Sir, – When the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System, chaired by TK Whitaker, published its landmark report in 1985 it bemoaned “the triple depressant of overcrowding, idleness and squalor which dominates most Irish prisons”.
The prison population at the time was 1,863.
Yesterday, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment condemned the State’s tardiness in implementing reform recommendations (“Failures of State’s torture prevention mechanisms criticised,” Home News, November 12th).
The same day, our prisons held 5,669 people, 557 of whom were sleeping on mattresses on cell floors. These squalid and cramped conditions are degrading and dangerous.
RM Block
The Government is committed to a programme of prison building. This will take time, cost a fortune, and do nothing to address the underlying drivers of prison population growth.
The way forward is to use prison as a last resort, to hold anyone sent there in decent conditions where they can avail of therapeutic services, and to adopt a more generous approach to early release. This was the approach recommended by the Whitaker committee 40 years ago and the passage of time has not made it any less compelling. – Yours, etc,
IAN O’DONNELL MRIA,
Professor of Criminology,
(Author of Prison Life: Pain, Resistance, and Purpose),
University College Dublin.
Take 10, Fintan
Sir – Fintan O’Toole’s cogent article “The State is unified on not wanting to talk about unity,” (November 11th) could perhaps be summed up briefly: Irish unity is about 10 years away, and always will be. – Yours, etc,
RODNEY DEVITT,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.
Presidential inauguration
Sir, – The inauguration of Catherine Connolly as the 10th President of Ireland was another example of the exclusionary tendencies of this State. At every turn, it ignores and marginalises many of its minority faith traditions.
At the inauguration, there were myriad versions of Christianity represented, as well as Jewish and Muslim traditions. However, the Buddhist and Hindu traditions were excluded, as if they do not exist as substantial traditions with many adherents in this country.
Indeed, there are many more Buddhists and Hindus in Ireland than members of some of the faith traditions that were included in the inauguration.
Whether this can be put down to ignorance, a blindspot, or a deliberate decision to exclude by the organisers, I do not know. But it is a recurring fact that many Irish citizens do not see their traditions represented in the presidential inauguration.
Better to have a streamlined and wholly secular presidential inauguration rather than one that excludes many of the various substantial traditions on this island. – Yours, etc,
Rev MYOZAN IAN KILROY,
Dundrum,
Dublin 14.
Penalty points and the poor box
Sir, – Marie O’Halloran’s article (“Courts still allowing drivers to avoid penalty points,” November 11th) raises serious concerns regarding the appropriate application of penalty points by some District Courts.
With all due respect to the learned judges of the court, the law is the law. The High Court has ruled on this issue and determined that the District Court has no power in law to impose “an informal sanction” such as “a donation to the poor box”.
In doing so, is a judge breaking the law, and if so what sanction are they subject to? Very little if any it would seem.
Perhaps they can purge their “contempt of the law” with a contribution to the “poor box” (what an outdated and demeaning title by the way).
In all seriousness, the president of the District Court should act to end this errant practice.
As is usual in Ireland, we have laws in place to beat the band, in this case to change dangerous driving behaviour. But what use are they if they are not applied?
We need An Garda Síochána to detect and prosecute offences and the courts to do their bit by imposing the appropriate sanctions.
It is not acceptable that repeat offenders are let off the hook because they can afford to donate money to a charity. – Yours, etc,
GARRETT SHERRY,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Geese are not guilty
Sir, – Your headline, “Brent geese put paid to 580 Dublin apartments” (Business, November 10th), does a disservice both to journalism and to environmental protection.
The wording suggests that a protected species is somehow to blame for the refusal of planning permission, when in fact the decision stems from the proper application of environmental and planning law.
Light-bellied Brent geese are a protected species under both Irish and EU legislation, and their presence is a marker of the ecological value of the Dublin Bay area, not an obstacle to development.
We have laws designed to safeguard habitats and species, and unfortunately our track record in doing so leaves a lot to be desired.
To frame their protection as an inconvenience fuels misunderstanding of why such laws exist, and resentment towards wildlife.
If a project fails to secure permission because it cannot meet the requirements of wildlife or habitat protection, that is not the fault of the geese, but rather a failure of planning or site selection.
Your headline shamefully scapegoats Brent geese for our continuing inability to plan development responsibly. – Yours, etc,
IAN O’CONNOR,
Headford,
Co Galway.
Crunching the numbers
Sir – Emma Murphy writes wondering why her Danish acquaintances seem to have more children than people in Ireland (Letters, November 11th).
Personal impressions are misleading. The total fertility rate in Ireland is currently 1.60, and in Denmark 1.52. In both countries it has risen in the past three years.
Whatever about generous parental income supports in Denmark, they do not seem to produce strong effects on the birth rate, an experience which holds true for several other countries. – Yours, etc,
JOHN SHEEHAN,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Primary school education
Sir, – I’d wager that the majority of Irish primary schools carry the words respect, inclusion and unity within their mission statements.
Caroline Daly (Letters, November 10th) campaigns for parents to support initiatives for greater choice within our primary education system.
