Villagers: Letters to the Editor 2005-12-08
Irish honorary knighthoods
Slave mentality alive and well
The spate of Irish citizens accepting various honours from the British state continues to grow. We have the likes of "Sir" Bob Geldof and "Sir" Michael Smurfit already taking the honour. They have now been joined by a rock group, The Corrs, in being given honorary membership of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. The Irish elite appear to have no shame, nor one iota of an idea of what all this nonsense represents. Or they simply don't give a damn and they see recognition from the British as important, necessary, and something to aspire to. Andrea Corr stated that it was "very surprising and very surreal. It's like being given a gift from another country." One has to ask the question, is it not another country (rather than simply "like another country")? Do they not see any difference between this Republic in which they were born and reared and our former (or current) imperial rulers?
We really have plummeted to the depths of the slave mentality, with decades of an education system that has been fractured and broken, to become virtually unrecognisable; with pupils taught a history where the Irish people have no sense of themselves, of where they came from, and the struggles and sacrifices that were made to achieve whatever freedom we have. If you don't know where you came from then you certainly will have no idea where you are going and will be easily led by the nose. In contrast, we have the example of Andy Barr of Belfast, a lifelong communist and trade union leader from the Protestant tradition, being offered an MBE back in the 1970s. He turned it down without hesitation. This prostitution by the Irish elite at the altar of our supposed imperial betters is just the latest in a long line of "gombeenism" in which the Irish establishment has wallowed. In the words of James Connolly, the British are "ruling by fooling – with great Irish fools to practise on."
Paul Kinsella
Dublin 9
Outsourcing labour
Outsourcing our Cabinet posts
As the process of outsourcing labour continues, it was revealed recently that several positions formerly held by Irish workers will in the future be filled with low-paid foreign labour. From next year, the post of the Taoiseach's mouth will be taken over by an eastern European Politician, Bertiu Hernau. Mr Hernau will work for only a fraction of the present Taoiseach's salary and the fact that he speaks no understandable English is not seen as a handicap.
A former Republican Guardsman, Major Muchta Al Dool is expected to replace our Minister for Justice. Major Al Dool is reported as saying he finds fulfilling his obligations under international law tedious and he would like to deport all foreigners as soon as they set foot on Irish soil.
However, as he is prepared to work for only €3 an hour, Major Al Dool is considered excellent value for money.
Other posts facing redundancy from cheap foreign labour are understood to include all Economics Lecturers and under special threat are newspaper owners with shares in large corporations. However painful this might be in the short term, it is believed to be necessary to give all of us more bang for our buck.
John Hanamy
Dublin 6
Bishop Eamon Casey
Casey scandal more than just embarrassing
Your statement in Village issue 1-7 December to the effect that the Bishop Casey affair was "the least scandalous" of the "embarrassing revelations" in relation to the Catholic Church shows a total lack of understanding of what is involved. Eamon Casey is quoted in your article as admitting he "let down ... the people, my priests and my colleagues". He did more than that. As one who took on the role of being the face of the Church in the media, not least during the pope's visit, he had enormous responsibility. In acting in such a high profile way he was breathtakingly irresponsible given that he had problems which were liable to come to light.
No one is blaming him for being human. However, given the conflict between his position and the message he was preaching, he should have adopted a much more humble position. He treated all the good people, for whom a bishop is God's representative on earth, with contempt. As a man of ability, intelligence and talent, his actions do not qualify for a fool's pardon. His irresponsibility destroyed the church's credibility. That does not qualify under the heading "least scandalous" and is much more serious than just being "embarrassing".
Anthony Leavy
Dublin 13
Response to Jack Lane
Propagandistic nationalists
Jack Lane's refusal to answer a forthright question relating to 1916 is not surprising. As far as he is concerned, the insurrection was perfectly alright, once it occurred in Dublin. The truth is that, rather than facing up to the ethical questions relating to the use of of deadly violence inside a peaceful metropolis, he prefers instead to run away, seeking shelter inside his comfort zone of anti-British, anglophobic hysteria. Apparently, as far as Jack is concerned, it was fine for the city of Dublin to be subjected to a unilateral insurrection, but not the city of Cork.
My description of the phrase "the rights of small nations" or the "freedom of small nations", as a rhetorical slogan has exercised his mind considerably. However, I was referring to the military use, and misuse, of these expressions, not the political or ideological status of the standard upon which these terms were based, which were were far from rhetorical.
The principle upon which Britain and Ireland fought the First World War was a liberal one. Article seven of the Treaty of London of 1839 committed the UK, and for that matter in principle, Ireland and other European countries to the defence of Belgium and her neutrality.
