Strongly biased view of gas pipeline protest

IN your editorial (September 11), you complain about protests against Shell’s persistent attempts to build a refinery in Co Mayo which you consider “unacceptable” and which allegedly “involve illegal or criminal behaviour”.

This strikes me as a strongly biased view, ignoring illegal activities by the company, with the support of the gardaí and even the navy, in connection with the dispute. You fail to mention, for example, the intimidation of local fishermen who are struggling to protect their fishing grounds in defiance of Shell’s attempts to lay a pipeline through the Special Area of Conservation that is Broadhaven Bay.

Where can I read your unbiased investigation of the conflicting legal issues involved in Shell’s destruction of this area of exceptional natural beauty?

“History is replete with examples of how tolerating lawless intimidation only breeds further dangerous and irresponsible intimidation,” you tell us.

This is true, but such a view takes no account of cases of superficially lawful intimidation where states have passed unjust laws in order to carry out large-scale abuses.

In fact, it might seem the most extensive cases of intimidation in history have been lawful.

At the same time, history is speckled with examples of how ordinary, decent people have engaged in non-violent, community-based action to challenge unjust laws and have been beaten by the police or subject to arbitrary arrest for their pains.

And recent Irish history is replete with reports of corruption where politicians have received brown envelopes in order to facilitate inappropriate developments. Could this also be the case in the Corrib gas field, where Shell has been granted permission to extract our oil and gas resources with a State stake of zero and royalties of zero?

Where can I read your investigation of how our politicians made this extravagant decision, and why?

Coilín Ó hAiseadha

Bóthar Inse Chór

Cill Mhaighneann

Baile Átha

Cliath 8