Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The people of Longford-Westmeath are happy to have me here as a representative. They voted me in at a time when many of my party members were not voted in. In my humble opinion I believe that says something for my ability and what I have done for the people of that area, and I trust the Minister can see that as well.

The point I am making is that in a democracy it is important that we can have an open and frank debate. There are times when people say things, whether intentionally or unintentionally, which can cause offence to another party. Deputy Donnelly stated earlier - I concur with his view - that offence is rather subjective in nature. It is important that we have the opportunity for this debate in the Dáil today. The reason the Government introduced Friday sittings was to ensure that Opposition Deputies, whether Independents or those from a party, would have an opportunity for debate on legislation that might not necessarily come from the Government.

Let us be frank about the debate before the House today. What we have seen with the use of the current legislation and the use of the word "offence" was not what was originally foreseen. The battle lines are being drawn before the marriage equality referendum and a full and free debate is being systematically undermined by the immediate recourse of one side to the courts to censor the other. This is not good for debate or for our democracy. I imagine the Minister will concur that a strong democracy is built on freedom of speech. A lively and frank conversation with Rory O'Neill, the man behind the performer Panti Bliss, on "The Saturday Night Show" was swiftly countered with legal action against RTE, although RTE offered a series of remedies to meet the concerns of the individuals involved, including the right of reply. That is very important. People with an alternative view had the opportunity to come on the show and explain their alternative view. I acknowledge openly that they were entitled to their alternative view. Anyway, after these offers were rejected by the people involved, the national broadcaster took legal advice and settled to avoid a long drawn-out legal battle which it was doomed to ultimately lose. There has been much discussion about the rights and wrongs of RTE management deciding to bring a swift and relatively inexpensive end to the legal dispute, but the debate should not simply be about RTE. There are far bigger issues at stake, including freedom of expression and the value system of the country. We accept that this is the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced.

The legal action, I and my party argue, was not about defamation but about firing a shot across the bows of the Iona Institute's opponents in the upcoming referendum debate and restricting future discussion on the topic. The stalwarts of the institute were shaping the ground for future battles. They had no interest in taking up the right of reply to O'Neill's views or engaging in discussion on the issues. Instead, the institute engaged legal professionals and adopted an aggressive stance to send a clear message to any opponents that discussions would be limited to the mahogany benches of the Four Courts.

The provision to be deleted by this Bill in essence casts a cold wind on those willing to use freedom of expression to debate in a dispassionate manner things which they believe to be right. As a republican who firmly believes in the non-negotiable principle of equality, I am altogether unapologetic about my support for marriage equality. I fully acknowledge that people on either side of the debate feel passionately about the issue. I acknowledge, accept and respect that there are people on the other side who, similarly, have strong convictions and views. However, we believe debate should be open in a republic and not limited to one side rushing to their lawyers at the slightest offence. That does not make for a good democracy.

It goes without saying that passions will occasionally spill over the line of acceptable and constructive debate. We must view this in a mature way and in this light the Iona Institute cannot claim to be above name-calling. More sensitive and thin-skinned Members of the Oireachtas might have taken offence at being called "consensus monkeys" or "bonkers", and Members were referred to as such in certain articles. In reality, this is about the cut and thrust of debate in our country, and that is what democracy is about. It would be deeply unfortunate and immensely damaging to our capacity to deliberate on sensitive issues if debate is stifled by litigious elements.

As science evolves and society changes, we will be increasingly faced with complex issues that test our sense of self and offer no easy answers. Across a broad remit of areas, of which lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights is only one part, we face pressing questions that cut to the heart of our value system. Any democracy should deal with these challenges through an open and fair discussion that is not darkened by the shadow of intimidation. If debates are smothered under an avalanche of lawsuits before they begin, our ability to reach a common consensus will steadily be eroded. Instead, we will slip into a ceaseless culture war fought between embittered sides in the trenches of the Four Courts, where deep pockets will decide the course of public debate.

Intolerance driven by trenchant ideologies rather than by empathy will become the hallmark of an increasingly sterile national conversation. I think we are better than that. I believe we are more than capable of having a mature discussion on issues that challenge all of us, of reflecting on the debate and then casting our ballots accordingly. Having this discussion will demand some level of patience, personal restraint and mutual respect, and it should not be chilled by fear of a solicitor's letter floating through the letter-box. Democratic debate cannot be held hostage by rampant litigation.

In my view we have already made immense progress in previously sensitive areas. Ireland has made leaps and bounds in advancing genuine equality for the LGBT community over the past two decades. From the decriminalisation of homosexuality to the enshrinement of anti-discriminatory laws in the Equality Act, this country has made significant strides forward, of which we can collectively be proud. For these reasons, Fianna Fáil will be supporting this Bill introduced by Deputy Stephen Donnelly, on which I commend him. Its purpose and aims are those that we in Fianna Fáil, the republican party, can and will support. I hope the Minister does not take offence.

See this speech in context