The University Times (a newspaper at Trinity College Dublin) has apologised unreservedly to David Quinn, Director of The Iona Institute 
for defamatory remarks made about him in its issue of January 5. The apology is carried in the current issue. No damages were sought by David Quinn.
The apology is printed below. David Quinn’s reply to the two articles that defamed him also appears in the current edition of The University Times. It can be also be found below.
(Note that while the apology says that the articles appeared on the newspaper website, they also appeared in the print edition)
The apology
Two articles appeared on our website on the 5th January entitled
“Queerly Beloved” and “What Lies Behind the Facade”. These articles contained
defamatory material in relation to David Quinn of the Iona Institute. Mr.
Quinn is a well-respected commentator on religious and social affairs, and we
unreservedly accept that it was entirely inappropriate to refer to him as
…a person whose “character is questionable” or to imply that he is a
rascist or that he formed a “bigoted
hate group” or that he supports or is in any way associated or linked with the
Ugandan “Kill the Gays Bill”. We unreservedly apologise for the hurt and
distress caused to Mr. Quinn and his family and colleagues at the Iona
Institute and we welcome the opportunity to allow him a right of reply as
appears below.
David Quinn’s reply
The gay
marriage debate: who is really spreading hatred?
Which is
the most divisive issue in Irish society today? Is it the abortion issue or
same-sex marriage? I wouldn’t like to have to choose but without a doubt both
are extremely divisive and inflame passions like few others.
It is
highly likely that in a place like Trinity College support for both legalised
abortion (in some limited way at least) as well as same-sex marriage is very
widespread if not overwhelming.
Those
opposed to either might well keep their views to themselves knowing the
reaction they are likely to get if they voice dissent. The reaction is likely to be both vitriolic
and extremely abusive. Dissidents are quite likely to be accused of being
anti-women if they oppose abortion or of ‘hating’ gay people if they oppose
same-sex marriage.
This sort
of vitriol is particularly pronounced on social media such as twitter. I know
this from personal experience. Other high-profile Catholics such as Senator
Ronan Mullen know it as well.
Here are
just a few examples of what has been said on twitter about Senator Mullen.
‘Ronan Mullen is simply vile. Sorry excuse for
a human’
‘My mam
just called Ronan Mullen an absolute cabbage f**k’
‘Ronan
Mullen looks like he survived an abortion. Maybe that’s what’s wrong with him’
Is this
funny? Substitute Ivana Bacik for Ronan Mullen in the above sentences, imagine
it came from opponents of abortion, and see if it is.
Countless
more examples of the vitriol directed at those who hold ‘traditional’ views can
be found on social media. It is much harder to find equivalent amounts of
equivalent abuse being directed at those who are pro-choice or pro-gay
marriage.
Last month
this newspaper decided to get in on the act. It carried two articles attacking
both myself and the organisation I head, namely The Iona Institute.
The Iona
Institute was described as a ‘bigoted hate group’. I was effectively denounced
as a racist and it was even said that I am of ‘questionable character’. My
crime? I don’t believe marriage should be redefined.
(An article
in The Trinity News in the meantime dismissed my concerns as of no consequence
and quotes the editor of this newspaper
as saying that I was upset because The Iona Institute had been called ‘discriminatory’! The defamatory allegation that I am a
rascist, that I formed a ‘bigoted hate group’ or that I was apparently a person
of ‘questionable character’ did not even get a mention! )
None of the
above accusations are even remotely fair comment and are simply a blatant
attempt to discredit the holder of views the authors hate. The irony here is
that the same people making accusations of ‘hatred’ are themselves spreading
hatred.
What
especially galled the writers of the two articles is that The Iona Institute
had the temerity to produce a 90 second animated video on the matter. I invite
anyone to watch it and judge whether it really deserves such condemnation. It
is to be found on the homepage of The Iona Institute website. I also
challenge anyone to find anything that is genuinely offensive on our website,
unless the mere expression of disagreement on this issue is offensive, and
course in the minds of some, it is.
Fortunately
the editor of this newspaper has since apologised by email for any the
grievance caused by the two articles. The apology is accepted, although
his misleading comments to the Trinity News entirely undermines this apology.
So, is it
possible to have a civilised disagreement on gay marriage? The evidence
suggests not. You will receive very little abuse if you support gay marriage.
On the contrary you will receive mostly praise. But you can expect a huge
amount of abuse if you don’t, of the sort described above.
Here is my
own position on gay rights. I supported the decriminalisation of homosexual
acts when this took place and I said so in one of the first columns I ever
wrote.
I have
supported partnership rights for same-sex couples since the mid-1990s, long
before most commentators or politicians pronounced any opinion on the matter. I
also support adoption rights for same-sex couples under certain circumstances.
Hardly the views of a ‘homophobe’.
The one
thing I don’t support is a redefinition of marriage. Why not? It is because I
believe that the institution of
marriage (as distinct from each individual marriage) is child-centred, not
adult-centred, and exists mainly to enshrine a particular ideal, namely the
ideal that every child should be raised by a loving mother and father.
Gay
marriage advocates deny that this is the ideal. They say the ideal is to have
loving parents as distinct from a loving mother and father.
Obviously
to have loving parents (or a loving parent) of whatever sex or sexuality is far
better than to have bad parents.
However, is
it really so outrageous – an irrefutable example of ‘hated’, ‘bigotry ‘and
‘homophobia’ – to believe the best thing of all is to be raised by your own
loving mother and father?
After all,
what the ‘loving parents’ line logically means is that there is no real
difference between mothers and fathers, that their roles are entirely
interchangeable and that they bring nothing distinct as men and women to the
raising of children.
Given that
most of society very much supports the idea that men and women bring distinct
and complementary qualities to the worlds of business and politics, this is a
very curious line to take.
The ‘loving
parents’ formula also involves a denial of the importance of the natural ties.
It logically follows that if all you need are loving parents, then those
parents don’t need to be your own parents. But this is also a very curious line
to take in light of the fact that many adopted children in later life seek out
their natural parents.
You can of
course take the view that having loving parents is just the same as having your
own loving mother and father, and therefore take the view that sexual
complementarity has nothing to do with the nature of marriage.
However,
to condemn as ‘homophobic’ anyone who
believes that having a loving mother and father is best, and that sexual
complementarity is an essential part of the nature of marriage, is a simply a
bullying attempt to close down the debate.
It used to
be said, and it is still said sometimes, that it is impossible to have a ‘calm
and rational’ discussion with opponents of abortion because they resort to
name-calling and accusations of ‘baby-killing’ so quickly.
The shoe is
now well and truly on the other foot. It is now increasingly impossible to have
a calm and rational discussion with supporters of legalised abortion or gay
marriage without the insults being hurled and your good faith being immediately
called into question.
This is
shameful behaviour and has nothing whatever to do with free and open inquiry.
It is a deliberate attempt to shut down debate.
David Quinn is Director of The Iona Institute.
He is also a columnist with The Irish Independent and The Irish Catholic.
