Jobstown video clips prevented an injustice
IN ITS aftermath, the Jobstown trial and verdict has thrown up a number of serious questions.
Whatever one’s opinion may be on the incident and subsequent trial it is highly probable, based solely on Garda evidence, that those on trial would have been found guilty of the charges against them and faced the possibility of being sentenced to life in prison, for what was an act of civil disobedience where no-one was physically manhandled, attacked or injured, but merely obstructed in the presence of a strong Garda force.
Surely, with such a strong Garda presence the situation that developed could have been foreseen and averted as video evidence later proved? The prospect of a guilty verdict would surely have been a miscarriage of justice.
It would appear to many that the charges brought against the accused by the State were based on the hope of conviction so as to send out a warning message and strike fear in people in an effort to quell any future protests on anything. That prospect ought to be considered an affront to democracy and against people’s right to protest.
In his comments, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said that it would be a dangerous precedent if what gardaí say in court is not in line with video evidence.
Then came Fianna Fáil criticising the Taoiseach for his statements on the trial and his calling into question the gathering and delivery of evidence. This ought to seem odd and dangerous for the main Opposition party (as they claim to be) to be questioning his statements on a trial that could have led to a miscarriage of justice in this and future cases.
It is rather ironic to think that the Jobstown verdict is still being questioned by many despite the presence of video evidence, yet the trial of Seán FitzPatrick collapsed partly due to shredded evidence and there is no similar outcry. CHRISTY KELLY, Templeglantine, Co. Limerick.
Protect the unborn
IN CONSIDERING whether to repeal the Eighth Amendment and introduce abortion here, we can learn from the experience in other countries, perhaps most obviously Britain.
Abortion was introduced there on supposedly limited grounds in 1967. The reality is that in 2017 in Britain, abortion is available on demand. In Britain one in five pregnancies now ends in abortion, as in France and Spain.
Some advocates claim that legalising abortion would not increase our abortion rate. Such claims are flatly contradicted by the lived experience of countries that have introduced abortion and watched as its occurrence rose dramatically over time.
Such claims also defy common sense: how can it be thought that our abortion rate will not increase if it is more easily, quickly and locally available? The enormous tragedy is that, if our laws on abortion are changed, countless more unborn children, unique, irre- placeable and immeasurably precious, as all humans are whatever our differences, will be forced to pay with their lives for a change brought about by adults.
BRIDGET MCCORMACK, Miltown Malbay, Co. Clare.
Don’t change Church
BILLY Ryle (Mail Letters, Tuesday) states that ‘the Church must change, adapt and modernise to meet the spiritual needs of contemporary society’.
As the Church was founded by Jesus over 2,000 years ago and He promised to be with it until the end of time, is it not rather presumptuous of Mr Ryle to seek to have it reformed as he suggests?
Actually many churches have carried out these reforms and found that the members are leaving them in much greater numbers than those from the Catholic Church. Jesus did not set out to be popular and He said that if they persecuted Him they would persecute his followers, as is evident throughout the world today.
The Church, having survived for over 2,000 years, will no doubt still be around when many of its critics are gone, so Mr Ryle really has no need to worry about its demise. MARY STEWART,
Donegal town.
Some hope for Syria
IT SEEMS there is some hope for an end to suffering of the Syrian people with the US and Russia working together on ceasefires.
The question of where the US stands on Assad’s rule is still unclear and could be a major stumbling block. It is an issue which should have been decided by the UN and in accordance with international law.
However, in August 2011, about five months after the trouble had started in Syria, US President Barack Obama issued an imperial decree that Assad had lost legitimacy and had to go. That is the key turning point in the Syria catastrophe.
At that time there were human rights issues in Syria (as well as street violence), and the powerful nations of the West could have addressed them without supporting the violent overthrow of the government.
America and Russia should work together to eradicate Isis and other fanatic armies from Syria and establish a democratically elected government. If America continues backing armed opposition and insisting Assad must go, that is not going to happen. BRENDAN O’BRIEN,
London.