Promises, Promises, Promises

With the announcement of a General Election expected soon, pre-election promises are thick in the air these days.

But what value do they have?

As to be expected, Enda Kenny is getting a free ride in the media in relation to his previous record on pre-election promises, and to the cynicism of his current ones.

Whatever An Taoiseach is promising now, he could have delivered any time in the past five years. But he didn’t.

An Taoiseach Enda Kenny

And he isn’t being taken to task by the media for his failure in this regard. Does nobody notice the contradiction in Mr Kenny’s position?

Right now he is promising, for example, that if re-elected as Taoiseach he will abolish the infamous Universal Social Charge.

He is Taoiseach now. He might not be after the election. So if he wants to abolish the USC, now is the time to do it. He may not get a chance again.

If Mr Kenny thinks that abolishing the Universal Social Charge is the right thing to do, then he should do so now.

Why doesn’t he do it? Why delay it until after the election?

And why don’t the honourable members of the media press him for an answer on this?

Is abolishing the USC the right thing to do? The IMF and the ECB don’t think so. Everyone can have an opinion.

But Enda Kenny apparently thinks it is the right thing to do. And for the past five years he has been in a position to do it, but he didn’t do it and won’t do it until after the election. How strange!

For all he knows, the last days of the present government may be the last chance for years to come to do what Enda thinks is the right thing. But he prefers to take that risk.

Why?

Could it be that right and wrong have no meaning in Irish politics? Is doing the right thing subservient to promising to do it in order to get elected?

The questions raised here about Enda Kenny and his promise to abolish the USC, apply equally to any other promises he might make. Or that anyone in the present coalition government might make.

Then there is the question of Enda Kenny’s past record on pre-election promises.

The one that most readily comes to mind is his pledge, before the last election, to not legalise abortion. 

The Labour Party made no such promise, so at least on that issue they are not guilty of making a false promise.

Was Enda’s pledge just another bit of meaningless blarney to pick up some extra votes? Was it just a cynical use of the lives of unborn children to get himself elected?

Or perhaps it was in the spirit of Pat Rabbitte’s televised admission of lying to the electorate:

“Isn’t that what you tend to do during an election?”

If Mr Kenny’s 2011 pre-election promises were worthless, why should we trust his current ones?

Refugee Crisis – A Possible Solution?

We might have some sympathy for those who favour mass immigration if they were to lead by example.

Angela Merkel, for instance, could have taken five or ten strapping young men from the Middle East or North Africa into her own home. Then she could have assessed what was involved in accommodating such migrants and, absent any major problems, could have reasonably encouraged others to do likewise.

Migrants on route to Merkel's Germany

But quite often those who demand great transformations in society are not the ones that will be most adversely affected by the consequences of the changes they promote.

It is hypocritical to advocate great sacrifices by society when these sacrifices impose an economic and social burden on others, but not on oneself.

To redress that situation Merkel, Frances Fitzgerald, Enda Kenny, and the like, could take refugees into their own homes, at no cost to the exchequer, and as an example to be followed by the masses.

Not just politicians. Journalists and other commentators and campaigners who want lots of refugees and migrants moving into Europe could show their sincerity by welcoming some of the migrants into their own homes. And the clergy too, could provide accommodation for refugees, since so many of them are among the most zealous supporters of open doors immigration policies.

Here in Ireland we are pledged to take in 4,000 refugees. Surely there are at least 4,000 campaigners for liberal immigration policies among the political and media elites, as well as in the organisations that are so quick to berate the rest of us for being mean spirited towards these throngs of young men on the move from muslim lands.

Such a high proportion of the population – so we are told – support mass immigration, that surely it shouldn’t be difficult to find 4,000 who will each accept a refugee. The more enthusiastic campaigners could take in a whole family of them.

Maybe we would end up with many more than the 4,000 for whom we have already signed up. It could run to tens of thousands, or more.

And the best part is that it would be no burden on the State or on the general population. Problem solved! Not even the fiercest opponents of mass immigration could object.

Meanwhile the hosts, kind hearted souls that they are, could prepare themselves to provide exceptional hospitality by studying the religion and culture of their future guests in order to learn how not to offend them in any way – often a difficult task when trying to integrate the competing interests of different peoples.

They could thus learn what their guests’ attitudes and expectations are in relation to women, for example, or to other religions, and could adapt their lifestyles accordingly.

In this way we could accommodate the greatest number of refugees with the minimum possible negative impact on society.

Germany, with its countless refugee welcome committees, could have followed this course rather than making an open invitation to entire regions of the world – an invitation which it recently renewed. In the end they could have welcomed as many migrants as have come, without so much social strife.

Maybe they could even have avoided the mass sexual assaults and attendant government and media cover-ups that occurred in Cologne and other German cities, since the immigrants would have been more dispersed, with less facility to form into gangs.

