Sir, – A number of years ago as I sat outside a pub in Mayfair, London, I overheard a conversation between a young Iranian woman and two teenage schoolgirls from her own country. They admired her cool clothes and sophistication as she smoked.
She in turn expressed admiration for them wearing the hijab explaining that she had to leave the country as she could not live that life anymore.
What struck me was the ordinariness of the conversation and that these women were just like the women I know in my life.
So why the silence on the protests in Iran?
RM Block
Why has the Government not called in the Iranian ambassador to voice its displeasure?
Why no protests or marches to the Iranian embassy (I went to the embassy on Saturday)?
Why silence from the NGOS? Why silence from our own Opposition parties?
I think the protesters (and women in particular) are incredibly brave. What must life be like there for young men and women to go out and risk their lives for change? – Yours, etc,
DESMOND O’ REILLY,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Defence spending
Sir, – Lara Marlowe observed that Europeans must soon decide if they have the “collective will to be a superpower” (January 10th). In the same edition, Minister for Health Jennifer Carroll MacNeill noted that Ireland’s entire defence budget is €1.5 billion – half of what we spend annually on medicines.
While prioritising medicine over arms might appear philosophically sound, it underscores a persistent refusal to take national security seriously. This fiscal disparity is often championed by those on the political fringes who seem remarkably at ease with Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, yet it leaves Ireland in a state of strategic dependency.
The irony is profound: many who most fiercely defend the “Triple Lock” – effectively outsourcing our military sovereignty to the vetoes of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping – are the same voices who would loathe admitting that Irish security is implicitly guaranteed by the UK’s armed forces.
If we wish to be taken seriously as a European partner, we must stop pretending that neutrality is synonymous with a total abdication of self-defence – Yours, etc,
CIARÁN NORRIS,
Dún Laoghaire,
Dublin.
Mercosur and Ireland
Sir, – Cliff Taylor makes a strong argument that the Mercosur trade deal should have been supported by Ireland, (“Mercosur is good for Ireland – the politicians just won’t admit it,” January 10th).
As your columnist points out, the farming lobby makes much of the possibility of “unsafe product entering the Irish market”.
It might be useful, therefore, to consider the issue of the importation of animal feed into Ireland.
As the then minister of state at the Department of Agriculture, Pippa Hackett, informed the Seanad in 2022, more than two million tonnes of the animal feed imported into Ireland in 2021 was genetically modified,(GM).
In relation to soybean meal in particular, the EU is the world’s largest importer, with around 700,000 tonnes entering Ireland, on an annual basis, for use in the livestock sector.
Most of this product comes from the Mercosur, (Argentina and Brazil), the argument being that to import more expensive non-GM feed from other countries would put Irish farmers at a competitive disadvantage.
It would appear that, in this instance, economics prevails over important sustainability and health concerns. The approach from the farming community to imports from Mercosur could legitimately be described as selective and contradictory.
On a wider level, it remains to be seen whether the decision by the Government to oppose this trade deal, on the basis of the short-term appeasement of farmers and Independent Dáil Deputies, will have a long term and negative effect on our credibility as a genuine trading nation. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN McDONALD,
Terenure,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – The few farmers I know understand the environmental crisis and the role of beef farming in it. Yet that awareness is undermined by the refusal of the farming organisations to accept the nitrates Directive while opposing Mercosur on food safety grounds.
This hypocrisy negates otherwise valid arguments and has helped make Mercosur politically acceptable.
Rejecting environmental limits at home while invoking environmental damage abroad is not credible, and self-interest alone is not a persuasive argument. – Yours, etc,
JOHN SUTTLE,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
A baptism of some fire
Sir, – I’m writing in response to Dr Mary McAleese’s article, “Baptism denies babies their human rights,” (January 10th).
Dr McAleese attacks baptism by recasting a family rite as a rights violation. Her credentials are formidable, but they don’t confer a monopoly on moral insight. Nor is this only an attack on a sacrament: it lands as an attack on families and parents of young children – people doing their best, often in good faith and with genuine love – and at this time of year it feels unnecessarily insensitive.
Why dismiss as “risible” the lived faith of ordinary parents – people without canon-law credentials, yet deeply thoughtful about how they raise their children and what they pass on?
Baptism removes no civil liberty and creates no legal “no-exit” trap. Conscience arrives with maturity, and adults leave the Church every day, in ways both formal and informal.
If the concern is children’s rights, the urgent ones are obvious: abuse, poverty, online exploitation, and the need for genuine pluralism and easy opt-outs in publicly funded schools. Those are areas where a former president’s authority could genuinely unite people and protect children in practice.
And if “imposing” baptism is a rights breach, are the local GAA club, swimming club, scouts, and every rules-based community children join at their parents’ encouragement too?
CORMAC McCONNELL,
Dublin 5.
Sir, – Mary McAleese has raised some interesting issues in arguing that baptism denies babies their human rights, but the consequences seem minor to me.
Of far more concern is the tens of thousands of children, teenagers and young adults who have had Manchester United fandom imposed upon them by misguided, albeit well-meaning, parents and siblings long before they reached the age of reason.
WILLIE O’GORMAN,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
A dog’s dinner
Sir, – Last week I was about to order lunch in a Dublin restaurant when I noticed a nearby table occupied by a family of four and their dog, the dog sat with his paws on the table.
I pointed out to the waiter that there may be hygiene issue here and he attempted to assuage my fears by reassuring me “this is a pet friendly restaurant”.
