12 April 2001 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Mála Poist

Nice not in our interests



A Chairde,

An Phoblacht's recent articles on the Nice Treaty are timely. As May 31 - referendum day - looms closer, Irish people should be heeding the clang of EU alarm bells. Yet there seems to be a dearth of accessible information and equal-handed debate - why?

There is an urgent need for us to get our heads round what the Nice Treaty really signifies.

Despite the seductive lure of new export markets and the perception of a ``feel-good'' factor in giving a leg up to less developed Eastern European countries, Ireland stands to lose more than it would gain.

The Nice Treaty heralds the creation of a two-tier super-state in which the big players like Germany and France call the shots, and small fry like Ireland will witness more and more erosion of economic and political sovereignty.

Charlie McCreevy's recent wrist-slap for not toeing the EU budgetary line, reminds us that the ``big boys'' in Brussels don't take kindly to smaller member states doing their own thing.

The plethora of mysterious and unaccountable committees alluded to by Robbie MacGabhann will serve to cloak the more sinister elements of the Nice package, including the threat to our neutrality.

EU Commission Supremo, Romano Prodi, has said that building a European super-state necessitates changing ``the pillars of the nation state, the sword and the currency''.

Ireland has already brought into the great Euro scam; next year the punt becomes museum material. Will we allow our treasured neutrality go the same route?

The projected 60,000 strong Rapid Reaction Force would be a far cry from the Irish UN peacekeeping corps; it is the precursor of a European super-army under the aegis of NATO.

George Bush claims anti-global warming measures are not in America's interests.

Tony Blair pursues a near laissez-faire policy towards England's foot and mouth epidemic; he believes that discouraging visitors from stomping over infected countryside would not be in Britain's interest.

Well, signing up to Nice would definitely not be in Ireland's interest.

We have a chance to safeguard our neutrality, and shake off creeping EU interference in Irish affairs by saying a loud ÔNO' to the Nice Treaty.

And let us urge our cunning government not to run four referenda simultaneously; we all need clear heads for this one!

CarolMary Fraser,

Clontibret,

County Monaghan


Point of entry racism



A Chairde,

I received many of your weeklies from a friend in Ireland, which interested me very much. I noticed the news is what other papers prefer to gloss over so that the readers of those other papers are scarcely informed on what concerns the country they are living in. I made the rude discovery that racism was endemic in Ireland, after more than 35 years out of the country, when I returned in 1990. I heard more hard words towards strangers there than I ever heard in France.

In 1973 I encouraged a Nigerian student to go to Ireland where he told me he had found a place in a college in Dublin. He had a difficult problem with French. I flattered Ireland by error, as I learned, and off he went to Ireland. A few days later he was at my door. He told me that he was refused entry in spite of having all his papers in order. If he had been a French student of white colour, I am sure this would not have happened.

I felt embarrassed and ashamed for that country where I was born and refunded him his ferry ticket. I persuaded him to make a second try. I just couldn't believe that Ireland would be so racist. He took the ferry to Ireland once more because he believed me. This time he was allowed to enter, but only because a wealthy German business man, who happened to see his difficulty, spoke up for him.

I thank An Phoblacht for not depriving the voiceless Irish of their voice as the monetary motivated media does.

Terence J. Joyce,

Le Colombier,

France


GAA Guard' get it right



A Chairde,

So the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) have decided, by a narrow margin, to retain the exclusivity of its grounds for National Games.

There had been pressure in Ireland for it to modify' its rules and allow the use of its grounds and stadium for other sporting activities.

Not surprisingly the decision has led to some criticism and in one instance (the Irish edition of the Observer newspaper) the GAA  Guard' are referred to as dinosaurs. The article patronisingly extolled the fine qualities and many fine members'' of the organisation before going on to attempt a hatchet job on its governing board for putting Gaelic Sport first. For good measure the Irish government were also attacked for announcing a £60 million funding package for the GAA for its participation in the new proposed national stadium. The argument appears to be that had Ahern held off the funding package the GAA may have been induced to accept the rules amendment in order to earn much needed cash.

The Celtic League are delighted that the Irish government has not fallen into the trap of allowing sports funding to become a weapon to apply leverage to the GAA or any other sporting body.

