Madam, - Trenchant, well-argued opinions add vitality to a newspaper. But the reader must be confident that the facts underlying the opinion are accurate and fairly represented.
Mark Steyn's ignorance undermines his opinions in your edition of December 1st. He moans about the US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He condemns her willingness to take notice of decisions handed down by courts in other countries. He fumes: "Can you imagine any judge in France, Denmark or Ireland taking US court decisions into account when deliberating on, say, gun ownership or capital punishment?"
What nonsense. It is well established and normal practice for judges in Ireland to consider US decisions on constitutional controversies.
The US and Irish Constitutions establish systems of government based on common values - for example, that our rulers are accountable to citizens, that no one is above the law and that essential powers are separately allocated to the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. US Supreme Court decisions are cited frequently in Irish courts when constitutional issues arise for interpretation. It is entirely sensible and appropriate for judges to make themselves aware of how similar questions have been addressed in other countries. Unlike Mark Steyn, supreme court judges in many countries know how important it is to see what others have done to solve similar problems. This problem-solving approach is the opposite of Mr Steyn's dogmatic blindness.
Did Mr Steyn really not know about this judicial approach - or would admitting it have spoiled the divisive, isolationist point he was trying to construct? If the former is the case, his column should carry a health warning. If the latter, then his reluctance to deal with inconvenient facts is, in his own words, "philosophically incompatible" with the job an Irish Times opinion columnist is meant to be doing. - Yours, etc.,
JOE NOONAN, York Terrace, Cork.