Villagers: Letters to the Editor 2006-07-20
RTÉ outdid itself in the shame stakes last Saturday night (15 July), returning to the days of Section 31 with Miriam O'Callaghan's interview of film director Ken Loach. Just as in the censorship era, when anyone with a sympathetic republican view was interrogated rather than interviewed, Loach was subject to the most insensitive, overly simplistic, biased, derogatory questions O'Callaghan could muster.
I was embarrassed to see him defending our history in the face of her obviously anti-IRA stance, though he was more than capable of dealing with RTÉ's puppet interviewer. His film, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, takes the lie Ireland did not need to fight for its independence and dumps it without ceremony. No wonder it is being ill-received by the establishment media and political parties.
That Loach had to come on Irish television and defend it is ludicrous. That RTÉ feels it can still get away with revising history is preposterous. The interview said a lot about O'Callaghan's abilities. Her accusation that Loach was a hypocrite for not accepting an OBE, while accepting an award from Cannes, was bizarre.
It was also upsetting to see her challenge him on the subject of his young son's death, asking if he had become a bleaker person because of it. I hope while Loach was in Ireland he met some educated, politically aware people and does not now hold the view that all Irish people are ashamed of their history. Joanne Spain
Blanchardstown, Dublin 15
Charity: TV and NGOs are too close to the state
Brian Scott of Oxfam implied in his letter (Village 13 July) that modern TV news informs us about the iniquities in the world and can spur us into doing something about them. I would say that the Ireland of the '50s and '60s was far better informed about world affairs than the Ireland of the television age. And people were able to have informed views on the world based on knowledge and instinct.
Television operates within parameters set by the state or big business who own or regulate it. It points us towards the "villians" of the day selected by its controllers – Zimbabwe, White Russia, the more popular Muslim states, etc – while largely averting our eyes from evils of which it approves.
NGOs, such as Oxfam, who are seldom off the TV, are the new missionaries in the new world order (or rather, disorder). They do some good works, of course. But they share the values of the new liberal imperialist project.
I am surprised that Brian Scott is so frank about believing that God is on his side: "Our Judeo-Christian tradition has given us a splended body of values that contributes greatly to our civilisation."
His mission to civilise the world is the mission of Bush and Blair. The methods are different – but each to his role. The underlying complaint of Scott and of other NGOs is that the political leaders are lagging behind in sorting out the world's problems. For instance, Bush and Blair haven't yet got around to giving Sudan a good dose of shock and awe.
Conor Lynch, Belfast, Co Antrim
Tara: Government backs down over Tara
I was delighted to learn that the government, on foot of a recent IUCN/Unesco report, have at last recognised the importance of Tara as a world heritage site and reversed its decision to build a major component of national infrastructure in the area (www.iucn.org/themes/wepa/).
This wonderful news has restored my faith in the institution of democratic, far-sighted, principled government. I refer, of course, to the enlightened government of Montenegro in relation to plans to build a hydro-electric dam at the Tara River Canyon.
With the recent deluge of planning applications towards the development of sites in and around the proposed M3 Blundelstown interchange, I don't suppose IUCN/Unesco could take a look at a small river valley near our own Tara and advise our government accordingly?
Joe Fenwick, Department of Archaeology, National University of Ireland, Galway
Prejudice among Gardai: 'Institutional classism' in the Garda
On 8 July, a Saturday evening, a young man phoned me from outside a Dublin city-centre garda station. He had gone there to report an assault on him earlier that evening. He was distressed. The cause of his distress was not so much the assault, but rather the fact that the garda on duty refused to deal with his complaint. He was told to "go away". The actual phrase used (according to the young man) would not be suitable for publication.
When I phoned the Garda station to inquire why this had occurred, I was told: "He had a smell of drink on him." From my knowledge of this young man, this is possible, however he told me he had not taken drink. He certainly did not sound drunk.
Another explanation is possible, namely that it is common for gardaí in Dublin not to accept reports of crime from some people of a particular background. This young man has a considerable number of arrests and convictions connected to years of childhood adversity, homelessness and addiction. His was the second such story I heard last week. In fact, I regularly hear such stories from others with similar backgrounds.
I also know that many young people in Dublin from this type of background believe they cannot rely on the protection of law when they fall victim to crime. When they are mugged, assaulted, or have goods stolen they cannot turn to the gardaí.
They are acutely aware of the injustice. As perpetrators of crime they know they are not above the law, yet as victims of crime they get no protection from the law. This, in part, explains the rise of a culture of violence in our capital, as young people believe they have no option but to take the law into their own hands.
That some gardaí disregard the class of the young person I refer to signals a broader problem that affects the entire police force, including the large number of gardaí who carry out their duties with fairness and within the law.
We might learn from the Laurence Inquiry which highlighted that racism in the London Metropolitan Police was not just an issue that affected isolated members of the force, but rather it suggested that the real issue was a culture of institutional racism within the entire force. In Dublin, I am convinced there is a culture of "institutional classism" within the Garda Síochána directed at young people from working-class areas.
Fr Tony O'Riordan SJ, Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin 1
EU advertisements: No influence intended by EU radio ads
Anthony Coughlan's arguments concerning radio advertisements on behalf of the European Commission seem a little askew (Village 13-19 July).
The facts are that these radio spots, funded by the European Commission and managed by its representation in Ireland, have been running on local radio stations. There is no mystique about the advertisements and an article concerning them appeared in a previous issue of Village (4 May 2006). Furthermore, there is no question of their breaching Irish broadcasting legislation on political advertising.
