Results 4,221-4,240 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

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

David Norris: I oppose this section because it is nonsense. It states: The provisions of this Act apply to a body corporate as they apply to a natural person, and a body corporate may bring a defamation action under this Act in respect of a statement concerning it that it claims is defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that...

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

David Norris: Are we really suggesting that Renault or Rolls Royce have feelings and should be entitled to compensation? I could understand, perhaps, if a financial loss was incurred and I gave a series of examples on the previous occasion. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, stated: I am grateful to Senator Norris for coming to the aid of the section. I am...

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

David Norris: It did not. On that occasion the Minister suggested a situation wherein one might make a negative comment about a company only for its profits to rise. In the financial world a company's reputation can be assessed in financial terms and it is extraordinary that in several sections of this Bill we are weakening the defences of ordinary people, the "natural person" that was referred to in the...

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

David Norris: I am grateful to Senator Mullen because he has solidified my opposition to section 11. I recall the case of a middle aged couple in the United States who made statements about McDonald's. That company harassed them through the courts to such an extent that although they felt justified in their claims — and, in my view, every word they said was true——

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

David Norris: ——McDonald's was able to use its financial strength against these people and they eventually ran out of money and were absolutely banjaxed. I sympathise with Senator O'Toole but I understood the issues he raised are covered under section 9 which deals with the defaming of a class of persons.

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

David Norris: I would have thought so but I am not sure. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this. I wish to defend my right to say in public that I would not, even under the most severe physical pain, read any publication of Mr. Rupert Murdoch. I nearly said "the late Rupert Murdoch", but that was wish fulfilment.

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

David Norris: I have often said that The Sun is a tawdry publication with which I would not wipe my backside.

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

David Norris: I see no reason I should not be allowed to say that. I should be able to make such comments with impunity. I stress the imbalance between huge corporations, such as McDonald's, and the ordinary person. These entities can often exhaust the financial resources of the individual who is thus deprived of justice. I maintain my objection to this section.

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

David Norris: That is a fiction of Madison Avenue.

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

David Norris: One cannot defame Fianna Fáil as it has no reputation.

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

David Norris: Will the Minister look at the wording?

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

David Norris: I agree in large measure with Senator Walsh. We discussed this on the previous occasion. One would accept that the Supreme Court comprises highly intelligent and wonderful people, except when I took a case there some years ago. Those people are unlikely to make bad decisions. With regard to democratic principle, one should be loath to second-guess a jury, especially if it decides, on...

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

David Norris: That suggests two separate juries considered the matter and indicated they were not taking such action from the newspaper, which they were perfectly entitled to do. It goes against the strain of democracy to second-guess not one jury but two.

Seanad: Order of Business (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I have consulted my distinguished colleague, Senator O'Toole. If the Defamation Bill goes through, Members who feel aggrieved about the comments on this morning's radio programme can take a class action.

Seanad: Order of Business (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Yes. However, I think it is unlikely. I heard the programme, but was not particularly offended by it. It was not of great significance.

Seanad: Order of Business (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: One could not be if one was on this side and in this position at the back.

Seanad: Order of Business (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Given that No. 13, motion 2 in the names of the Independent Senators is concerned with the regrettable state of many hostels in terms of health and safety, could Seanad Éireann take note of the report on safety and fire issues that has been discussed widely this morning? Some hostels have no fire escapes. I have repeatedly stated it is a tragedy waiting to happen. I welcome that there was...

Seanad: Order of Business (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: On the issue of the Supreme Court second-guessing a jury, I refer to the words of the then Chief Justice, Mr. Finlay, in Barrett v. Independent Newspapers Limited that the assessment by a jury of damages for defamation has an "unusual and emphatic sanctity". This is an interesting point to bear in mind. While I will not rehearse everything I said on this matter on a previous occasion, I draw...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I support Senators Walsh and Donovan on a point, to be fair, which was raised by the Minister. It appears wrong that if a person gets an award and appeals it, he or she may be seriously penalised despite having won in the first case. The example from the figures given by my two colleagues was very persuasive. The notion of lodging money into court introduces a slightly indecent element of...