The purpose of the electoral commission, we are told, is to be a font of reliable and indisputable facts during election and referendum campaigns, and to provide information upon which the public can safely rely when it comes to making their decision about how to vote. Unspoken but heavily implied in its mandate is the notion that other sources of information are decidedly impeachable, and that a person should not believe a fact unless it has been independently pronounced upon by the commission.
It is perhaps unfortunate then that the commission should flub things quite so badly when it encountered its first real test: Explaining to the public what “durable relationships” means when it comes to amending the constitutional definition of the family. Read carefully the following quote, reported faithfully in the Irish Independent yesterday:
Durable relationships could be defined by a couple being invited to a wedding together or receiving a Christmas card in both names, the chair of the Electoral Commission has said.
Speaking at the launch of the Electoral Commissions first referendum campaign, the Judge said: “There have been a few cases in the courts in the last few years, judgments from the Supreme Court and some judgments from the High Court, which have identified the various indicators as to durability in a relationship.”
“There are all kinds of things, some of them are subjective and some of them are objective. So subjectively, a relationship is durable, if committed, if it presents itself as committed, if it means to be committed, if it intends to be committed.
“Its durability can sometimes be how you are treated by other people. Are you are you invited as a couple to weddings? Do people send or Christmas cards to both of you? These are the indicators of your commitment to each other,” she added.
Note that first word I’ve bolded above: “Could”. It is a very different word, you might notice, to some alternative words that might provide clarity: It is not “shall” or “will”. It is “could”.
What the electoral commission is doing, in effect, is engaging in a revealing bit of speculation. Ultimately, the definition of “durable relationship” will be defined neither by the Government or by the voters, but by the courts at some later date when a person or persons inevitably petition the courts for constitutional recognition of their relationship.
Note too what the electoral commission had to say about the potential for polygamous or polyamorous relationships potentially being recognised as constitutional. Pay very close attention to what is said here, and what is not said:
Separately, Justice Baker warned voters about misinformation being spread about the referendums and asked people to question what they are reading on social media.
She said there has been misinformation and disinformation in almost every country that has held elections in recent times.
The judge said there has been some “humorous debate” about throuples and polygamy in relations to referendum but added that all debate is good ahead of the vote.
Note well the little rhetorical trick being played on you here: On the one hand, the discussion about polygamy or throuples is placed in the context of a discussion of misinformation and disinformation: Be wary, the commission says, of false information – and oh by the way there’s been some humourous debate about throuples.
What the commission does not say, for the simple reason that it cannot say it, is that the discussion about throuples and polygamy is “misinformation”. Instead, it simply says that the debate has been “humourous”.
The reasons for this are obvious: It is perfectly conceivable, after all, that three people in a polygamous relationship might receive a Christmas Card or an invitation addressed to all three of them. If that is the standard to be applied – and the commission says it very well “could” be – then what grounds are there for excluding such a relationship from the category of “durable”?
The commission does not describe this as misinformation or disinformation for the very simple reason that it is not. The Chairwoman, Marie Baker, is a lawyer of significant experience. She knows full well that Michael McDowell, the former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, as well as current Senior Counsel, is not talking nonsense or misinforming the public when he raises this issue.
Therefore, the most helpful she can be to the Government is to mention the issue in the context of a conversation about misinformation, and let the Government hope that the media does the rest for it by constantly linking the word misinformation to the discussion of polygamy.
In fairness to the commission, they have not lied here: They have simply hidden the truth in plain language. They cannot say definitively what “durable relationships” means. They can only tell us what it “could” mean.
This is the problem with this particular referendum. Nobody, not even the people paid to tell you the official truth, can say with 100% what the new wording in the constitution will mean.
I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether this increases, or decreases, their confidence in voting YES.