Joe O'Toole (Independent)

That is my view and there is no place for it in society. I suggest not so much that such programming should be banned, but that it should be singled out as something which the community does not accept and that we should not make jokes about the weakest members of society or some disability with which such people are born or must cope.

When it comes to the portrayal of sex and sexuality on the screen there seems to be different rules. Paedophilia is outlawed and it is a crime to broadcast it. However, pornography, which may not be quite as bad since it deals with adults, can involve exploiting, using and abusing men and women. However, we appear to have no difficulty in addressing such matters.

Several Senators spoke about the importance of satire and it is healthy to have it in society. Reference was made to such programmes in the past as "Ballymagash" or "Scrap Saturday" which provided entertainment. Satire is good and necessary and it is healthy for political life. Political figures should accept it goes with the job. However, accepting satire does not mean dropping all standards. For example, the way in which some people in the media, public life and phone-in shows have spoken about political figures has made me cringe over the years. I can provide many examples. I recall advertisements in recent years that referred to Deputy Mary O'Rourke, for which Mr. Michael O'Leary was responsible, and which were distasteful, to say the least. On another occasion the images of the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were presented as racist in newspapers. Such advertising is appalling. There were advertisements in which the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, was accused, among other things, of being racist. She was publicly humiliated by what I believe was the incorrect portrayal of the treatment of her mother in hospital and jokes were made about her weight also. A line must be drawn somewhere along the way.

I dislike the use of the word "taste" which seems so precious and I do not use the word in that sense. Public figures should be robust and should take, encourage, welcome and not object to robust criticism. However, the way in which we allow for this is important. The same applies to access radio. I disagree fundamentally with the comments of many of the previous speakers about the merits of access radio, much of which is horrible. It involves ordinary people phoning in and saying whatever they wish. These comments go unchecked and unchallenged, without any requirement to back them up or name their source, which is not good for society. While I am in favour of access to radio, if a person puts forward a point of view, the person on the other side has a responsibility to challenge that and make it stand up, which does not happen at the moment. I do not listen much to phone-in shows anymore because the format allows people to run riot.

Malicious or libellous comments or those which represent an incitement to hatred or discrimination or to break the law are easy to deal with and we are aware of the position in such cases, but the case of blasphemy is not so simple. I would not normally make a case for the Catholic church but I believe, given the way in which western society has changed, it is more acceptable to blaspheme the Catholic church than Islamic beliefs. There is no balance in the matter. If people hold something precious it should be respected, whatever their religion. The Catholic church has taken a hiding and a pounding and if this were done to other churches it would be unacceptable, which is worth examining.

I am not privy to how decisions are made in RTE. I recently spoke to a survivor of the Miami Showband massacre. We have all heard the story and seen the investigations. I believe there was collusion involved and that the band was set up, but that is my view. That case rocked Ireland 33 years ago. In recent years there has been much discussion of the matter. People tried to reopen the discussion and a book was published. I spoke with some of the people involved in the case in recent times and they could not understand why they were refused access to "The Late Late Show". My instinctive response to that was to take the view that "The Late Late Show" is a different type of programme with its own remit that has proved capable over the years of opening up discussion on many issues which other programmes did not discuss. It has pushed back the boundaries in many ways. However, these people explained to me that they found it impossible to accept the refusal.

Mr. Michael Stone killed people in Milltown graveyard many years ago. In more recent times he came to prominence again by trying to attack people in Stormont. He was an invited guest on "The Late Late Show", which could not attain a balance on the matter and it is reasonable to ask the reason for that. I am certain there are reasons for such decisions. However, those people were confused and bewildered, because there was no coverage of something as close to the people as the massacre of the Miami Showband following the publication of a book on the matter, which is interesting. I am not making a judgment on whether the show was right or wrong, but we must examine the matter.

The question of how we treat opinion formers is important. It is also important to be aware of a person's point of view and background. I do not object to people with biased views appearing on panels. It is in order as long as viewers or listeners understand such a person's background or point of view. However, there are situations where people purport to be neutral commentators, but come with a good deal of baggage on their shoulders. Will the Minister consider that it is a question of balance which society should require? It is not acceptable for a person to ring in to access radio and attack a person in public or private life without being challenged to back up assertions. We must make space for satire, public comment and political criticism. Any censorship must ensure that the media can educate, entertain, inform and, above all, be balanced.