Sir, - Fintan O’Toole’s recent column (“This election has become about the nature of the presidency itself”, Opinion, October 14th) comparing the prospective presidential candidacies of Heather Humphreys and Catherine Connolly strikes a troubling tone. By describing Ms Humphreys as “harmless” and “anodyne”, Mr O’Toole veers into intellectual snobbery, deploying condescension where serious political argument should be.
Humphreys was a senior minister with a long and honourable record in public service. She has held some of the most challenging portfolios in Government – including justice, social protection, and rural and community affairs. To dismiss her as lacking substance is to ignore this record entirely.
There is, quite frankly, a strain of misogyny at work when a female candidate who is measured and pragmatic is brushed off as unworthy, while unpredictability and provocation are framed as virtues. Is a woman only to be taken seriously when she is confrontational?
Let us also remember that the Irish presidency is defined by the Constitution as a non-executive, largely ceremonial role – one that requires wisdom, restraint and unity. It is not the job of the president to be a political agitator or to serve as a permanent critic of the government of the day. A presidency that seeks out confrontation risks undermining the very dignity and impartiality the office exists to uphold.
RM Block
Mr O’Toole is, of course, free to favour one candidate’s vision over another. But elevating that preference by demeaning a decent, capable woman – and implying that the electorate should seek out drama rather than dependability – does a disservice both to the presidency and to public discourse. – Yours, etc,
JAMES KENNY,
Greenville,
Listowel,
Sir, - A “harmless poor divil” was not always a pejorative term, now the application of the adjective “harmless” may cost a “nice” woman an election. - Yours, etc,
ETHEL REYNOLDS,
Clonmel,
Co Tipperary.
Who is the greenest
Sir, - Former TD Brian Leddin argues (“I resigned from the Greens over its backing of Connolly”, Opinion October 15th) that the Green Party’s support of Catherine Connolly signals that it has become “less concerned with the environment and more focused on broader social issues”.
He states that “I hope that, in time, [the Green Party] will once again focus on the greatest challenge of all – safeguarding our environment and addressing climate change.
This week we have learned of the destruction of 30 acres of centuries old forest in Co Cork, including almost 2km of what the National Parks and Wildlife Service described as “ancient, long established” hedgerows, possessing “high biodiversity value” for local wildlife.
This is the second reported such incident this week, and one of many similar acts in recent years. A direct line can be traced from this destruction to the cultural and political climate cultivated by the Heritage Bill brought in by Heather Humphreys as minister for arts, heritage and Gaeltacht affairs in 2016. The Bill allowed for a two-year pilot law that would permit hedge-cutting in August and burning in March during nesting season.
The Bill was vociferously opposed across the spectrum of environmental organisations.As Green Party Senator Grace O’Sullivan stated in opposition at the time, “You cannot slash and burn for two years and call it scientific data collection. That’s not how science works.” Despite widespread and vocal opposition, the Act was bulldozed through the Oireachtas in 2018. A noteworthy investigation by Niall Sargent found that 3,000km of hedgerows, many of them ancient, were cut or removed in just three years, from 2018 to 2021.
In contrast, Connolly’s votes, speeches and actions are evidence of someone focused, as Leddin asks, “on the greatest challenge of all – safeguarding our environment and addressing climate change”.
Indeed, in her speech in favour of her I4C colleague Thomas Pringle’s Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill, Connolly foreshadows Leddin’s claim; “Is é seo [athrú aeráide] an dúshlán is mó dúinn sa Dáil seo. Má theipeann orainn céimeanna a thabhairt maidir le hathrú aeráide tá an cath caillte.” - Yours, etc,
SINÉAD MERCIER,
Dublin.
Role of the president
Sir, - Stiofán Ó Briain (Letters, October 15th) has missed the point. As a constitutional head of state, the president has no personal opinion but is the embodiment of the country.
