Why ministers should stay out of this debate
IT seems to me that in the current referendum campaign, the requirement of the protective McKenna Judgment is being honoured with respect to the allotting of equal time to both arguments. However, the spirit of this judgment is not being respected as many of those fronting one side of the debate, on the live media, are high-profile politicians, with many Government ministers included.
One reason that a Constitution is put in place is to protect the governed from potential government excesses and to act as a bulwark on behalf of the citizen. Therefore, it creates a severe conflict of interest when politicians and Government ministers become involved in any aspect of campaigning, regardless of which side of the debate they are supporting.
There is no problem when citizens Simon, Tom, Dick or Heather are involved as individuals, but when they don their political hats, such campaigning is unacceptable behaviour. Even at this late stage, politicians must do the decent thing by stepping aside and ending their intrusion in the people’s Constitution.
DENIS O’HIGGINS, Aghintamy, Co. Monaghan. ... ON this coming Friday, March 8, in the first of two ballots, we will be asked to allow the courts to redefine the word ‘family’ in an entirely unpredictable way; cutting it adrift from its natural mooring to that ongoing, exclusive, publicly witnessed commitment, essential to marriage, home and family life.
Unintended consequences are expected by many experts.
In the second, we will be asked to delete the words: ‘woman’, ‘mothers’ and ‘home’. These are words which the Government no longer believes to be crucially important when setting its policy priorities. Thus, it intends to discount that indispensable role of mothers accompanying the generation-shift which motherhood brings: pregnancy, breastfeeding where possible, and that initial attachment which lets the baby know they are cherished, secure and loveable, ultimately leading to a home life where we find connection, affection and gratitude.
Virtually all referendum coverage has failed to acknowledge that the objective and effect of Article 41.2.2, is to oblige the State to help mothers (and fathers) to fulfil their ‘duties’ to their children as mentioned in that section of the Constitution dealing with children (Article 42A.2). Deleting this obligation risks accelerating our declining birth rate.
Already, we as a people are failing to replace ourselves. We face what has been termed a ‘demographic challenge’. More bluntly, we could say that our socioeconomic model is cannibalising home and family life. The impact of economic pressures on home and family life, and not climate change, is the major existential crisis facing our nation.
The former taoiseach Garret FitzGerald made headlines when he proposed financial support for home-makers’ investment in the next generation.
These referendum proposals are an unwelcome distraction from what is needed and deserve a resounding No, No vote.
GEARÓID DUFFY, Cork.
No help for the poor
IN your paper on February 21, you had an article headlined: Energy credits ‘lift thousands of households out of arrears’.
Five pages further on, you have an article headlined: Taxed to the hilt: average family pays €150 in indirect levies per week.
We are given a €150 energy credit, but the Government is taking €600 in stealth taxes from us per month, equivalent to 8.7% of household income, while high-income households pay less than 6%.
We the poorest are left €450 worse off per week. Do Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael think we are stupid and do not see what they are up to? They hate the Irish working class and always treat them with contempt. The sooner they are gone, the better. Irish people are still dying on the street and these parties are still making life harder, forcing more people onto the street. The motto for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is down with the poor, up with the rich. DAVID BURKE, Gorey, Co. Wexford.