Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next item is under the names of Deputies John Lyons, Jerry Buttimer, Michael Colreavy, Clare Daly, Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, Catherine Murphy and Mick Wallace, regarding RTE's reported compensation to the Iona Institute and others. Deputies will have two minutes each and one for a supplementary. I ask Deputies to be careful of what they say and to remember what is allowable under Standing Orders.

John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue of national interest, given the number of people who have not only contacted RTE but many Members about it. There is a massive public discourse going on about this particular issue and a momentum has built up. It is important that in this Chamber we get a chance to have some sort of a discussion around this issue.

Citizens must have confidence in RTE to moderate and facilitate robust debate on issues of social concern, particularly at this time on issues around LGBT rights and equality. After “The Saturday Night Show” several weeks ago, RTE’s decision to pay out a reported €85,000 in compensation has severely damaged public confidence in our national broadcaster. We need to get to the bottom of this. We are at a very important time with LGBT issues in Ireland. We have come so far and over the next two years we will debate some important issues that will, please God, bring the same rights to every citizen on this island, rights some do not have at this stage. To do this, we need to have a national broadcaster which allows robust debate and for people to be challenged around their views.

Was there one person in charge or one point of contact from the moment RTE decided to deal with this issue until it paid out this compensation? On what basis did it decide to pay out this compensation? The RTE managing director’s press release stated the legal position was far from clear. If the position was far from clear and RTE had various legal advices over a number of weeks, stating it should not pay to that it should pay, on what basis did it decide to pay this money out? I know the legal advice RTE used to pay out this money is privileged and, accordingly, we are not entitled to it. However, there has to be some political will to find out on what basis this compensation was paid out in the national interest. I believe RTE was wrong to pay out this money on what was essentially an anti-gay prejudice issue on which people were challenged.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The sequence of events arising from “The Saturday Night Show” give rise to serious concerns on how public discourse is conducted, the language we use, the labels we apply to others and, more important, the role of our public service broadcaster. I believe RTE was erroneous and wrong in what it did in this case. It folded too quickly. Who advised the broadcaster on this? What was the nature of the advice? Were those who gave this advice involved in other organisations? Our public service broadcaster has an obligation to provide balanced, responsible and fair transmission of social matters and issues. As a public service broadcaster, it must facilitate fair and balanced debate on matters of public importance. Central to this obligation, I believe, must be an entitlement of these participating on programmes in RTE to voice honestly held opinions and make fair comment. RTE must act as a fair arbitrator and stand by the right of people to voice honestly held opinions on its platforms. Otherwise, it acts to undermine its public service remit.

There is a contrast with what RTE did in this case and what happened in the Abbey Theatre several days ago when the whole issue of homophobia and LGBT rights was fully explored. RTE, on the other hand, parked a debate on this at the first opportunity. What would happen if we were discussing racism? If somebody was accused of racism, would that have to be defended too? As Deputy Lyons rightly said, we have made many advances in the area of rights for gay people in this country. Where there is homophobia, however, it must be challenged and stood up to. I hope this debate today will lead to a national discourse on this matter leading up to the referendum on marriage equality.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As taxpayers, citizens and public representatives, it is important we put on record how appalled we are by what RTE has done in this case. I believe this will be a defining moment and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be judged on how he deals with this and what happens next.

At the core of this are issues of freedom of expression and basic human rights. As somebody who has had some horrible and inaccurate things said about her in the media, I know how difficult it is to get them corrected. That makes it doubly unbelievable how quickly RTE handed over money in this case. Nothing inaccurate was said. That is the critical point. The people and the organisations that benefited from this pay-out have clearly argued that LGBT people should be treated differently. That is nothing else other than homophobia. To call it anything else is, in my opinion, an abuse of language.

Brendan O’Connor in the apology offered said it is an important part of democratic debate that people should be entitled to hold dissenting views on controversial subjects. That means, however, one also has to have the right to express a different opinion on that dissenting view and call it by its proper name. As Deputy Buttimer said, if someone is known to be a racist, has expressed racist views, and we call them a racist, are we to then to apologise to them for calling them by the right name?

This issue has enormous consequences for society. Parliament must send a strong signal that we will not tolerate homophobia. Unless this issue is addressed, the only conclusion that people will draw is that if one has big pockets, then one can use them to stifle debate and control opinion. Irish people do not want to live in such a society.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unlike some Members here, I am not in any way surprised about RTE being biased nor have I learned anything new about it through this case.