Brian Leddin is convincing in his argument that Catherine Connolly will have a hard time suppressing her lifelong urge to oppose and protest. She may even believe, like Ó Briain, that election by a majority gives her personal opinions precedence in decision making.
This will lead inevitably to a constitutional crisis and her resignation. Years after the last presidential crisis, Garret FitzGerald remarked that Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh was both unsuitable and unhappy in the role.
President Ó Dálaigh could not suppress an opinion from his legal training to initiate the crisis and then felt either the minister must resign or he would, rather than accept an apology as requested by the taoiseach. The last crisis was not used to address fundamental flaws in the constitutional role of the president, the next one will. – Yours, etc,
VIVIAN McALISTER,
London,
Ontario.
Lack of choice better than no choice?
Sir, - I regularly hear people frustrated about the supposed lack of choice in this year’s presidential election with three names on the ballot, but only two actually running.
It might feel unusual, but a little digging shows it is actually quite common. Of the 14 presidential elections Ireland has held, six were completely unopposed. That’s about 40 per cent of all contests, or nearly 70 per cent if you count by individual Presidents.
The last time it happened was 2004 with Mary McAleese, not exactly a lifetime ago but maybe three terms is long enough to make it feel like ancient history.
Unopposed elections in turn also mean there’s no vote at all, so at least now you still have the ability to exercise your democratic right. While it may admittedly not be an abundance of a choice, it still beats having no voice. – Yours, etc,
PETER ELST,
Donabate,
Co Dublin.
Ferriter on Mansergh and Haughey
Sir, - I greatly respect Diarmaid Ferriter. While I do not always agree with his analyses, I admire how he brings his well-informed historical opinions to the public forum rather than merely seeking acclaim among his academic peers. A case in point was how he recently braved opprobrium with his partial defence in your newspaper of de Valera’s position during the Treaty negotiations, bringing a proverbial ton of bricks down on his head.
But I must disagree with his description in his otherwise very fair assessment of Dr Martin Mansergh (“Mansergh was much more than a mandarin”, Opinion, October 3rd) of the latter’s “loyalty to Charles Haughey” having been “blind” and of his extensive running commentaries (not merely an “introduction”!) to his 1,200-page 1986 collection of Haughey’s speeches, The Spirit of the Nation, as “fawning”.
While Haughey’s numerous Dáil contributions can now be easily accessed thanks to the excellent online Oireachtas record, other significant speeches he made outside that forum, which Dr Mansergh assembled and published in that book, if even just to 1986, and providing their contemporary context, would otherwise be largely lost. Given the towering figure Haughey was in Irish politics in the latter half of the 20th century – however one may view him – this of itself is an invaluable service.
In dismissing Dr Mansergh’s collection of Haughey’s speeches, Dr Ferriter also claims that Dr Mansergh wrote many of these himself. This is not true. The collection covers Haughey’s career only to 1986, the eve of him becoming taoiseach for that most significant period in Ireland’s fortunes, 1987-92.
I spoke with/interviewed Dr Mansergh at length about six years ago for a PhD thesis I was writing at DCU on that period. He stressed to me that of all the politicians he worked with, Haughey was highly unusual in many ways, not least in that he crafted most of his own speeches, seeking input from officials and advisers only on matters of facts and figures or their views on what he was proposing to say. The political content of his speeches was entirely his own. Dr Mansergh also only came to his advisory role in 1980 and, as he readily admitted, it was some years before he fully grasped the intricacies of Haughey’s policies in areas other than Anglo-Irish matters. So he was not even in a position to have written “many” of those pre-1987 speeches.
No successor volume to Dr Mansergh’s 1986 collection ever appeared, alas. The post-1992 public atmosphere simply ruled that out. I would, however, direct interested people to an outstanding and measured assessment of Haughey by Dr Mansergh in response to some outrageous comments by Dick Walsh in The Irish Times. This long letter, titled “Mr Haughey and Thatcherism”, appeared in the March 12th, 1999 edition of your newspaper. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP O’CONNOR,
Howth,
Dublin.
