Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Zappone, Bacik and their colleagues for sponsoring this motion. I also thank all of the Senators who contributed to the debate. I, too, am delighted to see Ann Louise Gilligan in the Gallery. Ms Gilligan is well on the road back to good health. Having listened to Senator Norris, I do not hold out much hope for the health of Neil Francis. Whatever about going for a haircut, Mr. Francis should certainly avoid a warm towel shave in the weeks immediately ahead.

I am glad Senator Mooney raised the question of the apology. My understanding is that concession of the apology in the terms drafted would have been tantamount to destroying the honestly held opinion of Rory O'Neill. There would have been very serious implications involved in accepting such an apology. In saying that, I in no way wish to impede the desire of Mr. Waters to give money to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

The controversy which gave rise to this debate has brought the issues of gay rights, homophobia, freedom of expression and the obligations of the public service broadcaster to the fore. The handling of and reactions to that broadcast have been subject to commentary, criticism and query. I have spoken about the issue on a number of occasions during the past few weeks. I said 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. Perhaps that is the instinct of the politician whose natural disposition is to persuade rather than confront. I have stated that, on one hand, it is too loaded a term and, on the other, too imprecise in its meaning to be used to categorise all those who hold contrary views on a matter for legitimate public debate. Issues such as this are informed by deep-felt religious, moral and social considerations, but also, unfortunately, sometimes only by prejudice. Opinion undoubtedly will be divided. The best we can hope is that people will debate the matter calmly, in good faith and with respect for opposing viewpoints. I have also said that people who hold themselves out as commentators on or contributors to public debate must appreciate that such debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile. We politicians are expected to function as normal in such an environment. That norm apparently does not apply to those fragile wallflowers who themselves are not restrained when it comes to dishing it out.

Freedom of speech and expression - and equally the right to be heard - are central tenets of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are central to the proper functioning of civil society and cannot be taken for granted. Unless the media can report without fear or favour, then the public good is undermined. The right and ability of media to do this must be proactively asserted and maintained. To quote the UN Secretary General, "When it is safe to speak, the whole world benefits". As we all know, RTÉ 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. However, RTÉ will not be the lone platform for debate in the forthcoming referendum. We must remember that information will be presented and opinions exchanged across all media. As the debate in recent weeks indicates, media matter. As citizens, as voters and as representatives, we need a free, diverse media which is not beholden to a single sector of society, to large commercial concerns or to a single political party.

Whether we chose to admit it or not, for both politicians and those we serve, media play a central and critical role in conveying information, parsing outcomes and passing judgment. They create the written and recorded account of what happens. In a very practical sense, they create the reality within which we exist and act. As a result of this, the nature and character of media matters as well. Its ability to speak truth to power and to challenge authority is one of those slender columns that sustain democracy. If that capacity is reduced in any way, we are all the poorer for it. If media is fettered, either by the interests of owners, by fear of authority or by the simple fact of groupthink, our democracy is worse off. That proposition stands, irrespective of what any Member of this House may think of the focus of sections of today's media.

The development of a free and pluralistic media, both in terms of the technology and the legal and economic frameworks, has proceeded stepwise with the development of democracy. In simple terms, it is impossible to conceive of a modern democracy without a free and diverse press - the two are intrinsically linked.

At EU level, both individual member states and the EU institutions have long had constructive involvement in media at a number of different levels. One of the instruments that remains available, and which retains immense value, is the fact that each member state can still support, due to the space made in EU law, its own national public service broadcaster. This is thanks in no small part to Protocol 29 of the EU treaties, which recognises that each member state's public service broadcaster aims to meet the democratic, social and cultural needs of the society in which it operates and which also speaks of the need to preserve media pluralism.

My conviction that public service broadcasting is a public good is not in the slightest undermined by the seeming inability of our own public service broadcaster to drag itself out of the rut of negativity that has so absorbed it since the economic crash.

While I have not been silent on my views on homophobia and the use of "homophobe" as a label, I have sought to avoid intruding into or ascribing motivation to the RTE decision in respect of settling contemplated litigation. Senators will likely have read the recent statement from the managing director of RTE television. The RTE explanation is that it had expert advice available to it that cautioned that it did not have a case to defend.