Results 4,501-4,520 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I know, but it is the directional trend which is worrying. Senator Alex White said that people in public life should be subject to robust and rigorous examination. I completely agree with him. Who on earth imagines that I am against robust and rigorous investigation and comment? I am, however, against untruth, lies and the printing of lies. We should be careful about where this leads....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: The wording of this section is insane and unconstitutional, but I doubt if it will soon emerge that someone will take a case. I am astonished that people, especially those to the left, would support the apparent creation of two-tier citizenship.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I do not want to attack Senator Alex White. He is a decent person and his party has not yet made the jump and done what Tony Blair did. He was happy to dine with Rupert Murdoch in Australia and that is how the Labour Party got into power in England. The newspapers owned by Mr. Murdoch had done in Neil Kinnock, so to speak, who was a fine and decent man, and put in the queasy little...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I did not say that.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I have a substantial point of order to make. Arising from what Senator Boyle said, earlier in the day the Government lost a vote on one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It was a voice vote that I called.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I knew perfectly well that the Government would call an ambulatory vote if we did not and that it would be a waste of time. If the Senator wants the Official Report to show Fine Gael's embarrassment, let the Government's embarrassment also be shown because that side failed on the voice vote.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I second the amendment. If I am right, and Senator Alex White will correct me when he has collected himself, this amendment gives a person a fair opportunity to respond to a potentially damaging article that may appear in a newspaper. It must be a reasonable attempt to publish a response. I have had the experience when highly libellous material was published about me and I got a very...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: No.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I move amendmentNo. 41: In page 22, line 37, to delete "shall give directions" and substitute "may advise". This is the question of the judge "shall give directions" to the jury in the matter of damages. That is pretty authoritarian and again we have gone through all this on Committee State. However, I want to table it again. The judge "may advise" would be much preferable as far as I am...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: It may be common, but I am tempted to say it is very vulgar, too. This is a clear case where the specialised language used by lawyers confuses the public and I am concerned this might happen with regard to the jury. If members of a jury are told the judge is giving them directions, they probably will believe they are being told what to do, whereas if he or she advises, it means they are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: No, there was not. However, the law needs to be looked at and we should try to make legislation that is accessible to the citizen. Words should mean in law what they mean to ordinary people so that they might have an opportunity to read the legislation, understand it and, if they come within the ambit of a court, have some familiarity with what is going on. I am not sure this specialised...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I move amendmentNo. 43: In page 23, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection: "(5) In the case of a successful defamation action, the Editor and Proprietor of the newspaper which published the defamatory statement shall be liable for damages.". This is a quite important amendment and I wish the Government had indicated it would take it on board. Senator Harris was waxing...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I do not see why not; they are the ones with the money.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I move amendmentNo. 49: In page 24, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection: "(7) In a defamation action the Press Council may make a recommendation regarding the reasonable parameters of damages and limitation thereto to be awarded in any case where the newspaper apologises in advance of the hearing. The court must take such a recommendation into consideration in assessing...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I hope the Minister's comments will be drawn to the attention of the Press Council which may come up with some ideas. Obviously, the Minister has not scotched it or ruled it out entirely. Perhaps it could be ensured the Press Council is made aware of this so that it has the invitation from the Oireachtas and from the Minister in particular. In that light, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I echo the sentiments of Senator O'Toole. This is a significant move on criminal, seditious and obscene libel. Somebody raised the question of whether blasphemy should be also looked at in terms of the Constitution. It should. I remember a case 20 or more years ago in which Gay News was successfully sued by Mrs. Whitehouse. What was used in that case was a parallel offence of blasphemous...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I second the amendment. I am happy to support my colleague, Senator Mullen. This seems to be a very sensible thing. Most organisations and groups, including this House, have provision for a quorum. The James Joyce Centre, of which I am a director, and the Friends of the Library, of which I am chairman, have requirements to be quorate. Senator Mullen is also very sensible to ensure there...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: On behalf of the Independents I also thank the Minister for his courtesy and good-humoured informing of the Seanad on a series of matters. It is very appropriate that it should be this Minister, because I notice that the Bill was presented by his aunt, then Senator, now Deputy Mary O'Rourke. The nephew has completed the business. I am sure the aunt will be very pleased when it is reported...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: I am afraid that is Senator Mullen's problem. The Minister has done a good job. I do not agree with everything — that is the way legislation goes. I very much welcome that he has paid tribute to the work of the House in refining the Bill before it goes to the Dáil. We are frequently told, including in recent weeks, by several columnists that Seanad Éireann is a useless farce and that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

David Norris: Very unexpected.