Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The appearance of Rory O'Neill, aka Panti Bliss, on RTE's “The Saturday Night Show” has sparked a debate on homophobia. Rory O'Neill identified several individuals as having homophobic beliefs. I could go into a debate on what these people have said and written and how it could be identified as homophobic. However, I am willing to rely on Rory O'Neill, and his alter ego Panti Bliss, as a leading figure in Ireland's LGBT movement, to know what homophobia is. I am a straight, middle-aged man, so will not pretend that I know how members of the LGBT community are made to feel every day when faced with articles in newspapers, comments on the radio, abuse on the street and even accusations within the Chambers of this institution.

What I will discuss is RTE's censorship of Rory O'Neill and the debate surrounding homophobia. The Government has promised a referendum on marriage equality in 2015, following a recommendation by a majority of the Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to allow same-sex marriage. Those who publicly advocate inequality cannot hide behind defamation legislation when they are called out on the views for which they seek to gain popular support. The demand of significant sums of public moneys by such individuals or groups in place of a right to reply sets a deeply worrying precedent.

This country has had a poor history of censorship. For many years some of our great authors suffered at the hands of the censorship board. Section 31 kept Republicans such as myself off the airwaves for many years. RTE has a tradition of facilitating this censorship. As the public service broadcaster, it is deeply worrying to see this rear its head again. It should not be the case that those who call homophobia out for what it is should suffer censorship. The pay-out from RTE has potentially huge implications for the way in which the debate on marriage equality is carried out. As RTE receives funding from the taxpayer, the public have a right to know what legal advice it received before making this pay-out.

See this speech in context