I recall in the recent past that restaurants prohibited dogs other than guide dogs or assistance dogs, for hygiene reasons, has something changed?
I have also noticed the relatively recent proliferation of “pet friendly” hotels. This, in effect, means that guests may be sleeping in beds recently slept in by various dogs belonging to previous guests.
For non-dog owners, people with allergies or other health concerns and those genuinely uncomfortable about paying to sleep in a bed previously slept in by a dog, is it time to reconsider these policies?
Have we reached “peak dog?” – Yours, etc.
CONOR O’DRISCOLL,
Ballycullen,
Dublin 24.
Trump and the world
Sir, – US President Donald Trump’s ongoing threats to Canada, Greenland, Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba, are clearly the actions of a megalomaniac.
The really worrying part is that everyone, including the US Congress and the European powers are afraid to stand up to him. This is giving him carte blanche to aggressively act as he pleases irrespective of the consequences to the world order.
Can one be blamed for once again paraphrasing Edmund Burke’s famous words “all one needs for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing” ? – Yours etc,
CHARLES SMYTH,
Kells,
Co Meath.
Sir, – After recent actions by the government of US president Donald Trump, is it not time that democratic parties in Ireland, certainly those on the left, came together to organise a day of protest against Trumpism, not just in Dublin outside the US Embassy but nationwide, perhaps in co-operation with our sister parties within the EU?
Donald Trump is not simply the leader of a foreign state, he is the figurehead of an ideology that explicitly sets out to undermine the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the belief in the morality of government, the European Union, the concept of honest negotiations, the ideas of solidarity and compassion.
As if this wasn’t enough, he is now also preparing to invade the territory of an EU member state. There were street protests in the 1930s against fascism and Hitler, though far too few and far too late. Are we, as European citizens, allowing a similar disaster to happen again?
We are, thankfully, still freer to speak out than our governments who judge that under the current circumstances and on balance it might be preferable not to resist US blackmail. – Yours, etc,
JOACHIM FISCHER,
Ballina,
Co Tipperary.
Sir, – Mr Trump in his interview with the New York Times (‘I don’t need international law’: Trump restrained only by ‘my own morality’, The Irish Times, January 10th) stated he is guided and constrained, in his power as commander in chief only by his own morality.
I urge An tÚachtarán, Catherine Connolly, and An Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to also be guided by their morality in these deeply unsettling times. – Yours, etc,
EMER MAGEE,
Co Donegal.
Health of Irish cinema
Sir, – Paul Colgan, in anticipation of the Golden Globes, outlined the healthy stealth of Irish cinema in an article entitled “How did this golden age for Irish cinema come about?” (January 10th).
He gives credit where credit is due but unfortunately fails to mention the important contribution of CINE4, the TG4 initiative which has given us top class Irish language feature films, including An Cailín Ciúin, adapted from Claire Keegan’s short story Foster and directed by Colm Bairéad.
It was the first Irish-made film to receive an Oscar nomination for Best International Film at the 95th Academy Awards in 2023, and won numerous international awards at other film festivals. – Yours, etc,
DONNCHA Ó HÉALLAITHE,
Club Scannán Sailearna,
Galway.
Eddie Hobbs responds
Sir, – On January 4th, your journalist Conor Gallagher contacted me by email relating to an article he was writing about the political right in 2026 and referring to Steve Bannon’s comments on an emerging Trump here (“Eddie Hobbs: From consumer advice to conspiracy theories,” January 10th).
Politely, I advised as I’ve consistently done, that I’d zero interest in public office left or right and was sticking to media.
When he persisted, I said I’d consent to an interview if the Editor of The Irish Times was interviewed first on my channel Counterpoint. This conditional acceptance was absent in his article which misrepresented the exchange as refusal to interview.
He denigrates to a trope the vastly abundant global literature and counter science, publications and studies on Covid, climate and banking as conspiracy theories without offering a shred of insight. This is modern agenda journalism, it is not reporting.
In a TV series 20 years ago and consistent with a 2006 book, articles and interviews, I took an Irish audience through an exercise contrasting borrowings costs against ultra-low rental yields to once again, warn off investing in Irish residential investmentproperty.
The hit piece inverts this into advising to jump into the market. Either he failed to do primary research or based it on historical comments by the financially illiterate.
He refers to my opinion article in the Wall Street Journal 2012 which was triggered by the jimmying of the nascent insolvency Act which hobbled distressed debtors and gave banks vetoes. It’s a strong piece and accurate, and I’d write it again in a heartbeat, given the carnage caused.
He attributes words to me that I did not write, words from the Wall Street Journal headline, and skips my content and its damning conclusion about how Ireland was run.
He fails to give the full title to my current book; Breaking the Silence – on the return of totalitarianism, leaving out the reference to totalitarianism, the impulse for surveillance and control.
Smart people aren’t fooled by such a piece and ask why, why now, why behave this way? In the run-up to the presidential election my four minute piece to camera got a million views across platforms and data shows it driving the outcome.
The State establishment here for which The Irish Times acts as a mouthpiece is trying to strangle free speech, because it knows that a new epoch is opening, it’s why X is under attack. It is why I’m under attack.
It is why Eoin Linehan’s book Vandalising Ireland is attacked in The Irish Times. It is why Government ID is to be mandated to access social media, this is the next battlefield.
When I told your journalist that giving an interview to The Irish Times was not important to me, I meant it, what he heard was a whistle past the graveyard. – Yours, etc,
EDDIE HOBBS,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
