Dear Sir, – Should we infer that the candidates of Fianna Fáil will likely vote for themselves in the impending local and European Union elections? Or might they select a superior option, if one is presented to them? – Yours faithfully,
TIMOTHY LYNCH,
Dublin 2.
Dear Sir, – It is indeed reassuring to learn that in times ahead, promising politicians to vote in a certain manner will suggest the reverse! – Yours faithfully,
HELEN NOONAN,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.
Dear Sir, – It’s disgraceful to observe politicians, regardless of whether they belong to the Government or Opposition, frantically trying to hop onto the populist bandwagon after both referendums were defeated last Friday.
I’m particularly saddened by the Sinn Féin and Labour party heads who are aligning with a few Government party TDs in an attempt to achieve the acrobatic feat of being a Tadhg an dá thaobh, with a view on the impending elections.
Some of the public may sometimes be duped, but this is strikingly obvious to the point of being sorrowful. If these politicians were in disagreement with the referendum statements, they should have aired their view ahead of the vote; evidently, this specific bandwagon has lost its wheels. – Yours faithfully,
TERESA GRAHAM,
Tramore,
Co Waterford.
Dear Sir, – The principle of Lisa Chambers: act as I campaign for, not as I vote. – Yours faithfully,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Dear Sir, – It’s regrettable that these Fianna Fáil figures did not reveal their voting intentions beforehand. If they had, it would have allowed myself and several others to land on the successful side. – Yours faithfully,
PJ McDERMOTT,
Westport,
Co Mayo.
Dear Sir, – In the piece “Coalition stumbles after overturning on two referendums” (Analysis, March 11th), Jack Horgan Jones mentions that “privately, polls regarding a housing right or public water possession are being dismissed completely”. I express gratitude towards those who voted against it. – Yours faithfully,
MARGARET LEE,
Newport,
Co Tipperary.
Kudos to Prime Minister Leo Varadkar for standing by his convictions in the recent referendums, backing the affirmative side, and accepting his part in the results with grace. In the same vein, Éamon Ó Cuív, a parliament member known for aligning his votes with his beliefs, disagreed with the advocated proposals and honourably abstained from both promoting and voting.
Meanwhile, one wonders about Senator Lisa Chambers’ motives. Caught on camera rallying for affirmative votes, she later declared voting negatively once the negative public response came into view. Does this display a lack of comprehension on her part or does it shake her reliability as a political representative? In either case, the voters indeed have food for thought.
Sincerely yours,
DAVID CARROLL,
Dublin 2.
Kindly note, – Surely we can anticipate departures.
Yours truly,
ROBERT SHARPE,
Cootehill,
Co Cavan.
Dear Sir, – Late as it might be, political party representatives have acknowledged that their suggested changes were out of sync with the electorate’s mood and priorities. Your commentators should possibly ponder upon their similar oversight. Such introspection coupled with a sprinkle of modesty wouldn’t be misplaced in their case.
Yours truly,
MICHAEL O’DWYER,
Clogheen,
Cork.
Dear Sir, – This outcome clearly indicates the Irish populace’s growing discontent towards the ever-pervading ‘woke’ narrative. Further alarms for democracy are raised by the shared stance among different parties on these key issues. For the past four years, Irish citizens voicing concerns over the country’s pathway have been subdued. This referendum marked the first in these four years where the Irish were given the opportunity to express their opinion. And they truly seized it.
The so-called ‘hate legislation’ should be reconsidered and abolished forthwith and the shared view on assisted dying needs to be re-examined.
All involved parties must take note that the Irish voting community is far from naive. We grasp the ongoing political landscape clearly, and as the European and General elections approach, I would advise not to underestimate this informed public. Sincerely, Roisin Neylon of Corofin, Co Clare.
