Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I did not think I would be called first. I was somewhat surprised by the Minister's attitude in dealing with Deputy Donnelly's Bill. I found him to be somewhat arrogant and flippant as to the intentions, which to be honest was uncalled for. I do not take offence on Deputy Donnelly's behalf or anything like that but we must recognise that it is very worthy that we would have a discussion on the role of the media in Ireland. I very much appreciate the intent in Deputy Donnelly’s Bill because we have a substantial problem. In my opinion, the Fr. Reynolds debacle with RTE set a tone in many ways of self-censorship since that time in terms of the print and broadcast media, an overwhelming chunk of which is privately owned by one substantially wealthy individual. We have a situation in Ireland where on the one hand the days of investigative journalism are long dead, yet on the other the media seem to be able to print any sort of rubbish about the private lives of citizens which is really of no public concern to anybody. We have not got the balance right in this country and we need to monitor it. We could learn a lot from France. The French are well known as great advocates of free speech and liberty yet there are incredibly strict privacy laws and controls over the media. It is appropriate that would happen and that we would have a balance. We have not achieved that in Ireland. I do not say Deputy Donnelly’s Bill achieves that but the topic is worthy of further discussion.

The background to the Bill is the Pantigate scandal and the decision of RTE to award substantial sums of money due to the alleged offence caused by Rory O’Neill describing individuals from the Iona Institute as homophobes. The reason there was a reaction to that and it caused a stir is that, to my mind, most reasonable people recognised that the remarks were not offensive but were an accurate reflection of the views of those individuals. For me to respond to the poisonous bile written by Brenda Power this week in the Daily Mail in relation to stereotyping and derogatory racist comments about the Traveller and Roma communities and to refer to her as a racist and homophobe might be considered offensive by her but the reality is that it is an accurate reflection of the views of that woman. We need to have a balance.

One must ask whether the problem is the law or the self-censorship of RTE. I believe it is the latter and that if RTE had taken a challenge in the courts I do not think the people claiming the offence would have won their court action. Most reasonable people would take such a view also. The reason RTE responded is that it was bending the knee to those with deep pockets, which is all too prevalent in the media and it is something we must examine. Six or seven months ago I was asked to participate in a BBC 4 radio programme on Bono. The BBC is broadcasting the programme this week. The reason it has taken so long is that in the past seven months the BBC has been subjected to enormous pressure from Bono’s legal representatives, to the point that RTE would not even hand over footage of an interview Bono had done with it to the BBC, which normally would be done, due to the fear of litigation and tight control by U2 and Bono in monitoring what opinions went out about them. A similar approach was evident with the penalty points saga where we were aware that media outlets were pressurised by members of the Judiciary who feared they would be named in the print media as having had their penalty points cancelled and information was not put in the public domain as a result.

We have mentioned in this House many times previously the tragic case of Sarah Bland who was sexually abused by her father. Sarah and her mother presented detailed criminal complaints to the Garda about the handling of their case by their solicitor at the time - now the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. Again, articles have been written about the case but no one will print them. In the background to much of what appears in the media there are threats and fear of litigation. That is both good and bad. In essence, what it means is that there are very wealthy individuals in society who try to block important information getting into the public domain. This links back as well to the control and ownership of the media.

That said, I am in favour of free speech but I agree it is not an absolute right and it must be balanced with other rights. That goes without saying. The right to free speech is not the right to hate speech nor the right to say whatever one likes regardless of the consequences. Actions do have consequences and what people say can set a tone. I do not believe that pulling a cheap stunt in order for a person to promote him- or herself by writing or saying something offensive is tolerable in a democratic society.

I wish to use one example in that regard which to me is a very serious one. It relates to the case of Colin Fulton and the Sunday World. He is a member of the Progressive Unionist Party, a legally recognised and registered political party. On that basis, I believe he deserves to express his opinion and the views of his community without demonisation.

The Sunday Worldran a series of articles which featured claims that Mr. Fulton was involved in thefts from occupied houses, punishment attacks on teenagers, attacks on women, participation in illegal drinking clubs, the sale of drugs, and prominent involvement in the Ulster Volunteer Force. Despite the serious criminal allegations made by the Sunday World, he has actually never been convicted of anything. He only once appeared in court and was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be innocent of those charges.

Subsequent to the publication of those articles, Mr. Fulton has had information warning of serious threats to his life, five of them since the article I mentioned was published. Justice Watch Ireland and others believe that this publication and the judge's citing of the media's press freedom have breached Mr. Fulton's right to life as enshrined in article 2, his right to privacy in article 8 and his right to expression in article 10. We need to have balance in that regard. Investigative journalism is important but what is printed should be substantiated with hard facts to back it up. It should be recognised that putting out opinion and information like that is highly prejudicial, as was the information in that reprehensible article in the Irish Daily Mailearlier this week.

I welcome the fact that we are discussing this Bill because it is appropriate. Irish people are concerned about this matter and I am glad to hear that the Minister will be bringing a more comprehensive proposal before the House in the near future. That is great because we do need it. In some ways, the media in this country are totally out of control, given some of the rubbish they are printing with impunity. On the other hand, the media have absolutely failed the citizens of this State in not calling the Government to account, not conducting any serious investigation, and standing back at the slightest threat from wealthy people with deep pockets. That is not in the interests of citizens in this State.

See this speech in context