Galway Advertiser 1994/1994_12_15/GA_15121994_E1_050.pdf 

Extracted text

C O M M E N T

&

L E T T E R S

What's Wrong With The Drink-Driving Laws
efore we try to explain what, in our judgement, is wrong with the recently introduced drink-driving laws it is necessary to make one thing perfectly clear: we support absolutely whatever measures that need to be taken to end the kind of irresponsible and excessive drinking that is not only a potential danger to life but which has, on occasion, led to a horrific loss of life on our roads. We are also conscious of the growing problem of under-age drinking, though this is really a separate issue to that of the moderate social drinking we shall be con cerned with below. Having said that, however, we believe the recently introduced laws are illthought out, unrealistic, savagely punitive, and, in the long run, unworkable in practice. To take the first criticism, there has been growing awareness and appreciation of the consequences of drivers operating motor cars after they have consumed a large amount of alcohol. The result has been, over the past few years, the intro duction of much tougher laws and stricter enforcement, especially at those times of the year, like Christmas, when traditionally more drinking goes on that usual. Until this year it was possible to have a few drinks and remain within the law. No longer. Ireland, in this way, has followed the lead of Britain and other EC countries. But why did our law-framers not look farther afield, to the United States and Canada, for instance, where drivers are allowed a greater measure of freedom within certain well-prescribed limits, which, if broken, however, result in very stiff penalties. The law is strict, but it is also realistic, as well as recognising an element of personal responsibility and choice. For the main objection to the new laws is that they are unrealistic. Is it real istic to declare someone who has had a single pint to be incapable of driving? Is it fair to convict A of breaking this law and B not to have broken it, when the test is based on something as variable as bodily make-up and size? Is it not ridiculous to convict someone the next morning of a drink-driving offence because he still carries traces of alcohol content in his bloodstream, alcohol consumed, perhaps, at home, after dutifully obeying the law by not going out to the local pub? Can a law be judged fair that makes no distinction in law between the person who has two or three pints and another person who has had, maybe, ten or twelve? Any reason able person can recognise how unrealistic - and, strictly speaking, unjust - such a law is. As the law stands, if you are convicted under these new laws, in theory even if you have exceeded your legal limit by a single pint, you can loose your license for two years. Take an instance: you are a lorry driver, a salesman or company rep, a country postman, and you rely on your car to do your job. You are 'bagged', tried, and convicted, and lose your license for the maximum period (while we realise such a case may, in practice, turn out to be rare, judges often like to give at least one maximum interpretation of a law, to show it has 'teeth'). Is certain - or even likely - that employers will be so understanding they will arrange things, at what we must assume to be considerable inconvenience, to ensure that after two years things can go back to normal? How can it be fair that the maximum interpretation of an unrealistic law can result in possible loss of employment and even, in certain cases, recourse to the dole? But, it will be said, the law will not be enforced so strictly, especially after the Christmas 'blitz' is over. Maybe. But then what was the point of introducing it in the first place, and not simply continuing with the previous, already quite strict law? It brings the law itself into contempt if it's there on the books but 'winked' at. There is another point, and it should not be contemptuously dismissed. Strictly interpreted, these new laws are an attack on the very distinctive 'pub cul ture' of Ireland, where the pub is a social focus in both city and country, a place to meet and talk or watch the World Cup. Especially is this the case in the country, where contact with friends is vitally important to banish isolation and depression. In fact, strictly interpreted, the drink-driving laws are actually anti-drinking laws; as things stand in law, you might as well simply declare: You may not drink if you drive, and have done with it. What would we propose? Firstly, a graduated approach to the problem, reflected in, say, a sliding scale of fines and penalties that recognises the differ ence between the two-pint drinker and the twelve-pint drinker. And allow for dis cretion on the part of the local gardai, who, especially in rural areas, knows the difference between the person who likes his two pints in the evening, and the per son who usually can hardly get his key in the ignition slot This is a bad law, which will cause more problems than it will solve. A healthy dose of common sense is needed.

