Results 621-640 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: I move amendment No. 15: In page 5, paragraph (a), lines 27 and 28, to delete "on any question in respect of which that Court has jurisdiction".

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: I move amendment No. 16: In page 5, lines 29 to 31, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following new paragraph: "(b) any decision or opinion of the European Commission of Human Rights so established on any legal question,". Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are in the same general area as amendment No. 15. The Minister undertook to consider how rephrasing might avoid uncertainty about...

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: I concur with what my colleagues said. I refer to a well-established principle of law to which I referred yesterday, that is ubi ius ibi remedium, wherever there is law or a decision given, there must be a remedy. The person who goes to court already knows damn well that they have the victim of injustice. That is their conviction. The attitude in respect of people's rights being trampled on...

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: We are quite right.

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: I echo Senator Ryan's comments. The Bill, as it stands, provides for a continuance of a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is obvious that this is what we are doing. Senator Jim Walsh made a useful point when he asked if we had so little trust in the Oireachtas that we imagined, in our wickedness—

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: —that it would have this drawn to its attention and do nothing about it. What a dreadful prospect. I have been in that position and had that experience. I obtained a verdict against the State that it was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. I raised the issue repeatedly in the House and the Taoiseach of the day, Mr. Albert Reynolds, made a public statement saying that it...

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: One is either serious about the convention or not.

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: On a point of order, as I understand it we are specifically precluded from addressing proposals for legislation on matters for the Adjournment. That avenue is ruled out and as we do not have Question Time in the Seanad, both avenues are excluded. Can the Chair confirm that?

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: The Minister of State has no locus standi.

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: It is outrageous to guillotine a Bill of this nature and it shows the Government's real commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: The flexibility of the Leader and the Minister of State is greatly appreciated. Amendment put and declared lost.

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: I support my colleagues on this issue. It seems extraordinary that someone could be convicted of an offence which was subsequently found to be a violation of fundamental human rights and that no remedies are provided. It appears that there is a question over the Government's seriousness in regard to human rights because it has galloped through the Bill in order to meet obligations under...

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: The last remark by the Minister of State is the most effective part of the argument, particularly if certain elements of the matter are sub judice. I suggest that Senator Henry does not press the amendment so that it can be reintroduced on Report Stage, when the Minister might perhaps be in a position to provide further clarification. There is a substantial difference between amendments Nos....

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: When is the decision expected?

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: The Minister of State has neatly underlined the fact of the matter by suggesting that there could be two parallel systems, which the Government would wish to avoid. It could have avoided it if it taken the constitutional route or, failing that, opted for full legislative incorporation. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution would then have been synchronised. We seek a...

Seanad: European Convention on Human Rights Bill 2001: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: I agree with Senator Henry that this is a useful amendment. According to the record of the Dáil, the Minister gave an undertaking to examine this matter on Report Stage in that House, but I am not sure what conclusion was reached at that point. It seems reasonable to fire-proof legislation. While past legislation may, by historical accident, come into conflict with the European Convention on...

Seanad: Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: Do hurry up, please.

Seanad: Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: That is a change.

Seanad: Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: This is an important point and while there is not much that can be done about it, I would have to say that my colleague from the Labour Party has indicated something important. From experience of living in the north inner city I know that those pubs which have a resident landlord, or a landlord on the premises all the time, are almost invariably well run. Those owned by people who live in...

Seanad: Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (19 Jun 2003)

David Norris: Perhaps the difference is that something is not unlawful because a law has not been passed making it unlawful but that certain things have been sanctioned by being passed into law and are therefore lawful, meaning that there is a grey area whereby something may not be unlawful but there is no positive law supporting the activity in question. Is that possible?