Why would what we are suggesting have been better for Germany, as well as the rest of Europe? Among other reasons, the idea is rooted in Christian charity, and is dependent on individual responsibility and self-sacrifice.

The alternative, chosen by most governments, is based on statist ideology. The executive authority, insulated from the people it is supposed to represent, decides everything. It dispenses the resources of the country without the consent of the people, and thus deprives them of the supernatural merits that they could otherwise acquire by their own charitable actions.

To those who argue for mass immigration:

Show us your sincerity. Bring immigrants into your comfortable and loving homes, instead of demanding that they be accepted in Europe – accepted and then dumped on a society that may not be inclined to invite huge numbers that they don’t feel up to the challenge of accommodating.

Who knows? Perhaps you could even dispense with the necessity for, and cost of, the frequently denounced and much despised Direct Provision for asylum seekers.

Windows of Life and the United Nations

We spent some days in Poland last month. Krakow. And it was cold. Compared to Ireland, very cold.

Outside our accommodation a thin layer of snow on a shed roof and atop an adjacent wall remained all week. It didn’t melt. The temperature didn’t reach above zero during that time.

Even well wrapped up in overcoat, hat, scarf and gloves we felt cold. So, we wonder, how an infant would survive if left out in that harsh climate. Poorly, if at all.

Mercifully, in Poland many convents are reviving a custom that dates back to medieval times, by providing shelter for otherwise unwanted and abandoned babies.

The “Window of Life,” originally called a foundling wheel, and also known as a baby hatch, is an incubator accessible from the street where an unwanted child, or one for whom its mother is unable to provide adequately, can be left in a warm, safe environment, under the benevolent care of the nuns.

Window of Life in Poland

The concept originated in Medieval Europe, under the influence of the moral precepts of the Church.

And so much does protection of the weak conform to natural law that the custom has been adopted by many cultures – even some with no roots in Christian civilisation.

A baby receives medical attention, food and shelter. And the mother can keep her anonymity if she so wishes.

So, all is resolved. Everyone should be happy with this merciful solution to the age old problem of child abandonment.

However, not everyone is happy with Windows of Life. Rather than showing gratitude for the charitable motives that inspire the custom, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), in a letter to the Polish government, demanded that the Windows of Life be eliminated.

A demand from this committee, or any other branch of the U.N. for that matter, is like the demand of an ill-tempered child for more television viewing time or more ice cream – of itself impotent, but too often heeded out of weakness on the part of the demandee.

Dysfunctional, desperate for relevance, the U.N. has neither the right nor the authority to make such demands. But it makes them anyway.

Fortunately the recently elected Polish government displays little deference towards transnational bodies that interfere in the internal affairs of its country.

Within a few days of assuming office the new government left EU institutions and a Europhile media apoplectic with rage because of its clear indication that it would work for Polish interests – as it was elected to do.

That is an impressive example for some future Irish government to follow. But don’t hold your breath.

Still, we must wonder what hatred inflames the soul of any person or group that would abolish the last safe refuge of an abandoned child.

Would the U.N. committee prefer if the child were abandoned to die of hypothermia?

So it seems.

It is beyond callous. It is diabolical.

Does the committee offer any alternative solution to the abandonment of children?

No. But, concomitant with its demand to abolish the Windows of Life, its demand on Poland to liberalise its abortion laws provides a clue as to UNCRC’s motives.

How will more abortion solve the problem of abandoned children?

It won’t.

Will it even alleviate the problem?

Obviously not.

In a similar demand made a few years ago to the Czech Republic to abolish baby hatches, the U.N. committee cited the right of a child to an identity. So, if we understand them correctly, a baby has a right to his or her identity, but not a right to life.

Since the UNCRC seems to think it better to kill the child than to save it without an identity, does that mean that it will demand, in future, that the identity of aborted babies be respected?

In other words will the UNCRC insist that those who died from abortion get individual graves instead of their dead bodies being dumped as medical waste or used to fuel hospital heating systems?

The real problem that the UNCRC seems to have with Windows of Life is that they provide an alternative to abortion.

Their very existence undermines many of the arguments used by pro-abortionist activists.

Windows of Life clearly diminish the concept of an unwanted child.

With their kind and merciful welcoming of life they show up the abortion industry for its cruelty.

They ensure that the care of a child is never beyond what is possible.

They spare the mother – juvenile, unwed or otherwise – of shame and embarrassment.

It is the pro-abortion lobby that is left with shame. And now the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child joins them.

Perhaps this is why they are determined to rid the earth of this charitable and pious custom – because it makes them look bad by contrast. Perhaps it even troubles their consciences.

The UNCRC and other UN bodies have made similar demands on Ireland. Will our government show similar resolve to that of Poland? Or will they show obsequious deference in the face of international demands?

We would be surprised to find anything other than the latter from our present government. But maybe we can elect one in the future that will show leadership and strength.

Meanwhile we wonder how the Irish government will fare under interrogation by the UNCRC tomorrow.