Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history will likely remember the story of Galileo and the Church.
As we all know, after astronomer Galileo Galilei had a political falling out with the Vatican in the 1600s and insulted the Pope, he was put under house arrest for his controversial claim that the earth went around the sun, rather than the other way around.
There was virtually total consensus among the academics and experts of the time: this Galileo guy was evidently a heretic, not to mention an ignoramus and a clown. “Of course the sun goes around the earth – only a fool would say otherwise.”
They believed this so strongly, in fact, that Galileo was ordered by injunction to do the following:
“to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it…to abandon completely…the opinion that the sun stands still at the centre of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.”
Now, to most of us today, this is horrifying. Just because someone has a minority opinion, particularly about an area of science, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. We all acknowledge that people with differing views should be heard out in case they’ve spotted something the rest of us haven’t.
We all acknowledge that – don’t we? Well, maybe not.
This week in the Seanad, Senator Malcolm Byrne expressed his view that it would not be “appropriate” for a public broadcaster to give equal time to both sides on an issue like climate change – even during a referendum campaign.
Malcolm Byrne believes that public broadcasters should not be made give equal weight to both sides of a political debate during a referendum if it is about something where he is sure one side is correct. pic.twitter.com/JyYiRBRJY4
— JRD (@JRD0000) April 28, 2022
“I appreciate the challenges broadcasters face, one of which relates to the McKenna judgement,” Byrne said.
“This requires, particularly during referendum campaigns, that equal weight be given to the two sides of an argument.”
He added: “I have a bit of a problem with that.”
He clarified that he had no difficulty with situations where equal weight was given to “evidence-based arguments on two sides.”
“If, however, we have a referendum in the future on tough measures to deal with climate change, for example, I do not believe it would be appropriate that our national broadcaster should be giving 50% of the space in such debates to climate sceptics,” he said.
Bear in mind that a “climate sceptic” is not even someone who does not believe in climate change per se. According to Collins Dictionary, a climate sceptic is simply:
“someone who does not believe that changes in the earth’s climate risk environmental catastrophe.”
So, in other words, you could fully accept that climate change is real, and even that it may do some harm to the planet. But if you’re not totally hysterical about it and think it will cause a global disaster of apocalyptic proportions, then you are a “climate sceptic” and you apparently shouldn’t be given equal airtime to others.
Comically, Byrne also adds that he would still like to have a “meaningful debate” on the issue.
How exactly one can have a “meaningful debate” on an issue where the opposing position is excluded or given a fraction of the speaking time is a mystery, but there you go.
Note that he also says this should even apply to referenda campaigns. So in other words, people should go to the polls and vote on major constitutional changes with one entire side of the debate either totally omitted or given a fraction of the airtime deliberately.
The kind of debates that Byrne seems to want appear to go as follows:
“How panicked about climate change should we be? Hysterical, or inconsolable?”
“How many Ukrainian refugees should Ireland take in? 100,000, or 200,000?”
“How quickly should we further integrate with Europe? Rapidly in a few years, or slowly over a decade?”
He sets the acceptable range of discussion, having eliminated one entire side of the conversation, and then allows people to argue about to what extent they agree with him. Now that’s a functioning democracy if I’ve ever seen one.
After this clip naturally went viral for all the wrong reasons, Byrne said that “an anonymous online troll is presenting an edited clip from a lengthy contribution,” effectively denying that he had said any such thing.
No. An anonymous online troll is presenting an edited clip from a lengthy contribution during the Online Safety Bill . My point is about evidence based debate. Read the full debate.
— Malcolm Byrne 🇮🇪 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@malcolmbyrne) April 28, 2022
But we have the transcript of his speech on Oireachtas debates – you can read it here for yourself. Tell me if that’s taken out of context or “edited.”
I’m not sure how exactly it’s “trolling” to take a clip of a government politician speaking in the Seanad and post his own words.
In his speech, Byrne also referenced the Good Friday Agreement as an example of an issue which should not be given equal airtime.
“A similar situation pertains to issues such as the Good Friday Agreement, where there was overwhelming support among all the political parties,” he said.
“Yet, equal space had to be given to fringe dissident groups. In that light, we may need to revisit the McKenna judgement.”
Now, I have no particular gripe with the Good Friday Agreement personally. But the standard here seems to be that the opinions of “fringe dissident groups” should never be seriously entertained or given a balanced hearing out on the news. Only things that the majority of political parties already support should be given full airtime – i.e. the status quo.
The implicit assumption in this is that whatever the majority of politicians currently want is always right.
So, for example, when slavery abolitionists like William Wilberforce were in the minority, they should have been given much less space in the newspapers by Malcolm Byrne’s logic. Because most politicians agreed at that time that slavery was great, and Wilberforce was only a “fringe dissident.”
The same could be said for the Civil Rights Movement in America, or Irish independence from Britain.
Or take Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian scientist who pioneered germ theory in the 1800s and said doctors should wash their hands before medical procedures. He was roundly mocked and ridiculed by his peers, and was a minority of one. Given Malcolm Byrne’s logic, he should have kept his fringe, dissident opinions to himself.
You might say these are hyperbolic examples, but the point is, not one person alive knows what the absolute truth is. Not the Pope. Not the British Prime Minister, or the President of America, or indeed, Malcolm Byrne.
None of us knows for certain what is true and what is false. Human beings are fallible – we have limited knowledge and understanding of the universe. We don’t have access to all the facts on any issue. And that’s why we have debate – that’s literally the entire point of discourse.
If any one person knew what the absolute truth was, we could do away with discussions altogether and just elect that person dictator for life. Debate would be made redundant.
But that’s not the situation we’re in, is it? Societies have been radically wrong before, as have scientists and “experts.” Just look at Covid-19 and the absolute trainwreck predictions and modelling from our specialists and PhDs. They almost couldn’t have gotten more objectively wrong if they tried.
The more politicians come out with statements like this, the more clear it becomes that they are instinctive authoritarians and don’t believe in the fundamental principles that underlie free speech at all.