Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Seanad Éireann –- notes the importance of having a public debate on the issues of free speech, homophobia and the public service role of the State broadcaster in such debates;
- further notes the necessity to explore these issues in the context of the forth coming referendum on marriage equality; andcalls on the Minister for Communications to debate these issues and to outline steps that he and the Government will take to ensure that the debate on marriage equality is conducted in a fair, open and impartial manner."

I welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to the Chamber and for agreeing to take the motion. His statements on the issue have been very helpful to date. Our debate today indicates that much more needs to be said and done so that in the first place, homophobia will some day be wiped out of Irish society. I know there has been much debate on how we define homophobia. I have the European Parliament's definition of homophobia and ask why would we not accept this definition, which is a wide continuum. Colm O'Gorman first pointed it out to us recently. Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality manifesting itself in different forms such as hate speech to discrimination and violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitation of rights. Why would we not have that wide understanding and definition of homophobia? More needs to be said and done to wipe that out of Irish culture and society.

In the second place, which is perhaps what we are here for today, political leadership can ensure that debate on marriage equality is conducted in a fair, open and impartial manner. Impartial means without prejudice and that raises the bar very high. Rory O'Neill has done a great service to our country and wider global LGBT and other human rights movements when exercising his absolute and unrestricted right to hold opinions without interference. This is a right guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Ireland has committed itself to uphold. When he further exercised his human right to freedom of expression, which is also in the covenant, both on "The Saturday Night Show" and on the stage of the Abbey Theatre, his fundamental noble call to all of us was to eradicate our prejudices and change oppressive social, legal, religious and cultural systems.

Silencing voices against homophobia violates human rights, as barrister Brian Barrington pointed out. Why is this the case? It boils down to two words - human dignity. No doubt, all sides of this House agree with the first lines of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The genuine experience of dignity is a quintessential ingredient for the empowerment of every human to lead the life they wish to choose. I paraphrase words of the great philosopher and economist Amartya Sen in his pioneering work Development as Freedom. Professor Sen uses this concept of all humans living the life they wish to choose as not only integral to eradicating world poverty but also as being core to the rights of minorities. A nation's development does not happen unless all of its people are free.

Martin Luther King Junior once said, "Whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent". As a young lesbian, I did not always carry a genuine experience of human dignity. Indeed, I often felt shame - shame for my feelings, shame for my actions and shame for who I was discovering myself to be. I wonder now whether that is a similar feeling of shame to those in this country who are out of work, those who have left school early, those in prison, those who beg on our streets or to our young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. What I do know is that shame does bend your back and that shame is never generated from within. It develops as others who are not like you or possess more resources or abilities than you suspect that your difference is deviant. It also develops when you run up against laws and systems fashioned by religious and State leaders that keep you outside the mainstream of social, cultural and economic opportunities and institutions or human worth or worthiness. Martha Nussbaum, who is one of the foremost philosopher-lawyers of our time, calls it the politics of disgust.

International human rights standards value free speech over being spoken of offensively. International human rights law sets a high bar before speech can be considered to be of such a degree of offensiveness that the State must prohibit it.

The more serious the issue in public debate, the higher the bar.

The UN Human Rights Committee states: "The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties". When reflecting on or interpreting another part of the covenant on civil and political rights that asserts we must respect the reputations of others, the committee states that this requirement should never be invoked as justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of human rights.

I feel a chill, as many do. As such, we need a thaw. I welcome the steps that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources outlined today and I look forward to what he will say in this debate. I will identify a number of additional measures that the Government could enact to ensure that our Republic genuinely values freedom and tolerance. This is not an exhaustive or sequential list.

RTE needs to appear before the communications committee to outline its approach to libel complaints. Subsequently, it should issue and disseminate guidelines regarding freedom of expression and defamation to everyone appearing on our national airwaves. This would be a prime way for the State broadcaster to fulfil its public service role. The process of devising such guidelines would undoubtedly go a long way towards assessing whether our laws can adequately protect the human right to free speech. It would also be useful for our politicians to engage with RTE on what is required in such guidelines. I agree with the Minister's statement in the Dáil, in that it is not desirable for the committee to become embroiled in the management of particular claims.

We also need a freedom of expression audit of the broadcasting and defamation Acts. I welcome the fact that the Minister will consider making amendments to the Broadcasting Act. This would be constructive. Like other commentators, I am uncertain as to whether amending section 39 of that Act, which refers to broadcasting something that can reasonably be regarded as causing offence, to instead refer to something that avoids causing undue offence will make much difference. The degree of harm that "undue" refers to is already part of the test of reasonableness in a later section of the Act. Freedom of expression is the norm and any restriction on it should be the exception. While the Defamation Act is not under the Minister's remit, it could be reviewed. Although it includes a defence of honest opinion for the one accused, this defence may require too strong a factual threshold for opinions.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, though problematically not fully established, would be best placed to do this work. If we had a designated human rights committee, it would be the best parliamentary place to receive such work.

We also need policies, laws and resources to ensure that our schools are homophobia-free zones. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, has committed to this. I, for one, stand up against homophobic bullying. An important campaign is being run by BeLongTo, supported by other groups, for example, Marriage Equality, etc. However, more needs to be done. Getting rid of section 37(1) of the Employment Equality Act would be a significant catalyst to usher in a new era of freedom in our schools.

I stand here as a woman married to another woman, Ms Ann Louise Gilligan. I have travelled beyond the valley of shame and fear because her forever love beckoned. This is what marriage equality means. This is why we must get this right. It is in our power to do so.