"A Moving, Dignified Ceremony"
A Borgia and Wardenship
he name o f Pope Alexander VI is known to historians for because o f the association o f his period in the papacy with corruption. He was born into the Borgia family which had Spanish ori gins. His rise tot he see of St. Peter was marked by bribery and his period of office saw his influ ence used to advance the careers of his children, Lucrezia and Cesare. He was a great patron of the arts at the height of the Renaissance at the end of the fifteenth centu ry. But he was also ruthless to hiss opponents who included the noted Dominican preacher Savonarola. Macchiavelli's "Prince" was based on the Borgia image of politics Galway's association with Alexander VI had nothing to do with the scandals which marked his reign. Indeed they were remote from the lives of the peo ple of Ireland. HOwever, there were troubles nearer home. The warden and vicars of the as yet newly created wardenship of Galway were finding difficulty in getting possession of some of the parishes assigned to them since 1484. Under Pope Innocent III the parish of Claregalway was united with the wardenship. Later William Joyce, Archbishop of Tuam, added Oranmore and Maree, Moycullen Skryne and Rahoon to those united with the Collegiate Church of St. Nicholas. Father Maurice O'Flaherty, despite the archbishop, laid claim to Moycullen paris while Roderick O'Kennewayn (Canavan) and Owen O'Flaherty held that they were entitled to Kilcummin and Kilrowan. Richard de Burgo held firmly to Oranmore and Maree. These issues were minor ones to the Papal See but the pope did set up a commission, chaired by the bishop of Clonfert. to investigate the controversy. The hearings began in this week in 1497. After a solemn investi gation the commission reported in favour o f the warden and against those described as intruders. The award in their favour, however, availed the warden little The intruders were not ousted. A further appeal to Rome was made by the warden. This result ed in a bull in January IS, 1501. denouncing "all those sons o f iniquity" who interfered with the rights o f the wardenship. So Galway was indebted to Alexander VI T P . O'Neill Dear Editor, Please allow me some small space to thank most sincerely Jo and Joan and the other mem bers of their Committee of ISANDS who arranged such a beautiful ceremony on a recent Sunday in the new Cemetery to com memorate 'all babies who died before birth and shortly afterwards'. It was wonderful, moving, dignified and very well organised ceremony and an awful lot of work went into it and I am sure I speak for all

B

T

parents who attended it when I say special thank you to them all. Both Jo and Joan gave very touching speeches, and the Readings, Hymns and poem by Mary O'Malley were so very appropriate. And finally, the name-bearing plaques by Fahy Monuments are beautiful. The Western Health Board should also be com mended for their input. Thank You, Mary and Sean Silke

W e Should Have Buried You....Ten Years O n
Dedicated to baby Maire

We should have buried you, my angel, with solemn hearse and black-plumed hors with all the ceremony of the tribe, pomp and ceremony, echoing organ, with relatives and good friends shedding tears, funeral dirge and glorious purple, Sweet music, incense and the prayers Joycean extravagance, high self-indulgenc composed to appease the memory of the race. And why? for who? for you? for me? Technology first rent the veil With thousands dying every day and told a tale of malproportion. at your age, the pain of loss Your little body inside mine affecting thousands, millions more, would only live a brief half hour. in war, in drought, in abject misery, Live only to die. the callous wanton waste of man's destruction of his fellow man. A nice man looked after things, and brought you to a special plot Yet there's got to be a deep primeval instinct reserved for such as you. that we must bury our own dead. In former times the 'cillin' was the resting Antigone felt this duty when she buried place Polynice, her brother, of unbaptised babes, and incurred the wrath of ancient Thebes. remote, apart. The handful of dust is germane to us all. They who died in such a state did not deserve the balm of mother church. But selfishly, to ease our own sad loss, our hurt and guilt, Some weeks had passed before I knew to bring full cycle what we had begun, the path we should have taken. this now I know, By then you lay within the Angel's plot, We should have buried you, my love. all dust to dust, inexorable finality. Niamh O'Dochartaig We should have buried you, my love, 12 Jan. '89.

Thanks to C i t y Council For Ballet Help
Editor, On behalf of the Ukrainian State Ballet Company, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking Galway City Council for their wonderful response to our Financial dilemma. On my own behalf a special word of thanks to Mr. Joe Gavin, City Manager, and Mr. James Harrold. Arts Officer. Galway audiences may look forward to seeing the Ukrainian State Ballet again, possibly next October. Sincere thanks to those people who gave contributions to the Salthill Hotel. Y o u r s sincerely, Regina Rogers Hill House', Taylors Hill, Galway.

'Cheers!' for Morgan
Editor, I would just like to say how much I agree with Morgan O'Doherty in what he writes about the new drink-driving laws. The laws are not just anti-drink driving. They ate totally antidrink and really whoever made them up might as well have banned drinking altogether. I hope they don't live to regret it when people start driving around full of drugs instead of a few pints. Yours, Paddy

Dear

McHugh, Ballinamantan,

Gort, Co. Galway.

Dear

THIS WEEK...