The BAI (Broadcasting Authority of Ireland) has been facing a backlash ever since it ruled that an item on Newstalk’s Breakfast Show breached the broadcast regulations by being excessively biased in favour of same-sex marriage. The Breakfast Show had to read out the ruling last week. A similar ruling was made against the Mooney Show a few months ago.

The critics say that the rulings are an attack on free speech. They say they are having a ‘chilling effect’ on the ability of gay people to talk about their aspirations and their rights. They say that balance in the context of the debate about same-sex marriage means allowing airtime to people who want to deny gay people their rights, and worse.

Let’s deal with the criticisms one by one. Are the rulings attacks on free speech? No, they are not. People can say they are for same-sex marriage but people must also be given airtime to express the opposite view. This is simply fairness. Presenters, on the other hand, ought to be more like referees, ensuring a fair debate takes place. Presenters ought not to be taking sides, or if they do (and it’s worth noting that under the BAI’s Code of Fairness they can’t), then there should at least be a range of presenters representing different views allowed on air.

Are the rulings having a ‘chilling effect’ on the ability of gay people to talk about their aspirations and their rights? Again, no. But opponents of same-sex marriage say some of the rights LGBT advocates claim clash with other people’s rights and this must be pointed out.

This brings me to the third claim which is that balance in the context of the debate about same-sex marriage means, at best, allowing airtime to a set of people who want to deny the legitimate rights of gay people. In its most extreme form this claim would have it that allowing opponents of same-sex marriage on air is like allowing opponents of rights for racial minorities on air.

In fact, this is really the view that is chilling debate. Imagine if the airwaves were dominated not by liberal opinion but by conservative opinion and suppose the dominant conservatives decided pro-choice views should rarely if ever be heard on air because if they were, the effect would be to attack the right to life of the unborn, and that could simply not be permitted.

But liberals would insist on their voices being heard on the grounds that a woman’s right to choose is superior to the unborn child’s right to life.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage refuse point-blank to see that any possible clash of rights is involved in this debate.

But opponents of same-sex marriage insist, rightly or wrongly, that if same-sex marriage is permitted the rights of children will be affected, specifically the right of a child to a mother and a father. This is why there must be a debate, they say. Ordinary people have to be given a fair chance of adjudicating whether there is a clash and if so, on which side they will come down.

To date, there has been very little debate about same-sex marriage. Instead there has been a tidal wave of propaganda in favour with only a debate on a radio show here and there.

This is the chief reason why public opinion appears to solidly favour same-sex marriage at present. It is precisely because no real debate has been allowed to take place.

If the BAI crumbles in the face of current criticisms, there will be even less debate. Fairness on the airwaves is every bit as important to the healthy functioning of democracy as well functioning banks are to a healthy economy.

The critics of the BAI are like the banks during the boom; they want there to be little or no oversight of fairness in broadcasting. They are so utterly convinced of the rightness of their view they think the time for debate (if there ever was such a time) is well and truly over. They believe those opposed to same-sex marriage are in grave error – and they think error has no rights.

It is the duty of the BAI to insist that public space be held open so that a proper debate can take place on this and other issues, and to ensure fair play. Anything less would be a terrible failure on its part.