Are you prepared to pay for the education of Jamie Sinnott - and the hundreds, if not thousands, of fellow-citizens with equally severe mental and physical disabilities - for the rest of their natural lives? That is the real issue arising from the State's amoral treatment of a 23-year-old autistic child whose learning capabilities with special education have enabled him to smile and use his hands over the past nine months. His mother, Mrs Kathryn Sinnott, fought her campaign for Jamie's right to have a free primary education - outside of the standard system for the majority of national school-goers - through the highest courts in the land. The Supreme Court, in a sitting of seven members, gave her answer.
The law is the law, the judges proclaimed in hundreds of pages of judgments. It could not be equated with justice. They determined that the State's obligation to provide for free primary education - under Article 42.4 of the Constitution - applies to children only, not adults, and ceases at the age of 18. One of the judges suggested that maybe the Education Act, 1998, together with the Equal Status Act, 2000 and the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000, could be more relevant to disabled persons since they imposed duties on public authorities.
The nub of the judgments - with the Chief Justice dissenting - is that the Government has the power to provide all the resources it wants to people with special needs. There is no provision in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to compel it do so. Jamie Sinnott needs an appropriate education in accordance with his limited abilities for the rest of his life. He has the mental age of a child and the chronological age of a 23-year-old adult.
The first fundamental personal right under the Constitution is that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. Since last week's Supreme Court decision, there is the most profound sense that this principle did not apply to Jamie Sinnott. His right to a different kind of education for the disabled was not vindicated.
Some 1,000 people attended a public meeting in Dublin this week in support of the Sinnott case. They are demanding a recall of the Dβil to frame a referendum to give Jamie Sinnott and his likes the right to an appropriate education for as long as they can benefit from it. Their demand - supported by the Opposition parties and Independent TDs, Ms Mildred Fox and Mr Harry Blaney - is being dismissed by the Government. They don't have the political clout of a Larry Goodman for a recall of the Dβil nor the political machine of the Pro-Life Campaign to secure a referendum. The disabled, alas, are not a big voting lobby.
We live in a democratic society which has enshrined the rights of the unborn in the Constitution. Is it not reasonable to give basic rights also to those born imperfect? Jamie Sinnott has had two years of formal education up to the age of 18 while the average student has 14. There is no reason to believe that this Government will legislate to make up the difference. The rights of the disabled to a different education can only be vindicated in a referendum because governments will always see Jamie Sinnott in terms of cold hard cash in the end.