Sir, – I heartily agree with Cora Sherlock's comment on the imbalance in presentations given to the Citizens' Assembly, as quoted in "Pro Life Campaign criticises choice of speakers at Citizens' Assembly" (February 7th).
She speaks of the “glaring omission” that consideration was not given to allowing the 99 members of the assembly to hear from those who believe the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution has been a good thing for Irish society.
Despite this, each member of the 99-person assembly was required in January, in only their second weekend meeting and long before even half of the work of the assembly had been done, to give detailed written answers to specific questions on the Eighth Amendment in an “Individual Reflective Exercise”. It is most unfair to expect the members to give informed answers without first providing them with all the available information.
An assembly conducted in this manner has no credibility. I do not belong to any organisation or group. I am just a fair-minded citizen. – Yours, etc,
ANN KEHOE,
Castleknock, Dublin 15.
Sir, – With a number of friends, I made a submission to the Citizens’ Convention setting out carefully argued points requiring consideration. Separately, I made a submission raising an important constitutional issue regarding the powers and actions of Government during the current consideration of these issues by the convention.
I was appalled to learn that the submissions made by the public to the convention, at its invitation, were not to be considered by that body (“Submissions on repeal of Eighth Amendment ‘way beyond’ expected”, February 3rd). Only a very small number of submissions, randomly selected, would be considered.
In adopting this approach, the convention has, I believe, misled and betrayed those of us who took the trouble to take up the convention’s invitation and to make substantive submissions that raise important issues. For the great majority of us, this exercise will have been no more than a waste of our time.
It has been said that there were so many submissions that the convention could not possibly consider them all. Well, having invited submissions, that is the convention’s problem. Citizens responded in good faith to the invitation. The convention has a duty then, in justice, to consider the points made. It is not apparent why there seems to be so much time pressure on this convention that it cannot duly consider the submissions made to it.
Surely it would have been possible for the convention to engage professionals to examine all of the substantive submissions made and provide a balanced and objective summary of the key points from the submissions? Surely that would have been more respectful of the right of those who made submissions to be heard? – Yours, etc,
PETER CARVILL,
Sandymount, Dublin 4.