Sir, - Your paper and others carried a full page (October 23rd) of the case for and against the proposed amendment on cabinet confidentiality, one of the best-kept secrets in the country. This page was inserted on foot of the Supreme Court judgement in the McKenna case which required the State to give equal publicity to both sides of the argument of any proposed amendment. It would be reasonable to assume that the case would be set out fairly and accurately for all the people. This is not the case in this instance because there is a fundament difference of meaning between the Irish and English versions of the arguments as set out.
The Irish version tells us that in 1992 the Supreme Court determined that there is "forail shainraite"
for confidentiality in the Constitution, which translates as an "express provision". But the English version states that confidentiality is "implicity provided" for. The notices go on to say that the proposed change is to insert the principle of confidentiality "go sainraite", translated correctly in the English version as "expressly". The discrepancy raises a number of questions: 1. Which version is correct? 2. Has the McKenna ruling been complied with? 3. If the Irish version is correct, do we need an amendment, given that the present position and the proposed position are the same? 4. If the Irish version is incorrect, are readers of Irish not entitled to accurate and understandable information? 5. What will now be done, before the referendum, to rectify the matter.
Your readers may wonder why I write this letter in English - so that readers may get the correct meaning, of course. - Yours, etc., Gearoid O Bradaigh,
Baile Atha Truim,
Co na Mi.