Sir, - We are hearing a lot of talk from Government circles about the restrictions placed on them by the McKenna judgment. The truth of the matter is that it was not the McKenna judgment which placed these restrictions on the Government, but the Constitution itself. As these whinging Government Ministers never refer to the detail of the McKenna judgment, perhaps you would be good enough to allow me to elucidate the matter.
Justice Blayney found that the Government "acted in disregard of the provisions of the Constitution".
Justice Hamilton found that `'the use by the Government of public funds to fund a campaign designed to influence the voters in favour of a Yes vote is an interference with the democratic process and the constitutional process for the amendment of the constitution and infringes the concept of equality which is fundamental to the democratic nature of the State."
Justin O'Flaherty stated "to spend money in this way breaches the equality rights of the citizen enshrined in the Constitution as well as having the effect of putting the voting rights of one class of citizen (those in favour of the change) above those of another class of citizen (those against)."
Justice Denham declared that if the Government were to spend money advocating a particular vote they would "infringe on at least three constitutional rights, the right of equality, the right to freedom of expression and the right to a democratic process in referenda".
Mary Harney in stating that "it is unsatisfactory that spurious arguments have to be put forward in the interests of balance" clearly shows that she is not in favour of upholding the Constitutional principle of the equality of citizens. It is also worrying when the Government finds the Constitution too restrictive, for surely the purpose of a Constitution is to restrict the Government from acting outside its remit. Otherwise, what need have we for a Constitution? - Yours, etc., John Lacken,
General Secretary, Christian Solidarity Party, Foxrock, Dublin 18.