This is one of many cases in which it has shown its bias. Sadly, while it is meant to be a public service broadcaster, it appears to have its own agenda on many different issues. Hopefully, something good will come out of this and one good thing to emerge is that people like Deputy Colreavy or like me, from counties Leitrim or Roscommon, can proudly state in this Chamber that they wish to defend gay rights. Forty years ago, had one done what Deputy Colreavy did here today, one would have been worried going home and that constitutes massive progress. It would be nice if there were no homophobia but pretending there is not does not make it all go away. The speech made in the Abbey Theatre explained it so beautifully and that while we are all homophobic - we are - it is a case of working on it and trying to learn about the whole situation and fighting against it and in the end, everyone gets his or her rights. Sadly, however, some people are more homophobic than others and some people do not appear to make any effort to deal with that homophobia. It is sad that one now is being denied even the right to use the word. Moreover, I discovered this morning that another word has been banned by RTE. One is not allowed to use the word "Ballyhea" either. This is a gay rights issue too because, guess what, the €70 billion they robbed from us in Europe affects people who are gay, as well as straight.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the past couple of weeks, some Members have felt they were living in a parallel universe. A huge debate has been taking place online through sites such as TheJournal.ie, Broadsheet.ie, as well as on Twitter and Facebook, with the mainstream print media largely being absent from that debate. Yesterday, the head of television in RTE explained to staff the reason the broadcaster apologised and paid €85,000. This screams to me of discontent within RTE. It is obvious that many of the station's personnel know there are times when defending the principles behind public service broadcasting ranks higher than the fear of litigation. John Waters, Breda O'Brien and the Iona Institute all can be described as opinion formers. They have made themselves part of the public discourse - I stress public discourse - on such issues as same-sex marriage and frequently present gay people's relationships, as a starting point, as being lesser. For this to go unchallenged is about setting the parameters of the debate to their advantage and as a referendum will be held next year, that is of critical importance timewise. Why the rush by RTE to apologise and pay? Was it because it was aware those complaining had deep pockets and the ability to amount a credible legal challenge? If so, one must ask how those pockets came to be so filled. The second issue is that one of the complaints came from John Waters, who then was a board member of RTE's regulatory body, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI. Is it not a massive conflict of interest and was RTE under additional duress? Why did the BAI suddenly change its code of conduct on 22 January, the same day on which RTE agreed the payout? Is this the reason John Waters resigned from the BAI on 24 January or did the Minister ask him to resign? Given the massive payout and the obvious conflict of interest, does the Minister believe, as do I, that he should return that money to RTE?

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also watched Panti's speech at the Abbey Theatre and it is very powerful. One would think RTE had an obligation to facilitate free and open debate but in this instance, it failed miserably. Some people now are more offended by the word "homophobia" than they are by homophobia itself. This is censorship. In a press release last week, the Minister stated that homophobia "is too loaded a term to be used to categorise those who hold contrary views on what is a matter for legitimate public debate". I will point out that it is not for heterosexuals to define what is homophobia. We do not have the right to tell gay people what does or does not constitute homophobia. This was summed up eloquently by Panti Bliss in her Abbey Theatre speech last weekend, when she stated:

So now Irish gay people find ourselves in a ludicrous situation where not only are we not allowed to say publicly what we feel oppressed by, we are not even allowed to think it because our definition has been disallowed by our betters. ... [T]he word "homophobia" is no longer available to gay people. Which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia - homophobes are.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I thank the Deputies for raising this issue and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in the House. Moreover, I acknowledge the range of Deputies across the parties, as well as Independent Members, who have expressed in the Chamber this evening a broadly similar view. I stated recently that personally, I would not use the term "homophobe" to describe those who disagree with me on issues of gay equality in general or gay marriage in particular. I thought it was too loaded a term to be used to categorise all those who hold contrary views on a matter for legitimate public debate. As Deputy Wallace has just noted, some people I know and whose views I respect may have misinterpreted those comments. They state I do not appreciate the subtle and insidious nature of homophobia. I thought I was making a somewhat different and subtle point of my own.

Issues like this are informed by deep-felt religious, moral and social considerations. Opinion undoubtedly will be divided and the best one can hope is that people debate the matter calmly, in good faith and with respect for opposing viewpoints. However, it is of no assistance at all if we lump together our opponents, all those who will vote "No", by borrowing from the lexicon of liberal intolerance.

