Advertisement

"It’s a denial of a human right" - Seán Moncrieff on the #MarRef

One of the ostensible oddities of the current set of media rules in Ireland is that I am forbidde...
Newstalk
Newstalk

08.23 22 May 2015


Share this article


"It’s a denial of a hu...

"It’s a denial of a human right" - Seán Moncrieff on the #MarRef

Newstalk
Newstalk

08.23 22 May 2015


Share this article


One of the ostensible oddities of the current set of media rules in Ireland is that I am forbidden from talking about the referendum on radio – a 24 hour moratorium for broadcast media kicked in at 2pm on Thursday – but I can write about it on this website. On radio, I’m also forbidden from expressing a view about the central issue, but I can do so freely here or in the print media.

It’s always unwise to generalize, but I’m going to do so anyway: many people in broadcasting find the first regulation ridiculous, but see some logic in the second one.

I’m the reverse. 

Advertisement

The idea of a twenty four hour ban on reporting in the run up to the vote contains a lot of common sense: it gives voters the chance to take a breath, to find some relief from the constant battering from conflicting arguments. It gives the voter a chance to make a mature, considered decision, rather than one based on some last minute scare.

If I was the Emperor of Ireland, I would, (after giving myself a massive pay rise), institute a moratorium for all media.

But clearly that’s impossible: given that it’s not located anywhere, the Internet can’t be controlled by a government agency. Coverage and debate will continue right up until the opening of the polls whether we like it or not.

Then there’s also the problem of the late breaking story. For example: if, on Friday morning, Senator Ronan Mullen decides that he’s changing his stance from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’, this news can be reported by the print media and websites, but not by radio or television: which is clearly ridiculous.

But leaving aside such fantastical scenarios, it can be argued that broadcasting is different. It’s easier to avoid stories about the referendum in a newspaper by simply not reading them; on radio you can hardly keep twiddling the dial every time a referendum story comes up. And of course we don’t want you to twiddle the dial at all.

In my sunny, ideal universe, a voluntary moratorium would work best – for broadcast, print and online. The media would see the good for society in giving everyone a break before the vote, but have the option to resume coverage in the event of a Ronan Mullen scenario.

It’s unlikely to happen though: there’s always going to be one or two media outlets that will invoke the Mullen Clause and release some spurious story in the hope of stealing a few listeners or readers from their competitors. The media is a business like any other. Societal good rarely trumps commercial pressure.

On the second stricture: from the start of their training, journalists have it drilled into them that balance is of paramount importance. And there are sound, common sense reasons for this. It’s the job of journalists to present those differing points of view. Many, if not most issues become more complex the more you examine them: they are interlocked with other issues, about the balance between rights and responsibilities. It’s rare that a society faces a question that is relatively simple, that is moral in character: that’s about right and wrong.

I have long felt that the marriage referendum is in this second category. It’s one of the few occasions in our lifetime when – for the vast majority of voters – we are being asked to think about other people: for most straight people, a Yes or No vote wont affect us one jot. This is a democratic process where most people are being asked to care for others: by letting them know they are equal to us. Not the same, of course, but our moral equal. Their personhood, the way they live their lives and most importantly, their familial relationships are as valued and as good as those the rest of us have.

Let’s not go through all the arguments: the distortions about surrogacy, the bogus studies, the spurious claim that a child has a ‘right’ to a mother and father, the ‘redefinition’ of marriage. Drill into them all, and all are attempting to prove the same point: that same-sex relationships are not as valued, not as legitimate, not as good as heterosexual ones.

It’s a repugnant idea. I’m a straight, middle-aged white guy and I find it profoundly offensive. God knows how you must feel if you’re gay listening to all this.

Introducing same sex marriage will bring other complications. Change always does. But does this justify continuing to withhold a fundamental right from a section of society?

Of course not. Not even close. It’s a denial of a human right; in the same category as denying rights based on skin colour or gender. It is fundamentally objectionable. It is wrong.

Yet, for the sake of balance, I’m required to disseminate arguments in favour of continuing this hideous discrimination. There isn’t an easy answer to this, of course. It is a democratic process, and in such a process, all voices have to be heard. But I feel grubby and dishonest having to do it. My children are already baffled as to why anyone would vote No. My grandchildren may one day ask me what it was like talking to those who didn’t want gay people to get married. It’ll be difficult to explain.

Running behind a lot of the debate has been the unspoken issue of motive. The No lobby has tried to categorise what’s happening as trendy groupthink. The Yes lobby alleges that many of the arguments put forward by the No side are dishonest: that they haven’t revealed the real reason they are against same-sex marriage. These are unanswerable questions: we can’t peer into each other’s hearts.

Yet it’s worth remembering that we’ve been here before, and all too often, the same people are where you expect them to be. Before this, there was contraception and divorce. This is just latest battle in Ireland’s culture wars, and for a new politicised generation, only the start.

The Eight Amendment is still part of the constitution. It’s far from over.


Share this article


Read more about

News

Most Popular