Your View: Far-right groups should hang their heads in shame
Picture: Her The Gave Woman And Physically Than Luas Taunted Sam She Was Other No Of Account Reason The Young File How Skin Then Assaulted Colour On Ie An Of The Boal/rollingnews For
The high point of RTÉ’s Monday night debate on immigration was surely the young woman’s heart-rending account of how she was taunted and then physically assaulted on the Luas for no other reason than the colour of her skin.
I hope this woman’s decision to go public will have been a wake-up call for all those people who mount protests hollering “get them out!” or who spout virulently anti-immigrant sentiment at public meetings or on social media, often under the guise of concern about unknown newcomers to the community, “lack of amenities in the area”, or a vague notion that “Ireland is full” (which is most definitely isn’t), a slogan that, revoltingly, was among the words used by the cowardly assailant on the Luas.
We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a society and ask: Do we have to wait for new laws or a boost in Garda numbers before we stop dehumanising people on grounds of colour, ethnic origin, or religious affiliation… or because their lifestyles, though not breaching any ethical code or law of the land, differ from ours?
Rosa Parks in 1957 paid a price for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery to a white man.
But this is Ireland, 2024, where an innocent woman on the Luas was threatened and assaulted owing to her assailant’s distorted perception of her ethnicity.
Far-right groups, whether part of the political process or otherwise, should hang their heads in shame before the courage of the woman who spoke up on the programme for all victims of racism.
If they had an ounce of common human decency they’d disband right now… and walk away from the politics of hatred.
Politicians being interviewed on broadcast media have been generously uttering the words: “Let me make myself clear”. Or similar.
Caution will need to be exercised here.
After all, you don’t want to render yourself so clear that people will see right through you.
In your editorial on November 22, you made the point that greenways have been developed all over the country, including the Waterford one, and have become successes.
However, you fail to point out that most of the greenways already developed were predominantly on public State-owned lands and avoided private farmlands.
This is the key point that IFA made on behalf of farmers when we met with Cork County Council last week to discuss plans for the West Cork Greenways.
Our position is consistent with the Government 2018 Strategy for the Future Development of National and Regional Greenways.
This strategy is clear in stating that “the preferred model for future greenways is to use lands already in the undisputed ownership or control of the State, either through government agencies, government departments or local authorities”.
By common consensus, housing and the cost of living are the dominant issues on voters’ minds as the general election campaign enters the final stretch, with migration, homelessness, and disability issues not far behind.
Add to these the usual suspects of health, the economy, mental health services and, further down the list yet nonetheless on many voters’ minds, the existential threat of climate change.
But what about animals, without whom society as we know it would barely function; I’m specifically thinking of food, medicine (experimentation), and clothing.
The manifestos of the three main parties offer little hope of any improvement in the lives of the animals we use and exploit.
People Before Profit has on paper the most progressive animal welfare policies of all the parties, but PBP won’t be entering government anytime soon.
Labour and the Soc Dems have animal welfare policies that, if implemented, could make a difference, but what are the chances that, when it comes to tough decisions in negotiations for a programme for government, these animal welfare issues will be sidelined, as was the case during these negotiations almost five years ago, when the Green Party caved on every single animal welfare pledge contained in its manifesto.
Small parties have to prioritise, and none of them are likely to prioritise animal issues.
So where does that leave our unfortunate animal companions, whose entire lives are dependent on us giving them a life worth living or a life of suffering?
Will any of the smaller parties have as a red line in negotiations the ending of blood sports, the defunding of the greyhound industry, or the ending of live exports, to name three key issues?
Past experience would suggest none will, but one of these days our politicians will have to deliver meaningful improvements in the lives of the animals who share this island with us all.
I hope that day is getting closer, though sometimes it feels like it is further away than ever.
Reality is really beginning to dawn on me now as Donald Trump starts the drip-feed of his choice of cabinet ‘minions’ and what he is set to implement in the first 100 days of his presidency.
All the while I am clinging to the hope that the reverberations of his ‘cabinet’ choices and the backlash from his first 100 days will initiate the derailing of his “populist revolution” and its propaganda of irresponsibility, especially keeping in mind the warring state of affairs in Ukraine and Gaza/Lebanon.
Although buoyed by Mr Gaetz’s recent withdrawal, my sense of hopelessness persists and is augmented by the fact that I wrote almost these same words in ‘letters to editors’ this time eight years ago and now look at where we are — petrifying!
I believe AI poses a prodigious challenge to democracy as a system.
Let’s not forget that we are talking about a system that has been serially shaken in recent years.
Real-life AI risks include things like consumer privacy, legal issues, and AI bias.
The hypothetical future risks of AI include things like AI that is programmed for harm and destructive behaviours.
We’re still recovering from the financial crisis of 2008.
We are also struggling to deal with the climate emergency, and now there is AI.
The future of AI is chilling, but we have overcome terrifying dangers before.
In the final analysis, we are still in charge of our fate. If we want it to stay that way, we have not a moment to waste.
Housing, homelessness, health, cost of living, immigration, and childcare are among the main topics being discussed during the current election campaign.
It is extremely worrying, however, that Ireland’s precarious national energy and security barely gets a mention in the hustings or on TV debates.
That such a vital sector remains under the radar suits the Coalition parties as they are wholly responsible for the gross mismanagement of the current perilous state of our energy security, supply, and infrastructure.
Today we are outliers in the EU in that over 80% of our national energy depends on imported fossil fuels, with no back-up LNG or nuclear facilities.
Up to 20% of our electricity is also imported from Britain, and the electricity grid and distribution system are unfit for purpose.
Despite the rhetoric from the Coalition and the wind lobby, according to WindEurope.org data, Ireland has one of the smallest wind electricity generation capacities in the EU.
The coalition spurned the opportunity to progress native offshore oil and gas off our coasts in a spate of irresponsible grandstanding in 2020 at the EU and UN, boasting that we were exemplars and global climate leaders, with the most ambitious climate action plan in the world.
Today we are confirmed laggards, with the highest electricity costs in the EU and destined to fail 2025 and 2030 targets.
Despite being almost totally dependent on imports, the inexplicable decision was taken to cease issuing offshore exploration licences.
Our cleaner, proven and abundant native offshore resources at Inishkey and Barryroe lie dormant, while we pay a staggering €1m every hour for inferior imported fossil fuels.
The supply comes through increasingly vulnerable pipelines, totally at the mercy of the British and the international markets.
Regrettably, none of the main party leaders, when asked, can explain the economic or environmental rationale for this inane strategy, given that Ireland will be dependent on imported fossil fuels for decades to come as we transition, snail-like, to renewables.
It is surely timely to seek policy clarification from canvassers looking for votes on the doorsteps.