Letter by Owen Corrigan in today's Irish Times

[laughingcow]

Madam,

Mike Heelan is wrong when he writes (Dec 27th), in relation to same-sex civil unions, that we should "canvass the opinion of the Irish people on the issue and hold a referendum". On this isue, the "opinion" of the Irish people is neither here nor there.

Were glorified opinion polls consulted in the United States in the 1960s when moves were made to end segregation there and to afford African-American citizens equal rights to the law?

No - for the very simple reason that to do so would have been an unconscionable affront to the human dignity of all those involved.

Democratic rule is not best served by recouse to such simplistic devices as national referndums.

There are times when the "will of the majority" cannot, and should not, have any bearing on the vitally important issues involving basic human rights and parity of esteem for all citizens.

Whether or not such a referndum would approve or reject same-sex civil unions is a moot point.

Equality in the eyes of the law is the keystone of a democratic society, and not something to be decided on an ad-hoc basis.

Surely there is a higher ideal that we must look to in relation to questions such as these - an ideal that respects the interestsof all citizens equally and not one that makes second-class citizens os some.

Yours,

OWEN CORRIGAN,
Trinity College
Dublin 2.

[Note there was also a letter published which was much in opposition]


This letter shocked me, from my reading of it Mr. Corrigan is saying that democracy is only okay as long as it satisfies him. If a demcratic decision is met that he doesn't agree with, it should be ignored.

My guess would be that Mr. Corrigan believes the Irish public would not support homosexual civil unions and so is attempting to bypass th democratic will of the Irish people.

Does anyone know if Mr. Corrigan is employed at TCD?

[JCSkinner]

No idea who Corrigan is.
This is a problem I have raised before. Democracy only suits single issue campaigns when the people also support their views. In cases such as the homosexual campaign for marriage rights, many of those propagating this opinion wish to see the voice of the people quietened, as they fear that the public would largely oppose their desire, I guess.
My position is that democracy is the voice of the people. When issues of major social change are not put to the people, democracy does not exist.
I have been told on another thread that we live in a Republic and not a democracy. This is a very sad development if true, and one that we should address immediately.

[smiffy]

My position is that democracy is the voice of the people. When issues of major social change are not put to the people, democracy does not exist.
I have been told on another thread that we live in a Republic and not a democracy. This is a very sad development if true, and one that we should address immediately.

If the issue is that major, why isn't it in the Constitution? Otherwise, who gets to decide whether it is 'major' or not?

[JCSkinner]

It could be argued that the reference to family in the constitution refers to heterosexual marriage.
And just because something isn't in a particular country's constitution doesn't diminish it's importance. The UK has no written constitution. Has it also no serious issues?
My point is that if we live in a democracy then the people should decide. I'd like to see regular referenda put to the people, with maybe half a dozen or so issues on each. Let the people decide.
Of course, the political elite don't want that at all, which is why it won't happen.

[smiffy]

It could be argued that the reference to family in the constitution refers to heterosexual marriage.
And just because something isn't in a particular country's constitution doesn't diminish it's importance. The UK has no written constitution. Has it also no serious issues?
My point is that if we live in a democracy then the people should decide. I'd like to see regular referenda put to the people, with maybe half a dozen or so issues on each. Let the people decide.
Of course, the political elite don't want that at all, which is why it won't happen.

If civil partnerships are repugnant to marriage as defined in the Constitution, then someone can challenge the legislation in the Supreme Court.

As an aside, if you want to live in a true democracy (as opposed to a Republic), you can kiss goodbye to any notion of fundamental rights you currently hold.

[Catalpa]

Yeah I read that too and found his view very disturbing!

If the people don't or do want it to happen is a matter for the people to decide.

Referendums are fine with me - especially after the last one which proved how out of touch the Liberal Elite are with ordinary Irish people!

[mjcoughlan]

It seems to me that Mr. Corrigan is highlighting concerns relating to the tyranny of the majority. These are concerns that, broadly, I would share. After all, didn't the Nazis get elected democratically?

[JCSkinner]

And so MJ is the first to cede the argument by introducing Nazis into the argument.
Frankly, if my fundamental rights are under threat in a democracy, then we could have a few referenda to resolve that. You might find however, that the state-supported right to burgle scared farmers repeatedly might be eroded somewhat, however.

[smiffy]

Frankly, if my fundamental rights are under threat in a democracy, then we could have a few referenda to resolve that. You might find however, that the state-supported right to burgle scared farmers repeatedly might be eroded somewhat, however.

No, it would be the very concept of fundamental rights which wouldn't exist any more. If everything is up for a vote, then any right which you might be granted in one referendum could be easily overturned in another one (which, obviously, means that the idea of fundamental rights is essentially meaningless).

Now, that's fine if that's the kind of political system you want. But there's a bit of a contradiction between advocating this kind of society on the one hand, and talking about breaches of human rights on the other.

[mjcoughlan]

And so MJ is the first to cede the argument by introducing Nazis into the argument.

No, it's a valid point. I'm not making foolish accusations. I am merely pointing out that it was the tyranny of the majority that brought Hitler to power. And, in fact, in what some would consider to be in the interests of democracy, the Nazi Party was outlawed in Germany following WWII. So, sometimes, too much democracy can be a bad thing and at times it has to be protected from itself.