I also stated last week in the same statement that I hoped people who hold themselves out as commentators on, or contributors to, public debate fully appreciate that debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile. Politicians are expected, including I suspect by some of the litigants here concerned, to function in such an environment as normal. Consequently, why do they apply a different norm to themselves, although at least some of them are not averse to name-calling politicians on occasion? It would be a matter of serious concern were recourse to the defamation laws to have a chilling effect on public debate on this issue in the lead-in to the referendum. While the defamation laws are outside my remit, the Broadcasting Act is not. At present, section 39 requires every broadcaster to ensure that nothing is broadcast that may reasonably be regarded as causing offence. That seems to me to be an unfeasibly rigorous approach. We all know how easy it is for some people to be offended, even where offence was not intended and is not objectively ascertainable. I intend to propose miscellaneous amendments to the Act shortly. Among them, I now am considering an amendment that would require broadcasters to avoid causing undue offence. That seems to me to be more objective and more in tune with the realities of public debate.

As everyone knows, RTE is an independent public service broadcaster. It is obliged to be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, to reflect the varied elements that make up the culture of the Irish people and to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression. The Broadcasting Act 2009 provides that the company is independent in pursuance of these objects.

I, as Minister, have no role in managing editorial matters, making decisions around programming or dealing with litigation claims. I have no intention therefore of interfering in RTE's management of this specific case. I have read yesterday's statement from the managing director of RTE Television. RTE has a crucial role in the conduct of public debate and it remains fully committed to ensuring the full and free exchange of information and opinion on all matters of legitimate public interest.

While RTE is answerable as a public body, it does not, and should not, operate under political supervision, either at ministerial or parliamentary level. I have seen the invitation to RTE from the Oireachtas communications committee. Provided the engagement takes place at the general level of principle, without reference to the specifics of individual cases, I fully agree that the committee is entitled to hear from RTE an outline of its approach to libel complaints in the context of its obligations as a public service broadcaster. The committee is also entitled to satisfy itself that RTE will continue to discharge its public service obligations without fear or favour. However, it would not be desirable for the committee to become embroiled in the management of particular claims. Ultimately we rely on our broadcasters to provide a forum for matters of public debate and, indeed, controversy and to ensure that, when these take place, the necessary level playing field is provided for all concerned.

John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. Two people in here know what homophobia feels like, what it is like to be called a queer, a fag, a gay. Just before Christmas I walked from my house around to the Centra where a bunch of teenagers called me gay or some other name they call us. I thought I was living in a society where this stuff is no longer acceptable. On "The Saturday Night Show" Rory O'Neill challenged people on these issues and called it what it is. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. RTE was completely wrong and bang out of order when it got numerous types of legal advice saying perhaps it should not give out any sort of compensation. RTE got it wrong. Everybody in the public knows it got it wrong. RTE needs to come out and let us know that it got it wrong. Otherwise there will not be confidence in our national broadcaster to mediate any debate with confidence, particularly around issues that affect my life, the people who love me and love all the other people who are not treated properly in this society.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully accept the Minister's position regarding involvement in the day-to-day management of RTE. However, we as a society and this Parliament have a role to play in the national broadcaster. RTE got it completely wrong. It folded in its tent . This week in the Oireachtas we were told as gay people that it is a matter of "social re-engineering" by the "gay ideological movement". I am quoting from a Member of the Seanad. I speak not just as a gay person but as a member of society who wants to be treated equally. I have been beaten, spat on, chased, harassed and mocked, like Deputy Lyons, because of who I am. I was born with a gift given to me. I have spent most of my life struggling and am finally at a place in my own country, which I love, to be accepted. The support from my colleagues in this House and from the Ceann Comhairle is a demonstration of how our society has come forward, but in a tolerant, respectful debate I will not allow people who spout hatred and intolerance to go unchecked.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said it is not up to him or the Parliament to oversee the day-to-day operations of RTE. Yes, but if this Parliament and the Minister do not say that was wrong, if we do not identify it as being wrong, we support it and it will happen again and again. There will be people out there waiting to be offended, doing automated word searches to find offence. I know people, many of whom would have been far more seriously aggrieved at what was said to them on RTE, but who did not rush to claim money. This Parliament needs to point out that this was wrong and we do not want to see it happen again.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a little disappointed with the Minister's response because he seems to have tried to justify some of the comments last week and maybe he has missed some of the points. Nobody has said these people do not have the right to express their opinions. The issue is that other people have the right to call it by its proper name and challenge that without being censored. In his statement the Minister said it would be a matter of serious concern if recourse to our defamation laws was to have a chilling effect on public debate. We are saying it is a matter of serious concern that this issue has happened and that there will be consequences unless we take action.

