Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirleach. I am delighted to have this debate and I welcome the Minister here this evening as well. It is good to see so many Senators debating the motion. We have an enviable record in the House for showing respect for free speech and I think that we would all admit that. We should feel very proud that we have staunch advocates in this House for diverse causes and issues. Long may it continue. That is one of the biggest arguments in favour of retaining Seanad Éireann.

The question of free speech seems to be the substantial, but not necessarily the substantive issue, contained in the motion. I do not think that any democrat can argue against free speech. I believe that it is one of the strongest planks in democracy. We should guard it jealously and we have always guarded it jealously.

Another plank in democracy is the right to vindicate one's good name and I hope that will also continue.

The challenge we have, as democrats, is to find a balance between those two points. I believe the motion could have been enhanced greatly if both those planks were brought into it but, unfortunately, the question of vindicating one's name is absent from the motion. In a way, that takes from the debate and dilutes the potential for working together on any given issue, particularly on the forthcoming referendum.

We are focusing on a single issue which arises from the controversy coming out of "The Saturday Night Show", but that is not the only time RTE has given apologies. Therefore, if we are looking for change, let us see how it impacts on people. For instance, a senior trade unionist looked for an apology because he was mentioned by a caller to the Joe Duffy show, and he got the apology. In the last two weeks, an Independent Deputy got a vindication of her name by way of a statement on the Vincent Browne programme. We have also had the case of Fr. Reynolds, which most people would agree was not right. These cases all fall into different categories. Therefore, in debating this, we need to look at the broader debate, particularly if we are asking for a change in legislation.

Interestingly enough, and I am sure most Members have been following this in the media, I discovered, when the initial frenzy related to the controversy tended to abate somewhat, that several journalists came out and put down markers as to why we should have caution in regard to the manner of this debate, including Martina Devlin, Eilis O'Hanlon, Emer O'Kelly and Pat Leahy. If one reads their columns, they all raised very significant questions when that frenzy was raging, and there are many more examples of this.

I have heard Members of the House say, during the abortion debate and other debates, and rightly so, "Let us be calm" and that, if we have a point of view, we should put the point of view, and if somebody else disagrees with that point of view, is that not what debate is all about? However, I believe this debate has gone off the rails. I feel terrible hurt for the people who have spoken here, such as Senators Zappone and Norris. I say this genuinely. I feel an awful hurt that they feel the hurt, and it is evident that they do feel the hurt, as do so many other people. That debate can take place in a much quieter way.

The substantive issue here is precisely what they are seeking in the referendum, that is, a change in the Constitution. However, what has become the substantive issue is a word and the meaning of that word, and so much more has been lost in the course of that debate. We are here as Senators. We enjoy huge privilege in this House, and apart from directing some suggestions towards the Minister, we are largely speaking to ourselves. There will be very few people who stand up here and even make the type of points I am making, because most of the points will come from those who have supported the motion as it is.

I was fiercely impressed this morning by Senator Norris, when he was able to break loose from a single issue and talk about the manner of how certain sections of the media are endeavouring to manipulate this issue to get for themselves carte blancheto say what they want to say. Senator Norris himself found it necessary to take out writs against various media outlets because of what was said in what was, as some people would put it, a robust presidential election campaign. Was he not right to do what he thought was right to vindicate his name? That is why I am so sad that the vindication of one's good name, which to me is so important, and which we, as democrats, should be arguing for, is missing from the motion and that, therefore, there is a lack of balance in that motion.