Letters to the Editor: Ireland can be a voice of reason — war is not inevitable
Letter-writer Fintan Lane says the assertion by Ukraine foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, that 'the era of neutrality is over, as well as the era of peace in Europe', cannot be treated as coherent analysis. Picture: Mary Altaffer/AP
Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, was quoted recently as saying that “a common European defence industry space must be created” and “all red tape must be removed” because, in his opinion, “the era of neutrality is over, as well as the era of peace in Europe”.
These are bleak words and intended to influence policy-makers within the European Union.
Mr Kuleba’s fatalism is understandable, mired as his country is in an intractable war with Russian invaders, but such despair cannot be treated as a coherent analysis of the current situation in Europe, nor act as a guide to the future.
War simply cannot be allowed to become the norm. Our common humanity deserves much better of us all.
It is at times such as this, with the drumbeat of war sounding and voices of despair amplified, that military neutrality can be most useful. Ireland should be a voice of reason, arguing against the nihilistic idea that war is inexorable.
While the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána is “flabbergasted” at the non-invite to the GRA conference, this doesn’t bode well in the increasingly strained relations between himself, his upper management team, and those on the frontline.
Spending €2.4m of taxpayers’ money on outside consultancies on human resources, development, research and procurement, to name but a few, while there is the issue of low morale, recruitment and retention, and suffocating disciplinary oversight, shows how out of touch Garda HQ is with what is actually happening on the ground.
What is the point of employing or hiring consultancy companies when you already know what the problems are, and which have been well aired over the past number of years?
Wouldn’t the €2.4m of public funds have been better used to find out what the perceptions of frontline gardaí are and why so many are resigning from the force?
The fact that 46% or 6,417 gardaí are eligible to leave the force by 2028, shows that the Government, the minister, and this commissioner have been behind the curve when it comes to recruitment and retention in the force and their lack of proper understanding of policing in Ireland in general.
Their lack of acknowledgement of this existential crisis within the force shows that those at the top of this organisation have failed to realise that the current policing strategy is not working and that matters will only get worse unless there is fundamental sea change in attitudes by those in charge.
Jumping from one crisis to another has become the hallmark of the current senior Garda management team, overseen by a lame duck minister, and bolstered by an inept government.
While those at the centre of this crisis pretend that all is well within our dedicated but under pressure frontline force, the reality for many, including the public, is that the policing plan and model that has been introduced with great fanfare, bells, and whistles is no longer fit for purpose.
How long before the Government finally comes to its senses and realises that the changes it has made haven’t worked?
On Sunday 25 February, US Air Force member Aaron Bushnell set himself on fire at the Israeli embassy in Washington DC while stating, “Free Palestine and stop the genocide”.
Shortly before his death, Aaron posted a question on Facebook: “Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’ The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.”
Bushnell poses a profound question here, to all of us, and gives us the answer at the same time.
It is easier to feel brave in the aftermath of a great crime when the smell of death has dissipated, when we could have done something and did nothing. When we could have spoken out, but remained silent.
Bushnell gives us his answer, in real time, by making the ultimate sacrifice, forcing us to focus on the genocide taking place at this very moment. History will judge this courageous self sacrifice as an act of heroism way beyond anything most of us would contemplate. I feel a great sadness for his death, but my respect for this young man is beyond words.
One of these upcoming referendums seems to imply, ‘no such thing as family’, or that it can be any makeup of individuals who decide that they are a family. This will be a bonanza for family lawyers, opening a Pandora’s Box to all sorts of legal cases coming before the courts trying to prove or define what a ‘durable relationship’ is. I can see the demand for Lexus cars growing among the legal set already.
The Constitution is a blueprint of what the founders of the Irish State wanted for society. It lays down a framework for all Oireachtas legislation. Maggie Thatcher famously said that there is no such thing as society, just families and individuals, and that people have a responsibility to look after themselves and not to be state dependant for everything.
But there is such a thing as society, made up of a people with a common history and values. In a democratic society, the rule of law protects the society and gives it stability.
The breakup of society by the pursuit of individualism is a disaster for the weak and vulnerable, we see this all over the world today.
You can’t build a strong society without the laws being clear, and understandable to the citizens under its rules. The two upcoming referendums are confusing most people. There is even difference of opinions as to what would be the outcome for society if these two referendums were passed by the best legal minds of the country. This is an insult to the Irish Constitution which we all hold dear.
Proposing changes at a whim to go along with the latest interpretation of everyday language is wasteful of government time.
Shame on most of the members of both houses of the Oireachtas, for spending €20m on these two purposeless referendums.
A glaring example of an unjust referendum was Brexit where the British electorate, comprising England and Wales, was misled by politicians and cast 17,410,742 votes ( 51.89%) to leave while 16,141,241 ( 48.11%) voted to remain. Compare that to the Scottish vote of 62% to remain and 38% to leave and Northern Ireland where 55.2% voted to remain and 44.8% voted to leave.
Many of the British politicians, even a number of those who were in favour of Brexit, saw the folly of their ways too late when all the damage had been done.
In retrospect, a number of British politicians stated that the referendum should have been decided by a supermajority of at least 60% by the electorate. It is, therefore, vitally important that the Irish electorate are allowed to make up their own minds and come out in strength and cast their vote on International Women’s Day on Friday, March 8.
It makes common sense that in the area of referendums that are likely to impact on the entire electorate for the remainder of their lives, the result should not be passed by a simple majority of as little as one vote. Perhaps this is an issue that should be considered for entry in the Constitution.
I would make a suggestion that a referendum can only be considered passed when there is a minimum 80% turnout of the electorate with a vote of at least 60% in favour. A simple majority of one vote is OK in a national or local election since your decision will last no longer than five years.
Despite the misleading claims by a number of politicians that the Irish Constitution confines women to the home, nothing could be further from the truth.
Ask any young married woman who has just become a mother and most will confirm that the economic burden of paying a mortgage and providing a home and care for the new addition(s) to the family gives her no other option. Simply because her husband’s salary alone is no longer sufficient to cover their basic requirements.
It should be noted that the present Article 41.2.2 reads: “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
Words like ‘endeavour’, as in the current Constitution, and ‘strive’, as proposed in the amended Constitution, are vague and both lack any degree of commitment.
If I had been asked to rewrite this article, I would have suggested: “The State shall, therefore, ensure that mothers, or any alternative person fulfilling the role of a carer, shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home or wherever other area may be required.”
That is a clear statement and places the onus entirely on the State to make good any financial loss incurred by carers regardless of gender.
Finally, I would point out that durable relationships do not exist, and that also applies to marriage, as there are in the region of 5,000 divorces per annum.
