Breda O'BrienBreda O’Brien analyses the apparent ‘deep-rooted bias’ of the ‘yes’ campaign
I have not yet read in full Ireland Says Yes: The Inside Story of How the Vote for Marriage Equality was Won, written by Noel Whelan, Brian Sheehan and Grainne Healy, only the extract published in The Irish Times. I intend to read it all, not least because Colm Tóibín, in his review, says that if he “were a Catholic bishop or an activist on the ‘no’ side, I would pore over its pages and learn a lot”.
He refers to the “imagination, passion, cunning and political savvy of the leaders of the ‘yes’ campaign”. I wonder how often the book refers to the money given by Atlantic Philanthropies, amounting to millions, before the campaign began?
Funny, isn’t it, that someone like Declan Ganley was persecuted by the media over alleged American funding, but dollars for the ‘yes’ campaign were just fine? I do not share all of Declan Ganley’s political views, but it is impossible not to note the difference in how he was pursued, and how the ‘yes’ campaigners were not.
The extract in The Irish Times skates right over funding, aside from a reference to not having the money for posters, yet they were able to raise the money in an unbelievably short time.
The extract also makes it appear that the help from American gay and lesbian organisations who are advocates of same-sex marriage was completely spontaneous, whereas it has been documented elsewhere, notably in Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone’s autobiography, Living Our Lives Out Loud, just how un-spontaneous it was.
Prime factor
Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone were planning a High Court case to establish whether they could be recognised as a married couple under Irish law, when they were contacted by Brian Kearney-Grieve, the Human Rights Programme Executive of Atlantic Philanthropies.
Atlantic Philanthropies had been involved in many other such cases internationally, and the book establishes that with “Brian’s expert assistance, Atlantic Philanthropies put Irish civic lesbian and gay groups in contact with change-makers in these and other countries”, which was “a prime factor in provoking government response to the call for equal rights for lesbian and gay couples here”.
The same process is documented in the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network’s own publication, Civil Partnership in Ireland – How a Minority achieved a Majority. Vast amounts of money and access to international expertise certainly made a difference.
Mr Tóibín says the book is almost too revealing. I may find the full book revealing when I get my review copy, but in fact, the extract is in some ways extremely coy.
For example, it has no problem stating that polling showed that swing voters found the representatives of The Iona Institute (of which I am one) as standing for an “uptight”, “old world”, “down with that sort of thing”, “reactionary” position that did not appeal to uncertain voters.
None of that is surprising. That image is reinforced constantly by people in the media, including by Ray D’Arcy, who on his publicly-funded radio show recently declared that his “blood was boiling” watching David Quinn speaking about denominational schooling.
He went on to say that David Quinn is “very fond of spitting out the statistics and unfortunately, more often than not, he’s not challenged”.
This would be hilarious, if it did not reveal what appears to be such deep-rooted bias. David Quinn cannot appear on any programme without being challenged on every single point he makes.
If our national broadcaster can stand over that kind of apparent bias from a presenter, how can anyone have faith in it?
Interestingly, to return to the book, the authors are well able to describe the negative reaction to Iona, but when it comes to their own people, they merely say, “when various advocates’ potential impact on voters was examined, well-known gay and lesbian people received a surprisingly negative response”, without going into detail as to why.
There are some highly revealing details. For example, they refer to the issue of children as “the soft underbelly” of the campaign, and the one most likely to lose them votes, particularly with middle-aged men.
They also say, without explanation, that one design for a poster featuring toddlers was rejected, simply saying, “using babies for a marriage equality referendum was not a runner”.
This was the campaign that said until they were hoarse that the referendum had nothing to do with children, when their own book and their own polling show that it was a crucial issue.
The book will indeed be worth reading, if only to see how passion, expertise and conviction can influence the outcome of a referendum when the key people in society get behind it.
It would be great if we could now look forward to civil society using the same energy to promote equality for unborn children. I’m not holding my breath.