Villagers: Letters to the editor 2006-10-26

Bertie Ahern, Michael McDowell and Martin Mansergh have cultivated a neo-populist image concerning the foundation history of this state based upon a nemine contradicente certainty of the morality of republican murder, and the patriotic myth, involved in the so-called fight for Irish freedom.

This is designed to stifle and ridicule revisionist dissent. Mansergh of late enjoys employing the offensive phrase "the whinge from the firing" as a means of dealing with the challenge to his historical assumptions.

He would do well, however, to examine the hidden history of Irish Catholic unionism in 19th-century Ireland. This largely – though not exclusively – merchant class, which was far more numerous than the fringe separatist tradition, had no difficulty in making its way with great success through a wicked and alien British nation, characterised by Mansergh's hero John Mitchel, as one "inherently opposed to Irish interests".

The existence of this class, which was wholly comfortable with the union while remaining steadfastly Irish, stands in direct contradiction to the standard separatist narrative, especially when one considers the fact that Catholic Ireland in the 19th Century expressed a dual constitutional loyalty to both nationalism and the crown. Not so much of an incongruity as republicans like to imagine.

Perhaps Martin Mansergh might like to explain why he believes that the historic absurdity lay with the Union, when history clearly demonstrates that the paradox resided with separatism: hence the need for the violence.

The more Martin Mansergh howls like the rabid Hound of the Baskervilles, the more ludicrous and whinging his cry becomes.

Pierce Martin, Celbridge, Co Kildare.

Jack O'Connor: Comments fly in the face of protests

I can't believe the statement made by SIPTU president Jack O'Connor regarding workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Summarised as 'Don't let them in, we can't protect them yet', it can be used by some to veil a xenophobic attitude towards foreign labour. The logic of such remarks is to blame migrant workers for the exploitation of migrant workers. This is clearly ridiculous as blame for the mistreatment of migrant (or Irish) workers lies with unscrupulous employers who profit from exploitation and also with government failure to adequately enact and enforce laws to protect workers.

A largescale union recruitment drive aimed at all workers, coupled with action against recalcitrant employers, would reduce the problem. Blaming the victims will only benefit far-right elements in this country.

O'Connor's remarks must be challenged, particularly as they come from the head of a trade union. They fly in the face of the massive protests organised by the trade unions last year in defence of workers' conditions. The marchers had barely left the streets when the leadership of SIPTU and other unions had begun to occupy themselves with negotiations for the current Partnership deals. Notwithstanding problems with the Partnership model, important questions arise:

• Why did union leaders not insist that comprehensive labour-protection legislation be enacted as a precondition of any negotiation?

• Why did they not insist that legislation be accompanied by large increases in resources to workplace inspectors, regulators etc, to ensure that existing laws are actually enforced?

• Was last year's protest merely a gesture to placate the masses, angry at the treatment of workers at GAMA and Irish Ferries, or can we expect our unions to be more proactive in protecting the interests of workers?

Union leaders please answer!

Gerard Quinn, Clonmel, Co Tipperary

Nuclear Test Ban Bill: Thank god for the new nuclear bill

I am relieved. A new law progressing through the Oireachtas will make it an offence for any Irish citizen "to carry out, or to cause to be carried out, a nuclear explosion elsewhere on the planet or in space". Under the legislation, building or detonating a nuclear bomb could land you in jail for life, though there is a provision that allows the district court to try a case if the DPP considers the offence to be less serious.

A truly commendable gesture: it would be a terrible injustice, and a blot on our legal system, if somebody did life for only building a little nuclear bomb, maybe for his own personal use – like, to kill weeds or keep down the vermin or whatever.

There we were, fretting and sounding off about whip-rounds for Bertie Ahern, the prospect of Sinn Féin and the DUP clinching a historic deal on the North, and debating how to spend SSIA loot, while all along a loophole in our law could have allowed some dangerous elements in our society to build an atom bomb.

Thank god for the Nuclear Test Ban Bill. It will close off all loopholes and put the kybosh on any nefarious attempt within the State to follow that brandy-guzzling fellow who has the North Koreans goose-stepping to martial music and screeching "Down with America" on empty stomachs.

The need for the law was obvious. There was a clear and present danger that subversives, like the Continuity IRA or the Red Hand Commandos, might have cottoned on to the tactical and strategic value of having a few nukes stashed away for a rainy day. All other problems pale into insignificance beside that unimaginable threat to Irish civilisation as we know it that now, thanks to our far-seeing and ever-vigilant FF-PD coalition, has been vanquished.

We may feel miserable and unhappy about high house prices, having one of the worst health services in Europe and low ethical standards in high places, but none of these petty concerns could equal the deadly fallout from a nuclear detonation on Irish soil or somewhere between Ireland and the moon.

Thanks a million, Bertie and Michael. You've made Ireland a safer place in a world where perils abound. If that doesn't win you the next election, nothing will.

John Fitzgerald, Callan, Co Kilkenny

Nurses' rally in November: Let's all support the nurses' rally

Ireland's 40,000 nurses are to step up their campaign for a pay rise by holding a mass rally in Dublin on Wednesday 22 November. Let's go all out to support this mass rally – this is going to be huge!

Ostensibly, this is about the nurses' pay claim – which includes a 35-hour working week, a Dublin weighting allowance and pay anomalies with social care workers – but it's also a reflection of the nurses' anger over the continuing chronic overcrowding in A&E and the continuing lack of hospital beds. This is something that we should rally everyone around, especially workers and the trade unions, and get them to support this protest.