Jack's marginalisation of Tom Kettle is only to be expected. Kettle was a liberal and a democrat, who placed human progress above everything else. Though he associated with dangerous dreamers, his concept of Irish patriotism was based on political and economic realism rather than on any form of reactionary dogma. He believed that a democratised Empire would aid humanity and benefit Ireland. He rightly feared the reactionary elements on the fringe of Irish nationalism, and saw Catholic Ireland's reconciliation with the crown within a reformed constitutional context inside the heart of the British Empire as the best means of moving Ireland into the modern age. Had he not been killed, he would have succeeded Redmond.
Kettle's passion for justice and his hatred of tyranny led him to fight in the Great War. He was not, as Jack has claimed, some form of war office cipher or propagandist. He was in a position to know the facts regarding Germany's behaviour in Belgium; and recent "historical analysis" has proven him right. The German Imperial Army, Patrick Pearse's "gallant allies", murdered over 5,521 Belgium civilians in the first few weeks of occupation, spreading terror and torment throughout their conquered territories. They killed 674 civilians in Dinant alone, forcing women and children to watch the mass slaughter (Republicans in 'Rebel Cork' obviously learned a thing or two from such well-known tactics).
The Imperial German Army was seen by most nationalists as an anti-Catholic murder machine, which explains why so many Catholic Irish joined Britain in the Great War. Of course, they were betrayed, not only by a cadre of fanatics in their own country, but by the British in 1921, who mistakenly believed that their erstwhile "terrorist enemy" Collins would be able to rein in most of the IRA and free up the British military for imperial duties. This is the genesis of the myth of Collins' genius. In effect, the British government pulled the rug from under the counter-insurgency forces, who were within a whisker of defeating the IRA.
The 1922 Treaty created a counter-revolutionary context, in which the crime of the 1916 insurrection, and a wholly unnecessary subversive terrorist war could be rendered respectable and transformed officially into a patriotic struggle for independence. It was at this point that the real Irish revolution began. The conduit through which the lie of an anti-colonial struggle from 1916 to 1923 would be conducted was the teaching profession. National schoolteachers, Christian Brothers and also nuns became leading nationalist propagandists. These guardians of the "singing flame" were responsible for the abuse of Irish history, together with so-called academics; inculcating a false historiography similar to that of the nationalist foundation history of Israel.
Pierce Martin
Co Kildare
Genetically modified food
GM crops 'not risky' for humans?
The Irish Council for Bioethics must have decided that genetically modified crops were not "risky for humans" before the findings of an Australian study on genetically modified peas were published in the New Scientist ( 21 November ). The Council's view was reported in the article "GM crops 'not risky for humans but could be for nature'", (Irish Independent, 1 December) and that the Council had described the risks to human health from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as "very low".
A decade-long study on genetically modified peas was carried out by scientists at Australia's national research organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Orgainisation. Mice were exposed to a purified form of the particular genetically-engineered protein, designed to kill pea weevils, that was produced by the modified peas. The mice exposed to this protein by inhalation developed airway inflammation and mild lung damage. The study found that the risks to health posed by the peas, far from being "very low", were significant enough that the entire Field Pea project was cancelled. The costs of decade-long studies on the health risks of genetically modified organisms will have to be borne by taxpayers, as studies paid for by companies developing the GMOs are compromised due to conflict of interest. Is it worth spending huge sums of taxpayers' money to do these companies' research for them? It would be far wiser – and more ethical – to recognise that GMOs can have serious health and environmental risks, and resolve to avoid them altogether.
Debra James
Co Wexford
Literary snobbery
'Democratic' criticism of books is needed
I am bemused by the reaction of purists, literary snobs, critics and various gossip columnists to the nomination of Cecelia Ahern's first book, PS, I Love You, for a major award. Mainly teenage girls read Cecelia's work. They obviously love the kind of populist, emotional storylines she offers in her books. Her success has enraged many people, whose barely-concealed jealousy and petty resentment do them no favours. Since she has never claimed or even hinted that her work was intended as a groundbreaking piece of literature, why is anyone bothering to make totally inapt comparisons with, for example, John Banville's The Sea, as quite a few so-called critics have done in recent weeks? That is like comparing a classical violinist with a rock star. The comparison is simply inappropriate. Similarly, attempting to draw parallels between "chick-lit" novels and the type of profound, navel-gazing works of fiction that very few people actually read is both unwise and unfair. It was unfair to both Cecelia Ahern and John Banville for critics to make comparisons between their two vastly different artistic achievements. Ahern had not even dreamed of emulating Banville's deeply intellectual style of writing, and she, for her part, put Banville in the ha'penny place on the sales front, easily outselling him. Who is really qualified to decide what constitutes a genuine literary work? Many publishers rejected Joseph Heller's Catch 22 before it finally got into print, and was hailed as a masterpiece. Literary opinion remains sharply divided on the merits of numerous works of fiction that have either been nominated for awards, or have scooped those much-desired accolades. Even Banville's Booker prizewinner has been shredded by some notable critics in Britain and the US and yet it notched up one of the greatest honours the literary world has to offer. To a large extent, it seems to come down to a matter of taste and individual preference. Perhaps even plain, old-fashioned good luck. A different set of judges might not have given Banville the thumbs-up. But in the end, as far as I'm concerned, it is the people who will decide one way or the other on any particular books' merits. A smattering of democracy doesn't go astray in the world of books.