In response to Kathy Sheridan, who seems to be smarting from the referendum defeat, her search for motives appears misguided. She overlooks the vital desire of many women to retain Article 41.2. This provision stipulates a “direct obligation” from the State to shield mothers from the necessity of working due to financial constraints. It is intended not only for the benefit of mothers who wish to have this option but also for children who may prefer to be raised by their parents. This crucial constitutional provision could have also included fathers.
With the appeal to the Supreme Court next month by a mother caring for her severely disabled son relying on this obligation, why would there be a desire to abolish it? Kathy Sheridan, interestingly, makes a slew of irrelevant points, which only insult the voters’ intelligence, who have valid reasons for rejecting both proposals.
She does, however, rightly pinpoint the controversial topics underlying these proposed Constitution amendments. Those introducing gender identity ideology into our laws are causing a rift in our nation, clearly demonstrated by the electorate’s recent rejection of such changes. Sincerely, Jill Nesbitt of Bray, Co Wicklow.
Regarding Kathy Sheridan’s reaction to the referendum results, her bitterness is palpable. Her commentary showcases how some proponents of the ‘Yes’ vote are in denial. She dismisses the result as a triumph for divisive, prejudiced men, enabling perpetuators of racism and division.
When I started voicing my opinion for the ‘No’ vote in January, either through writing or on-air discussions, I noticed the reluctance of other people to join me in the debate. Some friends even warned that my stances might land me in the company of undesirable individuals, suggesting possible backlash. But as I saw it, there were disagreeable elements on both sides.
Having witnessed the masses voice their opinions, it has become clear that a significant number of media personalities and politicians harboured reservations that were initially concealed. It would be beneficial if this outcome could dispel the antiquated stereotype of a dominated Catholic Ireland, a perception that some progressives continue to embrace as a form of personal validation. We are now in 2024, with a large proportion of those who voted against in the recent election having previously supported changes in legislation related to divorce, same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
It isn’t accurate to label the female voters who opposed last week’s propositions as xenophobic, or to suggest that the majority of males are apathetic towards issues concerning childcare. These were misconceptions peddled by Kathy Sheridan. Given an effective plan addressing the needs of mothers, children and carers, acceptance would have been a given, since mothers inherently bear a unique weight and hold a distinctive place in their children’s lives.
However, certain female reporters expressed what seemed to be overtly biased comments against men during the campaign. These did not accurately reflect the realities of most present-day marriages that I am familiar with. Men opposing the vote were accused of ‘mansplaining’, a criticism that male proponents including the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Equality were spared.
Experiencing the fantastic atmosphere amidst the crowd at Dublin Castle on the night the same-sex marriage referendum triumphed was indeed memorable. However, a handful of women celebrating with their banners at the same venue last Saturday were labelled as ‘overly exultant’ simply for expressing pleasure that the vote outcome aligned with their views. During a session with Wicklow Women4Women I attended, some female attendees shared how their encounters with media representatives left them with the impression of receiving condescending derision or bias against their oppositional stance.
In conclusion, Kathy Sheridan disclosed that “individuals with normal cognitive function can comprehend several concepts concurrently”, only to reveal that her mind inherently rejects this. It is oversimplified and negligent to claim that only those with conservative views appreciate motherhood or insist on thorough clarification of terminology before implementation into policy and law.
Kind regards,
COLUM KENNY,
Emeritus Professor,
Dublin City University,
Dublin 9.
In British English: Voters dismissed the 39th amendment for the fact that they were left confused by the term, “durable relationships”. Kathy Sheridan’s article referencing the proposed Hate Crime Bill also possessed ambiguity surrounding the definition of “hate”. It could be surprising for columnists to understand that liberal and conservative electorates acknowledge the seriousness of hate crimes whilst concurrently feeling the necessity for legislation to clearly specify the meaning of hatred. The voting public has proven their ability to distinguish between intentions and possible effects of words. Similarly, this discernment should be exhibited by our politicians too. -Yours Sincerely, Sandra Adams, Dublin 13.