Sir, - I read with an awful sense of deja vu the letter concerning the human rights of homosexuals from Mr John O'Reilly, who has figured very largely as a back room boy, masterminding various conservative campaigns concerning abortion etc over the last many years.
It is clearly his intention to refute statements made by me, correcting his colleague Rory O'Hanlon on questions of fact. First, with regard to the opinion poll which he quotes. Even Mr O'Reilly, I am sure, would agree that the response to such polls is at least partly dictated by the nature of the question asked. I am on record as being unhappy with the nature of the question asked in the two instances stated. Moreover, despite Mr O'Reilly's claims, these samples were in fact less representative, if anything, than the sample tested scientifically over a considerable period by Fr Micheal McGreil. Mr O'Reilly seeks to give the impression that he has read the evidence in the case. I hope this is not so because, if he has and continues to make the statements towards which he is inclined, he appears to be deliberately misleading the public. Fr McGreil went to great pains to explain in technical terms to the court (which accepted his evidence on this point) that in fact the nature of his survey meant that it was nationally applicable. This is now a matter of record. Should anybody wish to go into the technicalities, I suggest they themselves read the evidence.
Mr O'Reilly then says that my letter contends that homosexuals comprise "a surprisingly large segment" of the Irish population. It is not just the letter that contends this, it was evidence that was introduced in the Irish courts, was not found capable of any challenge by the Irish Government and was subsequently accepted as fact by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Perhaps Mr O'Reilly feels that he is a higher authority than either of these two sources.
Mr O'Reilly then quotes the so-called Battelle Human Affairs Institute from the United States, who conducted a survey financed by the notoriously anti-gay Reagan administration. This study was vitiated by a totally inadequate methodology. Indeed the finding that 1.1 per cent of the population openly acknowledged their homosexuality was in itself a surprising tribute to the growing confidence of gay people in America. Very few people are prepared, if confronted on the doorstep by an unannounced interviewer, to discuss the details of their sexual orientation with a perfect stranger. In any case it wouldn't worry me at all if the figure was 1.1 per cent, although I prefer to rely upon the far more reliably authenticated figures of the Kinsey Pomeroy and Martin Report of 1949. At 1.1 per cent the number of homosexual people in Ireland would be roughly equivalent to that of the Church of Ireland. I don't suppose Mr O'Reilly would publicly advocate criminalising membership of this group. Perhaps it is time that Mr O'Reilly and his ilk learnt that the concept of human rights is not, at the end of the day, a numbers game.
Mr O'Reilly's next point is that the inclusion of article 6A of the Amsterdam Treaty dealing with discrimination was proposed by the Irish Government in response to "homosexual lobbying, undoubtedly behind closed doors". Really? Perhaps this should be indicated to the other governments who co-sponsored the idea. The Dutch, the Danes etc, no doubt would be quite fascinated to learn of the disproportionate influence of a small voluntary organisation in Ireland in dictating major elements of European social policy. Perhaps, of course, Mr O'Reilly is in possession of information not available to the general public or indeed to myself. I certainly have lobbied for the inclusion of such a clause, but I did so openly and honestly. Mr O'Reilly might like to contrast this with the inclusion of the infamous protocol on abortion, that was secretly introduced by the Irish Government as a derogation to the Amsterdam Treaty, in response to persistent and secret lobbying by groups such as his own. Indeed the secret was so well kept that members of the Oireachtas were unaware of what was going on. I await Mr O'Reilly's comment.
Finally Mr O'Reilly, who is not I think medically qualified, neatly dodges my statement of fact that the overwhelming mechanism of transmission for the HIV virus is heterosexual intercourse by stating: "There is an undeniable link between homosexual practices and sexually transmitted diseases." Of course. It must have dawned upon even the meanest intelligence that there is a relationship between sexual practices of any kind and sexually transmitted diseases.
He then goes on to quote European statistics mixing them up highly contentious material from partisan organisations in America. Curiously, at the end of this strange farrago Mr O'Reilly says: "One must face unpalatable facts. Denying the reality does not help honest debate on the search for solutions." Perhaps the fact that this pious sentiment comes at the end of the letter indicates a new beginning for Mr O'Reilly and his group. I would hope so. In the meantime, I shall continue to regard the Responsible Society (Irish branch) as more realistically presented to the public under its acronym the (IR) Responsible Society. - Yours, etc., Senator David Norris,
Seanad Eireann.