Results 3,481-3,500 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I see. My point falls between the two sections and this is presumably the only time when I will have a chance to make it. I was indicating that a new subsection should state: "Where the defendant relies upon truth as a defence, he or she should be obliged in the pleadings containing the defence to set out the facts upon which they will rely in the defence." I will make two points which...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I am opposing section 18 because the notion of honest opinion seems to be a libeller's charter, as it was known for some time. One must be careful about allowing someone to put something in a newspaper because he or she believes it to be true when it is untrue. It would not be fair, particularly when combined with the extraordinary distinction drawn later in the Bill, implicitly if not...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I thought so.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: It is obscure.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Perhaps it is the way the Minister read it, but I could follow what he said while I could not understand the proposed subsection.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: What if the person wrote that the Minister should be arrested for driving his car while drunk?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I thank the Minister for his clarification. My objection is to the idea that at the time of the publication statement, the defendant believed in the truth of opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion but believed the author believed it to be true. However, I see that is subject to subsection (3), and that is the one I had difficulty with because I do not believe it is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Perhaps the Minister might like to christen this the "Joan Rivers defence", because he may have heard, as I have, the advertisements on radio for her forthcoming show, where she worries about defamation. She is calling the show "Allegedly" and after every defamatory comment she makes about her neighbour she says, "...allegedly, allegedly". Perhaps the "Joan Rivers defence" might be the new...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I take it this is a codification of existing practices and that there is nothing vitally new or significant in it, or is there?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: With what section are we dealing? It states section 17 on the monitor. Is that correct?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Section 18(2)(a) states "where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true". If a person says Joe Bloggs in the Evening Herald said something with which he or she completely agrees but which turns out to be defamatory, is that the type of example contemplated in the provision? Perhaps the Minister could give the House an example of a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Say that outside this House.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: The Press Council is a rather weak body. It is not independent and is financed by those whom it is supposed to police. Senator Maurice Hayes ought not think people will be fooled by that. I certainly am not, even though its head is the former Provost of Trinity College. Every time there is a problem in another profession this is a group that calls for independence. Independence suits for...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I am sure he has the blas mar tá Gaeilge flúirseach aige. Access by the majority of the public to the ideas contained in his speech would be through the broadcast media and issuing a text to the House does not make those ideas available in English to the wider public. That is only a minor point but it must be taken into account as well. I did not read the article and I did not hear the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I welcome the Minister's response because he has satisfactorily answered a question I had intended to ask. It has been very often the case that, where a headline blackguarded an individual, the apology was not accorded due prominence. Let us not beat around the bush, this is what newspapers do as a matter of course. I therefore regard the provision as a corrective and the attention of...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Is the section enforceable? Supposing Senator Maurice Hayes is the subject of significant libel on the front page of a newspaper and the consequent apology is made in the Minister's favourite language, Irish, underneath the advertisement for homes for stray dogs, for example——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: Exactly. Although the Bill states an apology should be made in a reasonable way, how can an offended citizen argue the manner in which it is made to him or her is unfair and that it should be printed on the front page? Is there machinery whereby the citizen can have such recourse?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: That is a nonsense.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

David Norris: I move amendment No. 10: In page 18, subsection (3)(a), line 15, after "not" to insert "automatically". The issue of apologies and their effects is troubling. The Minister has substantially weakened the interest of the ordinary citizen. I disagree that an apology would not constitute an express or implied admission of liability. It is plain common sense that it would constitute an...