Liam Hunt | Deputy Opinion Editor
“Have any of you ever come home in the evening and turned on the television and there is a panel of people, nice people, respectable people…They’re all sitting around and having a ‘reasoned’ debate about you. About what kind of person you are, about whether or not you are capable of being a good parent, about whether or not you want to destroy marriage.”
—Panti Bliss
The value of uncensored, rational and broad debate in a democratic polity cannot be understated. The ability for individuals to engage with the institutions of their State and others citizens is a precursor to effective and sensitive policy. This truth is however far too often conflated with another altogether more insidious opinion, namely: (a) that everyone has as an equally valuable contribution to make to each discussion; and (b) that all topics of socio-political discussion are ripe for “reasoned debate”.
For those of you who haven’t seen Panti’s ‘Noble Call’ please stop reading this article immediately, go and watch it (and then come back and read on). What Panti encapsulates perfectly, amongst a myriad of other things, is the boundary beyond which the value of free speech in the Enlightenment tradition of reasoned, public debate ceases to be valuable.
The ‘debate’ that is intensifying as we approach the referendum for marriage equality in May 2015 is an excellent example of one that we should all see as harmful. This is because at its centre it is not a policy proposal that has debatable consequences, nor is it in reality a policy discussion at all. Rather, it is a referendum to recognise the basic human dignity of a minority of the Irish population by allowing them the privileges that come with the societal recognition of a relationship.
The online and offline debates, in print and in person that are being engaged in across the country and indeed the Western world do untold damage to those vulnerable LGBT people for whom societal ostracisation is the norm. Not only have we been historically excluded from and oppressed by State and societal institutions, now it is our duty to prevent ourselves for ‘rational enquiry’ and ‘examination’ of whether we are ‘suitable’ to be included in this most important one. There is nothing rational or debatable about my existence, I just exist. Homophobes do not own a right to be educated by me about my lifestyle choices, nor do they have the right to pass judgement on those choices. Moreover, I owe no burden of duty to explain myself and my value to a society before it accepts me, not least because of the leaden weight of structural oppression that so many are forced to carry.
At its centre it is not a policy proposal that has debatable consequences, nor is it in reality a policy discussion at all. Rather, it is a referendum to recognise the basic human dignity of a minority of the Irish population by allowing them the privileges that come with the societal recognition of a relationship.
The distinction made here is therefore between discussions about policy that are valuable and those which are invalidated by their probing questions and criticisms directed solely at the basic human dignity of the member of a vulnerable minority. A discussion of budget options simply should not be considered discursively similar to discussions on how best to realise and protect the rights of minorities.
It is precisely this attitude that creates the detestable circumstances in which victims of social oppression must take the burden of righting those wrongs themselves. Not only must one struggle with the micro-level burdens of oppression, but now victimhood itself is entirely denied to you. Having weathered the storm, LGBT people are expected to trudge through exhaustion and dehumanisation, and they are constantly questioned as to the validity of their sexuality.
The institutionalisation of homophobia (a synonym that I prefer to use in the place of civil partnerships alone) serves as a bastion for everyday hatred and violence, as a legitimate base for the persecution and exclusion of vulnerable people. A recent survey of Irish secondary school teachers found that 94 per cent of SPHE teachers in single sex schools were aware of verbal bullying in their classrooms. But even when this institution is challenged, the ‘debate’ that ensues implicitly carves out a place for that violent homophobia as the ‘alternative’ to equality (now more easily cast as an insidious political agenda seeking to destroy marriage). As a side note, if the insidious political agenda is seeking to destroy or remake something that has been historically used to oppress women and sexual minorities, then let’s try and create more insidious political agendas.
This topic has a special relevance to student bodies in universities across the world. Universities have been constantly challenged over recent years from all corners of the political spectrum to live up to their purpose as institutions that enshrine and protect discussion and debate. Whilst there is some truth in that statement, it would be better qualified with the concerns outlined above. There are limits to what should be considered ‘debatable’. There are limits to what should be rationally reasoned over by panels of ‘experts’ on late night television panel discussions. We would do well to remember it.