The advertisements in question are designed to inform citizens of the existence of a number of Information centres (Europe Direct Centres), the website of the Representation of the Commission in Ireland (www.euireland.ie) and the freephone number (00 800 67891011) which can be used to ask for details of any aspect of the European Union. The advertisements, therefore, inform citizens of the existence of different information sources.
The messages of introduction such as the existence of air-passengers rights, the Erasmus student-exchange programme or the existence of legislation on clean water are merely statements of fact that inform citizens of rights they have acquired by virtue of established European legislation. To describe the messages as propaganda is therefore incorrect and, I might say, disingenuous.
It has been the long-standing policy of the European Commission not to interfere in any way in internal elections or referenda in Member States. The commission, through the representations it maintains in each member state, provides information on decisions, policies and laws to the media, experts and general public. The provision of such information is never intended to influence political decisions, electoral contests or referenda.
Martin Territt, European Commission Representation in Ireland, 18 Dawson Street, Dublin 2
Peter Preston: Protester seriously ill at Dáil gate
I would like to express deep concern about the hunger-striker Peter Preston at the Dáil gate on Kildare Street.
Peter Preston, who is a constituent of mine, has been on hunger strike for over 40 days. He is now very weak and has to stay in his tent. He is protesting about the way the justice system failed him and his family.
I have again called for the Minister for Justice Michael mcDowell (pictured) to meet him before it gets too late. Preston's case has been raised many times in the Dáil without it being resolved.
Finian McGrath TD, Drumcondra, Dublin 9
Jailed over a t-shirt: Nevermind the right to fair trial
According to a report in the Irish Independent (15 July), a 33-year-old man was jailed for seven days for wearing a t-shirt with the words "Never mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols". Judge Murrough Connellan said Philip Dunleavy, who had been charged with shoplifting from Woodie's DIY in Bray, did not furnish "good reason" for wearing the shirt and that his contempt of the court was "clear and brazen".
Dunleavy's girlfriend, Lorraine Fitzpatrick, who was in court with their eight-year-old daughter, bought a plain blue t-shirt for her partner in the event of the judge allowing him to purge his contempt. The judge refused. Fitzpatrick said, "It wasn't that Philip got up last night and ironed the t-shirt... He follows the Sex Pistols as a group for most of his life and he wore the t-shirt without thinking about it." She said her partner was "devasted and in shock", adding that when her daughter "asked her why her daddy was going away in a van, it was very hard to say it was because of his t-shirt".
This latest case in the public domain raises the profoundly serious issue of people being deprived of their liberty with no trial or jury. Confining a person to prison is the most extreme sanction the state can impose upon a citizen. That sanction can only be enforced under our constitution "in accordance with law". All judges, who are essentially civil-servant adjudicators in civil disputes and criminal matters, swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Judge Connellan may have never heard of the Sex Pistols but has he forgotten his oath and the rule of law – trial by jury and due process?
John Kelly, Dublin 12
Towards 2016: No other pay deal would be as good
There are many mistakes and omissions in Paul Kinsella's statement (Village 13 July). But the most glaring is his failure to put forward a practical alternative that would be better than pay increases of 10 per cent over 27 months and the most comprehensive package of employment protections available anywhere in the world.
It's not surprising to hear the opponents of social partnership argue that the pay increases on offer will fail to beat inflation. Three years ago, they wrongly predicted that inflation would outstrip Sustaining Progress increases.
Nobody has a crystal ball. But the Irish Congress of Trade Unions' inflation predictions, which have been both the most pessimistic and the most accurate in recent years, indicate that Towards 2016 will beat inflation. The fact that the pay terms last just 27 months (not 10 years as Kinsella implies) is a further safeguard for workers.
In the long term, the comprehensive package of workplace protections in Towards 2016 has far more significance for workers. It's astounding that the so-called 'left' opponents of social partnership have barely mentioned this major and hard-won achievement, which will give Irish and migrant workers far greater protection from rogue employers.
I fail to see how, for example, fines of ?250,000 and imprisonment for rogue employers, increased compensation of two years' pay for exploited workers, or a trebling in the number of labour inspectors can be presented as measures that "make the situation worse" for unions and their members. These are just three of a long list of new safeguards in the deal. The opponents of national agreements also want to scaremonger public servants over the Towards 2016 modernisation agenda. They wrongly claim that it gives employers a blank cheque, just as they did when previous national agreements were finalised.
In the real world, most public servants know and accept that service users want better services that are easier to access. In the context of ongoing political and media criticisms of public servants' pay and benchmarking, it's fantasy to suggest that the government would, for the first time, do a deal that didn't seek public service modernisation.
The modernisation agenda in Towards 2016 is substantial. But the unions' job was to make sure it was proportionate to the pay increases and contained safeguards to stop employers forcing unlimited change outside the scope of the agreement. Far from being a "watershed" in the public services, these proposals contain familiar safeguards that will prevent employers from breaking the agreement or imposing more change than it requires.
But the most compelling reason to accept this deal is that no other process could deliver similar improvements in living standards and employment rights. It's nonsense to suggest that, if rejected, the package could be improved through further negotiations.
In almost seven months of talks employers resisted every extra cent on pay and every plank of the employment rights package. They went into the talks insisting on pay rises in low single figures phased over at least 34 months, with no extra cash for low-paid workers. That's the territory we'd be in if this deal is rejected.
Readers who are interested in what the deal actually says can get a copy from www.impact.ie.
Bernard Harbor, IMPACT trade union, Nerney's Court, Dublin 1