I think we all have at some stage – either personally or through a family member or relative – witnessed the chronic overcrowding in A&E and people lying on hospital trolleys for days on end.

At least we have plenty of time to organise properly for this, so I'm calling on all workers to actively persuade their unions to participate in the nurses' rally on 22 November by getting motions passed by their branches supporting the rally and calling for their members to support this protest.

I'm fairly confident that the executive of my union, the Civil & Public Service Union (CPSU), will back this protest and call on all his members to do the same. However, great as it will be to mobilise the CPSU to support the nurses' rally, we really need to get the trade union leaders up off their backsides.

If the CPSU executive supports the rally on 22 November, I hope that the executive of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions (DCTU) will officially support it and will organise a mass mobilisation of workers, similar to, if not bigger than the Irish Ferries 'Day of Protest' last December.

Paul Kinsella, Santry, Dublin 9

STATEMENT: Wind power is not the right alternative

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey, would appear to share the views of People Before Profit (Wicklow) that wind turbines are not an effective, efficient form of alternative energy. Launching his Green Paper on energy, he referred to "unreliable wind power". Furthermore, Michael Tutty, Commissioner for Energy Regulation, recently admitted wind is a "variable resource".

The case for wind power is not compelling. Wind is more expensive than conventional power sources and does not replace fossil fuel. German wind turbines, with ?1bn tax breaks, give power as little as 36 days per annum, must be supplemented by fossil fuels and only benefit investors and industry-friendly politicians. In Denmark, 6,000 turbines led to the closure of not one conventional power plant and a study showed they damaged the environment, produced limited power and were costly. Danes have some of the highest electricity bills in Europe.

In Scotland, opponents of turbines point out that they kill up to a third of bird flocks and may do net environmental damage by releasing more carbon through peat disturbance than is saved over a long operating period. How can this be regarded as viable alternative energy?

There is growing opposition around the country to the imposition of turbines on grounds of visual and noise pollution, interference with TV reception. According to auctioneers in Tipperary, property can devalue by as much as 50 per cent!

An Bord Pleanála recently upheld objections by the community of Kilbraney, Co Wexford, to a wind-farm of 17 turbines. Unless we do some fundamental re-thinking in pursuit of alternative energy, we will pay a high price for wind power.

Carmel McKenna, People Before Profit Alliance

Rossport campaigners: Shell protests: saying 'no' for the whole nation

In another era, gardaí and the establishment would have tried to blame communist sympathisers for the protests against Shell in Rossport. This time, their bogeymen are Sinn Féin. When will they ever learn or understand that this is about the rights of a community and that we as a nation should be very well aware of the consequences of bowing to multinational or other countries' interests first?

Keith Nolan, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim

Statement: Seaport logic should be applied to Dublin Airport

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is reported to be "broadly supportive" of the Progressive Democrats' proposal to relocate Dublin Port to Bremore near Balbriggan in north Co Dublin and develop the old port site "Manhattan-style".

This proposal has economic merit: land at Dublin Port is too valuable to continue to be used for port activities. According to the PDs, the 660 acres involved, worth a staggering ?30m an acre, should be put to better use for residential and other more profitable commercial activities. At the same time, land of much lower value is available for port development at Bremore.

But, why is what is good for seaports not also good for airports? Does the reigning coalition only do seaports?

The value of some 840 acres of publicly-owned land at Dublin Airport that will be used up by the proposed new parallel runway has been ignored in the consideration of the merits of that proposal. It is worth a comparatively modest ?2m an acre. If an alternative site for any needed airport development were chosen, this land, not needed for a runway, could also be put to much better use. Rushing ahead with the current proposal will waste at least ?3bn, whereas an alternative, such as a second airport serving the greater Dublin area, built on available cheap land, would be a solid investment option and a boon to adjacent regions.

The phrenetic and unsustainable growth at Dublin Airport is driven by a hidden subsidy because passenger charges at Dublin Airport do not include a real charge for the use of the very valuable public land it occupies. The aviation regulator values all the 2,500 acres at Dublin Airport at less than ?20m! Subsidies create distortions, some of which are evident to anybody battling the queues at Dublin Airport or trying to get to and from those queues on the congested road network around it. If this runway goes ahead and annual passenger numbers go from the current 20 million to a planned 60 million, the chaos will treble.

Matt Harley, UPROAR, Portmarnock, Co Dublin

Carbon emissions: Turn up the Heat to cut air traffic

Having recently come across Heat, a new book on climate change by George Monbiot, I was struck most by the seemingly well-founded argument that 90 per cent of the world's air traffic must cease immediately lest it nullify any progress made in other areas in reducing man-made carbon emissions. Such an immense change obviously requires serious government involvement.

Depressingly, I cannot see this happening, even to the slightest degree. Our government, and others, have too much invested in the race to fill the skies. Whether it owns 30 per cent or 100 per cent, the Irish government is a major player in the purchase of new aircraft for Aer Lingus. It has also pumped millions into the extension at Cork Airport and will put millions more into the second terminal for Dublin Airport. The government will not want to see these new planes obsolete or the new terminal empty; they will not want to do anything to limit air travel. Where is this vital story amidst the reams of newsprint on the Aer Lingus takeover bid and, as you called it last week, the 'valets at war'.

Laurence Fenton, Patrickswell, Co Limerick