The decision taken by the GAA is the correct one. When it was established Irish National Sport was in decline (almost extinct). That position has, over the past century, been dramatically reversed and the focus and control of that revival has been in no small part due to the adherence of the GAA governing body over the years to strict principles.

The advent of mass media and the commercialisation of International Sport, such as soccer, and also the rising impact in Europe of US-sourced sporting activities make retaining the distinct nature of Gaelic Sport a greater imperative.

The real dinosaurs are not what the Observer patronisingly referred to as the ÔOld Guard' of the GAA but those who attack its success.

The GAA have been criticised for missing the chance ``to join the rest of modern Ireland in the twenty-first century. However, the Celtic Tiger and modern Ireland may have as much longevity as concepts as Blair's ÔCool Britannia'. Why should the GAA have risked a century of success on such a shallow premise?

Bernard Moffatt

Celtic League


Dea-nuacht - Good News



A Chairde,

Dea-sceala a bhfuil suim agam ann. Good news that I wish to share.

The Supreme Court last week strongly criticised the State's failure to provide official Irish translations of laws and important legal materials. This failure was ``at its grossest'' since 1980, with only a small and uncertain number of statutes being translated haphazardly and in response to litigation or threats of such, Justice Hardiman said.

This was an offence ``to the letter and spirit of the Constitution'' (where Article 8 states the Irish language, as the national language, is the first official language) and a failure for which the apparent lack of staff in the office of the chief translator in the Houses of the Oireachtas ``is no sort of excuse'', he added.

This ``policy of inertia'' was a clear and obvious breach of Article 25.4.4 of the Constitution which stipulates, where the President signs a Bill in one of the two official languages, an official translation shall be issued in the other.

The State's response to this was ``unworthy'' in that, while conceding its obligation to provide translations, it argued the Constitution did not say when these had to be provided, the judge remarked. This meant years might elapse - decades in some cases.

Justice Hardiman was delivering his judgment upholding an appeal by Mr Seamus î Beolain, of Springfield, Tallaght, Dublin, against the High Court's refusal to grant him two declarations. By a 2/1 majority the Supreme Court granted declarations that the State has a constitutional obligation to supply the official translations of the Acts of the Oireachtas in Irish when the President signed a Bill in English and to supply the official translation of the rules of the District Court in Irish.

î Beolain had sought the Rules and the official Irish translations of the Road Traffic Acts 1994 and 1995 to answer a charge of drink driving under the Road Traffic Acts (RTA). He was summonsed to appear before the District Court in September 1997 and said he wished to conduct the case in Irish and to have Irish translations of relevant documents. When he had not received the official translations by March 1998, he took judicial review proceedings.

The High Court refused to grant the declarations sought and also refused an order prohibiting his trial until the relevant translated materials were provided.

Two of three Supreme Court judges upheld the appeal against the refusal to make the two declarations sought but they also refused to prohibit the trial.

However, Justice Hardiman strongly indicated that if translations were not promptly provided in future, the court might consider such orders appropriate in other cases. He said Mr î Beolain's prosecution had been deferred for some four years for one reason only - because he had asserted his constitutional rights as an Irish speaker.

In her decision upholding the appeal, Justice McGuinness said the State was simply unwilling to provide the resources to fulfil its clear constitutional duty and it was desirable for the court publicly to stress the mandatory nature of that duty.

Sean O Riain,

Rath Cairn,

Baile Atha Buí,

Contae na Mí


Support Kilmainham campaign



A Chairde,

Readers of An Phoblacht will be familiar with the proposal to build multi-storey office blocks beside Kilmainham Jail Museum. Plans to overshadow one of the most historic sites in Ireland are being vigorously opposed by residents of Kilmainham and Inchicore. Their campaign has been supported by Sinn Fein.

In this week when we recall the men and women of 1916, 14 of whom were executed in Kilmainham Jail, I would urge readers to rally to the support of the campaign to preserve the integrity of this historic place. Funds are needed to pursue an appeal.

The campaign can be supported financially at Bank of Ireland, Tyrconnell Road, Inchicore. Sort Code 90-01-64, Account No. 19339063.

Beir bua.

Caoimhghín O Caolain TD

An Phoblacht
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland