Courtesy is crucial to our democracy

AS we enter the New Year, there is division in British society over several matters.

Caring people can, for example, have differing views on Brexit; the correct levels of taxation; the allocation of resources between defence, community services and much more.

But two points seem crucial. First, my friend Councillor Marcus Lapsa and I saw much human suffering in various places where we served in our different ways. We therefore know, that, whatever its problems, the UK remains outstanding in its democracy, stability and fairness.

Second, we regret the rudeness of some political debate. Some social media, in particular, carry comments far beyond acceptable both in aggressiveness and in the language used.

They debase political and social debate.

Discussion should always be polite. Rudeness is a sign of personal immaturity and courtesy denotes adult behaviour. Courtesy

is crucial for our democracy. Cllr David Skinner (Conservative), Westwood Ward, Coventry City Council

We can’t stifle discussion

PAUL Sheehan (21/12/2018) is fully convinced that the results of what he terms as the “People’s Vote” means that all further discussion about on the subject EU membership should be brought to an end. No opinion, according to him, matters any longer. It may come as something of a shock to him, and indeed to those of his ilk, that there are some of us who, because we have been forced to do so, are beginning tho think that any vote that results in a decision is binding forever is undemocratic.

It goes against the freedom of expression of people who disagree or who may have had a change of heart.

The Canadian Supreme Court (Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998]) made this observation:

“A democratic system of government is committed to considering those dissenting voices and seeking to acknowledge and address those voices in the laws by which all in the community should live.”

This was a very similar view taken by European Court of Human Rights, in dealing with cases involving Turkey:.

“...One of the principal characteristics of democracy [is] the possibility it offers of resolving a country’s problems through dialogue, without recourse to violence, even when they are irksome.

Democracy thrives on freedom of expression. From that point of view, there can be no justification for hindering a political group solely because it seeks to debate in public part of the State’s population and to take part in the nation’s life in order to find, according to democratic rules, solutions capable of satisfying everyone concerned”

Is it possible to stifle discussion in the way Mr Sheehan suggests and claim to be democratic?

I, for one, think not.

Kevin Cryan, email