Yes campaign mural puts writing on the wall for freedom of expression

We’ve seen those lovely visual messages produced by the "yes" campaign in the upcoming marriage referendum. Images of people of different and the same race, sexuality and walks of love hugging and high fiving each other in a visual extravaganza of being "all about the love". One would be hard pressed to object. After all who would not support equality and love?

Well as it happens it’s the “yes” side who do not support equality, especially pertaining to equality of law and equality of freedom of expression.

Take the example of the recently erected (pardon my French) mural on Georges Street in Dublin. The multi-storey mural depicts two men embracing. No problem with that. The artist responsible for the mural, Joe Caslin, has publicly stated that the mural is on support of a “Yes” vote in the upcoming referendum. Again, perfectly fine and something that should be allowed.

However, and here is the problem: murals like that require planning permission. Especially if they have a political message supporting one side in an upcoming constitutional referendum. It comes as no surprise then that the Planning Enforcement section of Dublin City Council has issued a statement that “the mural is under investigation and a Section 152 Warning Letter has issued in relation to mural”.

Did the “yes” side think that they were exempt of the applicable legislation?

Well apparently they do! Following the news that Dublin City Council is enforcing the existing legislation the “yes” side has started a petition demanding that the mural in question be made exempt from the applicable legislation.

So, clearly, one law for us and another for everyone else.

Ironically, at the same time they are caterwauling about the message on the poster from the “no” campaign which are displayed legally and not in breach of any regulations. They have even gone as far as tearing down posters — clear and obvious proof that a fair referendum where the electorate can cast an informed vote is not something which they desire.

This is not a unique phenomenon. If we look at other countries or jurisdictions, the introduction of legislation similar to the proposed amendment has lead to a reduction in civil liberties and freedom of speech. The difference in Ireland would be if the referendum returns a majority yes vote, such reduction in civil liberties and freedom of speech would be enshrined in our constitution.

That’s why we should ask ourselves, is granting a tiny minority their wishes worth the loss of civil liberties and freedom of speech for all of us?

Evert Bopp

Abbey

Portumna

Co Galway