John Fitzgerald
Co Kilkenny
Bree and Sligo travellers
Declan Bree has supported traveller accommodation
I refer to the article "Rabbitte in tangle over Sligo and Travellers", (Village 17-23 November). The article points out that the Leader of the Labour Party, Pat Rabbitte, was wrong in claiming that Cllr Declan Bree had used his position as Mayor of Sligo to stop a traveller accommodation site being located in his own ward. However, you then went on to say that that Pat Rabbitte was correct in suggesting the issue of Labour councillors and traveller accommodation in Sligo was more complex then Declan Bree had suggested previously.
I would point out that Mr Rabbitte in his letter to the Irish Times of the 6 September, made no such suggestion. He made no reference to complex issues, he was very specific and to the point in his scurrilous attack on Declan Bree and stated "in Sligo Cllr Bree used his position as Mayor to stop an accommodation site going into his own electoral ward and sought to put it into the ward of a colleague that already had three such sites".
That Mr Rabbitte would make such an unfounded allegation and attempt to smear a party colleague in such a manner speaks volumes about his attitude to those party members who do not slavishly support the Party leader's views. Declan Bree's position on travellers and traveller accommodation is well known to the people of Sligo. However, I accept that readers from other parts of the country may not be aware of his record. In his 31 years as a councillor he has been consistent in his views and has always taken a principled position on the issue.
Supporters of Mr Rabbitte might trawl through the records of Sligo County Council and Borough Council to find occasions where Councillor Bree did not support a particular proposal for such accommodation (and over the years there were such occasions). However, an examination of any such decision will confirm that Bree did not compromise on his principles.
With regard to Sligo's most recent draft Traveller Accommodation Programme which was considered in February, the record will show that of the hundreds of submissions received by Sligo Borough Council from the general public, the only objections related to the proposed group housing scheme proposed for Maugheraboy (West Ward).
Residents opposed any development that would bring additional vehicular traffic into the area. (In 2004, councillors, including Cllr Bree. supported the residents in unanimously recommending that a planning application for private housing in the area be rejected.) When the issue of the traveller group housing scheme was considered Cllr Bree was consistent and in this context he proposed that an alternative access route be provided via Sligo's new inner relief road. However his proposal was defeated.
In your article you state that in the lifetime of the previous Council, Declan Bree had voted to exclude further halting sites in the North Ward. That is incorrect, there was no vote to exclude halting sites in the North Ward, there was an unanimous recommendation to the then Traveller Consultative Committee that no further traveller accommodation sites be brought before the Council until sites were agreed in the East and West wards.
When the new draft Traveller Accommodation Programme was considered in February, a motion was proposed that the Borough Council would delete any future traveller accommodation proposed for the North Ward, and the record will show that Cllr Bree voted against that motion, which was defeated 6 votes to 5.
In your article you also state that in the past Cllr Bree supported a proposal to reject a proposed site at Cleveragh in his own East Ward. In fact all councillors rejected the site. Portion of the proposed site in question was located on the site of an old factory while the balance was on part of Sligo's Cleveragh estate – an area zoned as green/public open space. Bree and the Labour Party made it clear time after time that they would oppose any attempt to rezone any of the lands zoned as public open space/green area. Bree was a founder member of the SOGA (Save Our Green Areas) campaign in Sligo which was established to ensure that Cleveragh/Doorly Park, the Greenfort and other green areas were not rezoned.
Hopefully the above might help to clarify some of the "complex" issues relating to traveller accommodation in Sligo.
I have known Declan Bree since I first campaigned with him in the Connolly Youth Movement in the late 60's. Down through the years he has been consistent and principled. I applaud Declan Bree on the stance he has taken over the years in supporting travellers right.
John Dunne
Labour Party, Sligo
(Last week this letter was printed with the wrong name, due to an error during the production process. Apologies to both John Dunne and Damien Flinter)
Media coverage of George Best's death
Footballing talents
overshadowed by alcohol
The media has had opportune time to prepare George Best's obituary and quite rightly the recurring theme is that of discussing both George Best the footballer and George Best the alcoholic. I think it would be fair to say it is commonly accepted that alcohol cut Best's football career short, subsequently destroyed his life and ultimately led to his death. As inevitable as it was that this aspect of his life would be widely discussed following his death, I had only hoped that the media could have given greater weight to the thing that made his death newsworthy in the first place, his talents as a footballer.
