"THE voice of Prof William Binchy in the anti divorce lobby was described as being in many respects as powerful as the church's by an advertising agency which devised strategy for the pro divorce campaign, the High Court was told yesterday.
The professor was also described as being a "key figure" while in many respects his arguments were more potent and ultimately more decisive than those of the church, the agency had said.
Quinn McDonnell Patti son (QMP) drew up advertising and communications proposals for the 1995 divorce referendum for the Department of Equality and Law Reform.
Mr Peter Kelly SC, for Mr Des Hanafin, read the agency's proposals to the court. His client claims the Government sought wrongfully to influence the referendum outcome by deliberate and calculated expenditure of public money on a pro divorce advertising campaign.
During yesterday's hearing, Mr Kelly said that before the referendum, civil servants had met representatives of the pro divorce lobby "behind closed doors". These groups included the Right to Remarry and the Divorce Action Group. There was close co operation and exchange of information. It would be argued that this had a material effect on the conduct of the referendum campaign.
Mr Hanafin claims the Government invited tenders from advertising consultants. It selected QMP Advertising to develop, promote and advise the Government on the best manner in which to persuade the electorate to support the proposed, amendment.
The State, which is opposing Mr Hanafin's claim, says the sovereign will of the people has been expressed in the referendum. It denies the Government sought wrongfully to influence its out come by a deliberate or calculated expenditure of public finds for the purpose alleged.
Mr Kelly said QMP had been invited to make the presentation to the Department of Equality and Law Reform. The document said the Anti Divorce Lobby had, as its adherents, a diverse group of people and organisations, including the Catholic Church.
Foremost among these was Prof Binchy, who articulated the fears and concerns of so many people and was a key figure in persuading voters to reject the amendment. In many respects, his voice was as powerful as the church's but his arguments were more potent and ultimately more decisive
They must learn from the 1986 vote and accept that public opinion could be fickle and prone to sudden change on divorce.
As in 1986, it stated, the Government could not adopt an aggressive attitude, irrespective of the moral, human or legislative backing for its case "We must accept that many of the arguments against divorce do have merit and will find their way on to the debating table.
The document said they must convey a sense of confidence but avoid any temptation to be arrogant.