Madam, - The fundamental issues raised by the McDowell-Connolly controversy go to the heart of how our democracy works. The affair highlights, among other things, the role of a free press, the separation of the justice system from the executive arm of government, and the security of citizens. Strong and varied views have been expressed on all sides of the argument and the standard of debate has generally been high.
There seems to be a divergence of opinion on what is the "substantive issue". Brian Morris's substantive issue (December 22nd) is the whereabouts of Frank Connolly "on the dates in question". This, Mr McDowell has argued, has implications for our security since allegations have been made connecting Connolly's activities with subversion.
David Carroll, on the other hand, thinks that the "bypassing" of the justice system and "the disclosure of of the contents of a Garda file during a private meeting" are more important issues since they "massively undermined the way justice is administered".
None of this might have seen the light of day, however, had not Frank Connolly been appointed to head a well-funded organisation to look into matters of public concern. This raises the further issue of how far people in power, who in a democracy represent all citizens, should go to undermine those whom they perceive to be political opponents without subverting their rights as citizens.
The tension in a democracy between the rights of citizens and the security of the state and the interests of those in power will always be with us and will survive the present altercation. It is good, therefore, that we have to debate some of these questions periodically and that we do not take our democracy for granted. - Yours, etc,
A. LEAVY,
Shielmartin Drive,
Sutton,
Dublin 13.
Madam, - Eddie Holt raises some very valuable points on the McDowell-Connolly saga (Weekend Review, December 17th). However, I cannot agree with his theory that people will take sides based on their position on the political spectrum (left-wing or right- wing). Whatever about Mr McDowell's "authoritarian" tendency I cannot agree with the conclusion that the Minister has done the State a "disservice".
Unlike Mr Connolly, who is not personally answerable to the Dáil, the Minister affirms his responsibility to defend the integrity of the State. If he were alive today, Kant, whose contribution to ethical theory is unquestioned, would highly commend a man or woman for acting with a sense of duty even when it may be at a political cost.
We live in an age where standards in public life are continually challenged and when institutions - even the Centre for Public Inquiry, funded from outside the State - must be carefully monitored. The big question is whether in the end we will have reason to be grateful to the Minister for Justice for his stand on this controversy.
Until Mr Connolly breaks his silence on his position we will not know the answer. - Yours, etc,
JOHN F. FALLON,
Boyle,
Co Roscommon.
Madam, - Irrespective of where he was in April 2001, Frank Connolly removed all future moral authority from the CPI when he refused to stand aside in the interests of the CPI and its funding.
The CPI board further sealed its own fate when it refused to remove him.
Atlantic Philanthropies' hand was forced in this issue, not by a Minister's actions, but by the CPI's. - Yours, etc,
MARK McGRAIL,
Verschoyle Avenue,
Dublin 24.
Madam, - Vincent Browne's column of December 21st was excellent. He expressed my thoughts more eloquently than I could. Michael McDowell has abused his position as Minister of Justice.
Like "Big Brother" George Bush he has done this under the guise of protecting the state against subversion. The words "Homeland Security" come to mind.
I cannot understand how the opposition parties have remained so quiet when they were so vociferous on the less important subject of Ivor Callely's wrongdoings. - Yours, etc,
CATHERINE POWER,
Cabinteely Crescent,
Dublin 18.