Results 4,201-4,220 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Will the Minister inform the House who gave him the option? He said he had an option.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Is the Senator now speaking for them all? His concern for his 34 colleagues is equally touching.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I raised this matter during the previous discussion of the Bill and it has not been addressed. However, Members now have a distinguished legal authority pointing out this.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: May I be of some assistance to the Minister? Had he read a little further, he would have come to section 2, in which there is a definition of the tort of defamation.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: My point, which I also made on the previous occasion, is that it should have been included in the list of definitions.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I have a question on this section. I understand the principle that retrospective legislation is highly regrettable and vitiates many of the best principles of the law. While I may return to this issue later, I have been made aware of a case in which highly serious, unpleasant and completely inaccurate statements were made about a deceased person to the great regret of his family....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Senator Walsh seemed to suggest that there was no reason to introduce a past record into the question of defamation. However, defamation deals principally with the loss of a reputation or injury to it, so it appears to be perfectly reasonable if a person could be deemed to have no reputation. If a person has engaged in criminal activity and has no reputation to injure, it is difficult to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Senator Alex White is correct. I am not sure that the points made by Senator Walsh are germane. I disagree with him. I will address the point of principle that was made and with which his distinguished colleague, Senator O'Donovan, agreed, that is, the issue of giving a dog a bad name and so forth. The example given by Senator Walsh was interesting, but unfortunate from his point of view....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: It is very helpful.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I welcome this section because it seems to be travelling in the direction of a class action, which has been forbidden by Irish law until now. It is a good provision because a class of persons can be defamed. According to the information I have been given, the provisions for the press council, while following the standard practice of referring to attacks on persons due to their sex, race,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Exactly.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Will the Minister consider using terminology such as "two or more occasions", particularly in the same media outlet? I have personal experience of this. I have consistently complained about the appalling way in which drinks licences are handed out willy-nilly and in most extraordinary circumstances all over this town. I said this on television, not once but twice. When the Minister speaks...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Yes, but it is much more serious when one is handing down a judgment. We need to examine clipping the wings of the Judiciary when taking legal action. I am not talking specifically about my case. It is very difficult for the ordinary members of the public to sustain themselves against a libel action taken by a judge, a member of a close-knit fraternity. I repeated my concerns on drinks...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Who is the Senator going to get into remission?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: We could take a sos.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I think it is.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: The interventions of Senator Walsh and the Minister have been useful. We should contemplate also, however, the situation in which the newspaper or media company was served notice that the statement was inaccurate, damaging, misleading and libellous. If a newspaper campaigning against someone publishes a libellous remark, is put on notice but repeats the remark, there should be a second cause...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I am not convinced that people should harvest damages in this absurd way. If a case is closed in respect of one organ of publication which may assume the matter has ended, it would not be fair that someone should be able to accuse it of doing the same again the minute the matter is closed. People should not make a profession out of libel. I am all on the side of the small person but there...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I think the question of intent ought to be written into the legislation. Aggravated damages should apply if something is done as part of a campaign but if something is innocently re-broadcast or re-published, damages should be limited in the absence of a complaint from a member of the public. One should not be able to go on endlessly receiving the same amount of money in those circumstances...