I do not know if the Minister saw the Channel 4 programme broadcast last night which linked an increase in violent attacks on gay people in Russia with the Russian government's treatment of gay people and its explicit homophobia. These actions have consequences and for the likes of Brendan O'Connor to turn around to somebody in his audience last week who told him about being beaten up for being gay and say that is real homophobia is ridiculous. RTE needs to be independent and balanced and the best thing the Minister could do to take society forward on this would be to ask the Department of Education and Skills to make it mandatory that all schools would be allowed to listen to Miss Panti Bliss's speech at "The Risen People". Society would be far better if people were to hear that.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are at a point where we could potentially go backwards and forget about all the gains that have been made on this issue over the years, or we could drive it further forward by fighting what RTE has done and getting it to row back on it. That would end up as a good news story overall. While we have won many battles on this, it is still an acceptable term of abuse in a national school in this country to call someone gay. It means there is something wrong with a person, not necessarily his or her sexuality. It is used as a negative term. It is in the secondary schools. An 11-year-old girl took part in a debate in a national school in my town where she spoke in favour of gay marriage and the whole classroom started laughing at her. They are hearing that somewhere at home. We need to drive this forward rather than going back into the dark ages. Unfortunately, the Minister has pointed the compass in the wrong direction.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fact that this is our public service broadcaster is critical because we expect a higher standard. We expect balance because we pay a licence fee. We expect it to defend the principles of public service broadcasting. If that means taking the challenge of litigation, that must be taken up. It starts with one thing and all of a sudden we find the erosion of a whole lot of principles and rights in terms of debate. In a democracy we cannot accept that. I asked the Minister a number of questions about the code of conduct. It was changed the day the payout happened. There was a resignation the day after. Did the Minister have any knowledge of that? Did he have any involvement in requesting that resignation? Does he see this as a serious conflict of interest by somebody who is a litigant? The money should be paid back because there is a serious conflict of interest here.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said RTE is an independent broadcaster. RTE depends on the good favour of the Government of the day and on big business for advertising. I do not find it so independent. Today I received an e-mail from Ross Golden Bannon. He said:

Our community and our supporters now face into a campaign for the referendum on marriage equality in 2015 with one hand tied behind our backs. The most distressing part for those of us now silenced from using the word homophobia is that the mainstream media does not see how it has been played with the legal hand. I heard Colm O'Gorman say today as a result of RTE's capitulation it is going to be more difficult to challenge positions adopted by those who oppose equality, more difficult to question if prejudice and discrimination underpin their opposition to a fundamental human right. We would do well to remember that without a properly informed citizenry, there is no democracy.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, let us get the conspiracy theories out of the way. The coincidence regarding the code of conduct has nothing to do with this. I did not see the programme at the time, but I have made it my business to see it since. The first I heard about the issue was when I was advised of the resignation of a member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. I presume he resigned because he envisaged litigation against RTE. I assure the Deputy that anything else is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with that.

It is one thing to express the view that homophobia poisons the water that can nurture violence, as Deputy Daly mentioned in regard to what we saw in respect of Russia. It is another thing to seek to intrude into or ascribe motivation to the RTE decision in respect of the contemplated litigation. The RTE explanation is that it had expert advice - from inside and outside as I understand - available to it that advised it did not have a case to defend. As a result, it made the decision it made. It is true that RTE is the public service broadcaster, but it is also true to say it is a commercial company and it made a commercial decision, as it does frequently, in respect of contemplated defamation actions and so on. It is not an exception and it made the decision.

Colleagues in this House are entitled to bring to bear their own judgments on the merits of that decision and whether they would have made the same decision and whether the principles that have been adduced here override reliance on purely commercial decision-making. However, I repeat that the RTE explanation is that this was another file, it got expert legal advice and made the decision it made. I wonder whether in the medium and longer term, in terms of public discourse on such a fundamentally important issue as this, we will have been damaged by this controversy. It seems to me that this far out from the referendum, it may be no harm at all that these issues have been ventilated now. It is plain that this House is of a singular view. That message cannot fail to go out from here. However, I still stand by my position that I draw a distinction between my intruding in the management of any particular litigation file and my requiring of RTE to in no way resile from its obligation to discharge its public service imposition under the Broadcasting Act. That is the critical factor as we prepare to put the building blocks in place for the ultimate referendum.