A chara, - Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, April 27th) writes that the Government is "pandering to racism, a cynical hollow pitch for the votes of a xenophobic minority". He goes on to say that "this is a serious charge, and one I would much prefer not to have to make".
We can presume, given his previous form, that Mr O'Toole means he will not shirk the responsibility of making that charge, though he regrets the necessity to do so. This shows his integrity.
It is worth examining whether the Government would be shirking its responsibility if it did not put the forthcoming referendum to the people, and whether it regrets the necessity to do so.
At the heart of every referendum lies the question: what kind of country do we want to live in? If there is consistency in the response of the people, then we move towards our ideal state incrementally.
The necessity of the forthcoming referendum was initially attributed to a "loophole in the law" that resulted in a disproportionate number of non-nationals arriving in State maternity hospitals in the late stages of pregnancy. Yet the figures for 2002/2003 birth rates recently released from Dublin hospitals made that assertion meaningless. There is no necessity to hold a referendum for that reason.
The focus remains on closing a "loophole in the law", but the reason is now to protect us against "citizenship tourism". In the absence of figures for this phenomenon, we are told people will take advantage of this loophole if we do not close it. This seems intuitively right.
But the Government's very narrow focus on this issue is a red herring that ignores the question: what kind of state are we moving towards if this referendum is passed? In any event, it is disingenuous of the Government to promise safety from "citizenship tourism" when it actually created the anxiety that we are being taken advantage of.
We should think about what kind of state that fear might create. Any restriction on our rights, including citizenship rights, will lessen the overall freedom within our society and so limit that of the individual citizen, however imperceptibly. This will affect over four-and-a half million Irish and only a few thousand non-nationals. The referendum is therefore about moving incrementally towards the creation of a less free State without proper necessity.
In this regard, one could also point to proposals to arm the police and quell forthcoming demonstrations as being unusual for a State that has strict gun control and an unsophisticated protest culture.
There has not been any hint that Mr McDowell fears a great wrong would be done to the Irish people in the absence of this referendum, or that he genuinely regrets its necessity. He cannot be said to be acting with integrity if he is acting out of any consideration other than what is best for the Irish people. However, given the taint of racism, it is possible that this referendum could be passed at the expense of our integrity.
Fintan O'Toole should continue to speak up. Mr McDowell will not listen to him, nor even to the Human Rights Commission. But then it is we the people, and not Mr McDowell, who will decide this referendum. - Is mise, etc.,
STEPHEN D. COLLINS,
South Circular Road,
Dublin 8.
****
Madam, - In 1992, following the X case, we amended our Constitution to facilitate pregnant women who wished to travel for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
It is now proposed that we amend it again to discourage pregnant women from travelling here for the purpose of giving birth.
Is that about the gist of it? - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL KEATING,
Ulster Street,
Dublin 7.