In so doing, she implies that the current system fails to foster empathy, curiosity and understanding of diversity.
She further states that multidenominational schools hold the key to unlocking the challenges of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment by teaching children to respect difference, challenge prejudice and see humanity in everyone.
What a narrow view this contributor projects of our primary school system. She implies that none of this is currently being done in schools that are not multidenominational or that the woes of society can be blamed on the non-teaching of diversity education.
I taught for 37 years in primary schools where the most important word the children learned was respect. We fostered empathy, inclusivity and above all ensured that regardless of religious beliefs, every child was, as the Constitution sets out, cherished equally.
Children learned about world religions, different cultures and diversity. The children were taught (aside from formal religious instruction) about morality and injustice.
We supported programmes such as Roots of Empathy, where children learned about empathy from a mother and her new baby.
We practised restorative justice. We ran initiatives to support children in famine and war-torn countries.
We ran anti-bullying campaigns and supported the “Kick it Out” racism programme.
The school had a very holistic view of education and I was incredibly proud of the level of respect, inclusivity and humanity among the school community.
I would share the views of your second letter writer on this topic, Susan Farrell, who calls for the withdrawal of religious instruction from the formal school curriculum.
This would afford those who are qualified to teach the Catholic religion an opportunity to deliver to those whose parents wish them to receive this education.
The sacraments are, by and large, all delivered outside of school hours so the further step of withdrawing all religious education should not present as a major obstacle.
The reality is that all primary schools are now multidenominational. The majority still operate under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. To suggest, by implication, to those who teach in these schools that an alternative model can better nurture respect, inclusion and unity is quite simply disrespectful to this cohort. – Yours, etc,
AIDAN BOYLE,
Dún Laoghaire,
Dublin.
Sir, – I recently completed the national survey on primary education. The options were: would I prefer my children to be educated in single sex or co-ed; through the medium of Irish or English; and with a single or multidenominational approach.
I’m curious as to why there was no option for non-denominational education. – Yours, etc,
KARL SHINE,
Swords,
Co Dublin.
Trump and the BBC
Sir, – Your editorial on the importance of public service broadcasting, November 11th, written in light of the resignations of two of the BBC’s top executives, surprised me.
These resignations came in the wake of a report that a BBC Panorama programme had spliced together two segments of a speech by US president Donald Trump which significantly changed his message to his detriment.
I agree that it is essential to have public service broadcasting, a communication channel the public feel they can trust to be neutral and above all truthful.
What the BBC Panorama programme did was neither neutral nor truthful. Your editorial glossed over this fact by not condemning it outright. Instead your editorial went on to praise the BBC, describing it as “one of the great achievements of the post-imperial British state” and as having “served as a model for broadcasters”.
The deliberate splicing of separate elements of the speech of a significant public figure to create a particular message, should, I think, have been called out for what it is in your editorial. – Yours, etc,
MARY FITZGERALD,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – Perhaps the BBC should apologise for editing US president Donald Trump’s speech to convey its essence.
In reparation , I suggest they broadcast the full speech at prime time.
This will enable the public to evaluate if Trump was actually inciting an insurrection by falsely claiming that the election was “stolen”. – Yours, etc,
BILL O’BRIEN,
Kincora Road,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Kathy Sheridan rightly extols the fantastic programmes that are a daily feature of listening to the BBC.
I am not sure if she is condoning or condemning the Panorama “splicing” of the now infamous Trump speech on Capitol Hill.
I am saddened to see such a wonderful media organisation in such crisis. However, it must examine institutional or cultural bias on a number of issues as pointed out by current and former BBC employees if it seeks to remain the standard bearer of objectivity and impartiality. – Yours, etc,
MIKE MORAN,
Clontarf,
Dublin3.
Trump and the Democrats
Sir, – Across the United States, Democrats experienced incredible (and frankly unexpected) levels of success in last week’s elections, winning sweeping victories that make it abundantly clear that most of the American people are fed up with the last 10 months of Republican policies.
That context makes the recent news about Senate Democrats caving to end the longest government shutdown in American history absolutely unfathomable.
So many of the Democrats who won elections last week, most prominent among them New York City’s Zohran Mamdani, ran and won on platforms of affordability.
The primary reason for the government shutdown – healthcare costs – is fundamentally an issue of affordability.
It simply makes no sense, then, to throw in the towel on the shutdown immediately after receiving the largest imaginable sign of public support for fighting Republicans precisely on the issue of affordability.
I don’t mean to dismiss the fact that the shutdown has caused a great deal of suffering for many Americans and surely would have continued to do so had the deadlock in the Senate continued.
Trump, however, is like a school bully: he has simply crossed his arms, stuck out his tongue, and said he wouldn’t have meaningful conversations with Democrats.
To fold now, without winning any long-term concessions, shows Trump yet again that immaturity is a winning strategy.
I thought the Democrats had finally found their backbone. It looks like I was wrong. – Yours, etc,
DYLAN FOX-ARNOLD,
The Liberties,
Dublin 8.