The analysis of his life seems to want us to start hand-wrenching over the lost opportunities of his life and the evils of alcohol, but in the light of his death, people want only to discuss and remember George Best the football icon.
"An Irish alcoholic dies, Oh yeah, and he happened to be one the greatest footballers that the world has ever seen". A bit of perspective would be nice, but by all means let the hand-wrenching continue.
Shaun Gavigan
Dublin 6
STATEMENT
An EU watershed decision
The power of the EU over our lives has been dramatically extended by a recent judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg that has got remarkably little attention in Ireland.
In September the Court ruled that the EU had the right to create pan-European criminal offences for breaches of EU law, which member states would have to implement even if they were opposed to such criminal sanctions.
This ECJ judgment opens the door to the creation of a body of supranational EU criminal law for the first time. This had been proposed in the EU Constitution, which the French and Dutch rejected last summer, but the September judgment brings it into being anyway. It signals a major shift of power from national capitals to the EU.
For the first time in legal history, this judgment permits the EU rather than its member states to lay down sanctions such as prison sentences and fines for citizens violating EU laws. As a consequence, member states lose their exclusive power to decide what constitutes a crime and when their citizens may be fined, imprisoned or given criminal records.
"This is a watershed decision," said Commission President Manuel Barroso in greeting the ECJ judgment. The Commission lost no time in jumping in with a document on 23 November that listed seven areas which it said should become EU crimes immediately: private sector corruption, credit card and cheque fraud, counterfeiting euro notes and coins, money laundering, people trafficking, computer crime and marine pollution. It suggested that possible future EU crimes could be corruption in awarding public contracts, racial discrimination and incitement, intellectual property theft and trafficking in human organs and tissues. Legal commentators have suggested that financial services, consumer protection law, health and safety rules for factories and offices, the CAP, fisheries policy, transport and trademarks could become further fields of application for EU crimes and penalties in time and require significant harmonisation of national criminal codes in these areas.
At present it is up to Member States to decide whether to use criminal sanctions to enforce EU laws or not and what those sanctions should be.
It is surely remarkable that, 50 years after the Treaty of Rome, the Court of Justice should claim such a power for the EU. Although the ECJ judgment related to environmental matters, it means that the EU can in principle attach supranational criminal penalties henceforth to breaches of EU law going back to the original Treaty of Rome, so long as the Commission proposes and the Council of Ministers agrees by majority vote that cross-EU criminal penalties are necessary and should apply.
Henceforth a member state that opposes a breach of a particular EU law being made into a crime, or opposes the level of EU penalty attached, will still have to introduce it if a sufficient number of other EU States vote for it. In principle the new legal position would allow the EU to compel Ireland to jail or fine its citizens for doing things that the Irish Government and Oireachtas did not consider a crime, improbable though that might seem at present.
Commission officials are reported as saying that in future they will draft tests to decide if offences against EU laws are civil, administrative or criminal.
In this way 25 non-elected EU judges, together with the 25 non-elected EU Commissioners, have increased their power over all of us in what amounts to a judicial coup d'etat against democratic national governments and the citizens that elect them.
Anthony Coughlan
Secretary of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre and Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College
STATEMENT
Dermot Ahern: knave or fool?
On his recent visit to the United States, or Foreign Minister, Dermot Ahern, stated that he had sought and was given assurances that neither Shannon Airport nor any other airport has been used by the CIA as a hub in transferring prisoners for "rendition" to third countries. According to an article in the New York Times of 1 December, Dermot Ahern did not directly receive assurance from Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. The article quotes a senior State Department official, who requested anonymity because he was relating a private conversation, said Rice pointedly did not make the assurance personally to Ahern, because her message was: "You've gotten those assurances from the [US] ambassador [to Ireland]. You should have confidence in that." The US is increasingly on the offensive to pressurise Europeans and others to take the US at its word in relation secret flights and secret detention centres. The article highlights the fact that US Secretary of State has made it clear that she wants US allies to take the US Government at face value. The article also carries a map, which claims to show 33 secret CIA flights through Shannon. This is in complete contradiction to what Dermot Ahern has publicly claimed and runs contrary to the assurances given by the US. All flights by US military, either through Shannon or over Irish airspace, should be stopped now, otherwise we as a people are complicit in the use of torture. The time for taking the US government's word at face value is long past its sell by date.
Eugene McCartan
Communist Party of Ireland