “He was not to be believed – not that he was telling lies, but rather that he was being alarmist without cause.”
These are the facts: Shaheed Satardien had to flee South Africa in the post-Apartheid period when radical Muslims inspired by the Iranian revolution attacked him and killed his brother. So having sought refuge in Ireland, he was concerned when he found the same tendencies here.
On his arrival here Shaheed Satardien offered his services at Clonskeagh and other mosques. Because of his fluency in Arabic he was able to hear what was being said in private and the different pronouncements being made in public. He could not accept this and withdrew. Satardien's comments were also corroborated by Shia leader Ali Al Saleh.
His research indicates that Ireland is the HQ of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. They basically control the franchise for Islam here from Clonskeagh and the South Circular Road. Though nominally independent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the European headquarters of the European Fatwa Research Council under the influence of Sheik Y Quaradawi is part of this general tendency. Sheik Hallawa, the leader of the Clonskeagh mosque, is the general secretary of this research group.
Among their recommendations issued from there are the following:
Suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, and support given to this method in Iraq has led to sectarian slaughter.
Killing of homosexuals.
Support for female genital mutilation and the use of slapping in disciplining wives.
MIKE GARDE, Director, Dialogue Ireland Trust. www.dialogueireland.org