Sir, – Stephen Collins accuses Catholics of issuing “a challenge to democracy” (“Church’s abortion broadside a challenge to democracy”, Opinion Analysis, January 5th). He notes the papal nuncio’s “assertive tone”. Catholics should not express views which “insult” politicians. By speaking out, he suggests, Catholics could actually annoy people so much that a liberal abortion regime would be the result.
He clearly has not been reading The Irish Times, readers of which have been subjected to sustained and highly partisan commentary on this topic expressed in extremely assertive tones by Fintan O’Toole, Vincent Browne, Kitty Holland and others.
Mr Collins further expresses a touching solicitude for the delicate consciences of politicians who have been moved to “anger” by citizens who have the temerity to express their views. This again reveals some dissonance from the usual Irish Times approach, which politicians of every hue will note with keen interest.
Mr Collins appears to propose a democracy in which all citizens must agree. While all citizens in a democracy must accept what has been decided by the majority, they do not have to agree with it and have the right to use democratic means to express their views. The Irish Times has that right, too, and exercises it robustly. Mr Collins’s proposal is redolent of penal times and is completely out of touch with modern political philosophy. Perhaps he should do some further study on the matter. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Having read Stephen Collins’s article in Saturday’s edition, I would like to applaud him for stating his feelings about statements made by various clerics on the pending legislation on the abortion problem. Neither the churches nor the clergy have any part in forming the laws in this Republic of ours and long may it stay that way. We the people elect deputies to the Dáil to formulate legislation for us and no other body in the country has any right to try to interfere with that legislation. Of course everybody has a right to his or her opinion, but that is as far as it goes. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Stephen Collins in his opinion piece states, “The mystifying aspect of the church’s strategy is that it has chosen to take such an aggressive stand against a Government and parliament”. This may be an appropriate time to introduce the term “aggressive religiosity” to complement the often used term “aggressive secularism”. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In his excellent piece on January 5th, Stephen Collins erroneously claims that judgments of the European Court of Human Rights “are not legally binding but they do have some moral force”. In fact, under article 46 of the convention, judgments of the court are binding on states in relation to which they are handed down. In other words, judgments against Ireland – such as A, B C v Ireland – are legally binding on the State. Ireland was one of the first states to accept the jurisdiction of the court and the right of individuals to complain to it. As a State, we have an excellent record of responding positively to judgments against us by the court (even if, in some cases, it has taken rather a long time for required changes to be introduced). The Government’s commitment to legislate on abortion within the confines of the Constitution indicates that this impressive pattern of compliance will not be departed from in this case. – Yours, etc,