Irish in the North
A chara, - In his article about road signs in Irish in Belfast, Newton Emerson reports that unionists disagree that Irish “belongs to us all”. Yet many placenames up north are derived from Irish. Examples include Belfast meaning “Ford mouth” and Shankill meaning “Old church”. In particular, I look forward to the renaming of Shandon Park as “Old Fort Park”. - Is mise, etc,
PASCAL Ó DEASMHUMHNAIGH,
Inis Corthaidh,
Loch gCarman.
Obesity medications
Dear Sir, - Your article “Obesity medications may not make you thin or happy but they will improve your health” (Magazine, October 11th) portrayed healthcare professionals as being unconditionally supportive of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), without acknowledging ongoing debate and complexities surrounding their use.
The article gave little attention to the opportunity costs of this drug at a personal and public health level (such as diminished focus on supporting healthier diets and physical activity), the very real side effects that can occur (including data submitted to the UK drugs regulator linking 82 deaths to the drugs) and the fact that trials underpinning use of the drugs in the management of obesity required all patients to adhere to strict calorie-restricted diets and increased physical activity.
Independent studies have also shown that up to one-third of the weight lost through GLP-1RA use can be muscle and bone, which can increase the risk of falls and fractures. Because of many unpleasant side effects (such as nausea and dehydration) up to two-thirds of people stop taking the drugs after one year. Cessation of the drug is frequently followed by weight regain, which can be up to two-thirds of the weight lost. There is a risk that much of the weight regained is fatty tissue, meaning that muscle and bone loss are not reversed unless a strict diet and exercise programme is adopted.
The article also failed to mention that one of the pharmaceutical companies marketing these drugs was suspended from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 2023 for serious breaches of its code of practice, including the misrepresentation of promotional activity as education.
While GLP-1RAs can offer meaningful benefits in appropriate clinical contexts, a more balanced and critically informed approach would better serve your readership and public understanding. - Yours, etc,
DR CAROL SINNOTT,
Honorary senior visiting fellow,
University of Cambridge.
PROF RAY O’CONNOR
Adjunct clinical professor of general practice,
University of Limerick.
Simple acts of kindness
Sir, – As I was driving south past the Mater hospital on the North Circular Road in Dublin today, I got a puncture and had to stop to change the back wheel of my car. I pulled in just after the junction with Dorset Street.
As I was examining the puncture, two lovely things happened. First, a young lady passing by noticed my situation and asked if I needed help. Then, as she spoke, a man who was about to enter the doorway of his house came over and offered to assist.
Not only did he offer help – he actually changed the wheel for me. All I did was hand him the tools. The whole process took no more than 10 minutes. His name was Edwardo, and he was originally from Venezuela.
These two simple acts of kindness reminds me that there is still great goodness in people. - Yours, etc,
BRIAN HURSON,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.
Music by numbers
Sir, - I regularly read Peter Lynch’s columns with interest, but his article on music and maths (“Music and maths are inextricably intertwined”, Science & Climate, October 16th) was a disappointment. After laying out some of the basic mathematical foundations of music, he then moved to the music of Schoenberg, which he dismissed as being based on “mathematical principles”, a definition many musicians would question.
As he rightly concluded, “any explication of music must combine mathematics and aesthetics”. In other words, a piece of music may be brilliantly constructed yet be completely uninteresting.
Schoenberg’s contemporary, Hauer, also devised a system for organising composition, but he is scarcely remembered because his music was not compelling. The reason Schoenberg is remembered is because he wrote many highly imaginative pieces. Ironically, he fell foul of a younger generation who considered his music to be too romantic.
As, unfortunately, there is no room here for a discussion of the aesthetic mysteries, I would recommend that anyone with an interest in music listen to Schoenberg’s Violin Concerto, available in a number of recordings.
VINCENT DEANE
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.
