Results 16,561-16,580 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Order of Business (6 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Well said.

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Feargal Quinn, for allowing me time. I greatly enjoyed his schoolmasterly performance. I am sure the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, will be greatly heartened to know he has received a better report than in previous years. I also agree with Senator Quinn that the atmosphere in the Dáil was a little dull. The Budget...

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: It is a mean thing to raise the duty on cheques. It will not raise much money but will cause serious inconvenience. It will also hit small businesses. I do not see any virtue in it and it should be reconsidered.

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I hope not of this life. What a frightful warning.

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I feel weak as a result of it. There is a section of the budget dealing with health. It is fine that all this money is being spent, but there should be an audit. What I am interested in is not how much money is being spent but whether it is being spent wisely. Let me give an example to the Minister of State. I spoke to a person the other day who came to see me about an aspect of the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I welcome the Minister's amendment. All sides of the House fought vigorously on this section because, as originally drafted, it seemed to come dangerously close to meaning "this is true because I say it is true or I think it is the case". By prefacing something with "my opinion", it seemed to mean everything would be all right. I categorised it as the "Joan Rivers defence". At the time,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: That is not what I am saying.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I am glad the Minister has taken the arguments on the previous Committee Stage into account. I support the amendment because I believe the Minister has tightened up this provision. Public importance gives a free range for prurient interest, speculation and poking around unnecessarily in people's dirty linen with no good real investigative point. With so many lawyers around the joint, I am...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I understand that the Minister is trying to make this section grammatically clear but would it not have been better in line 3 after the phrase "consisting of opinion," to include the phrase "and shall include the following"? There is no grammatical proscription on using the word "shall" twice, particularly when it covers slightly different elements. I am not insisting on it but it seems to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: Is there any necessity for me to table an amendment on this?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I have a note in the margin of the Bill that I intend to table an amendment to the effect that the apology shall have at least the same prominence as the original defamatory statement. That is only fair because it is not appropriate for a newspaper to have the defence of an apology if it sticks it on the back page, in Irish.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I am not at all sure we should debate who was hurt most as I thought the woman in question had a very reasonable case. She suffered the traumas of the accident and was then told she had been in the car with Mr. Lawlor for the purposes of prostitution. It was indicated that she was a well known teenage prostitute and I think that is a shocking thing to say about a person. I think she is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I am not completely convinced either by the Minister or Senator Alex White. They seem to be overly optimistic about the nature of the printed media in this country, particularly as it comes under very sustained pressure from the British market. I already referred to the way in which The Sun dealt with its apology under the press council. It made the apology and then repeated the offence....

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

David Norris: I move amendmentNo. 3: In page 12, subsection (2), lines 3 and 4, to delete paragraph (f). I oppose the inclusion of judges in the exemption from defamation. The Minister has strengthened my feeling on this matter when he talked about truth. Why would a judge want to lie about anybody? Judges should not make outrageous or untrue comments about anybody. After all, a judge should know...

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

David Norris: I disagree.

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

David Norris: Hear, hear.

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

David Norris: While I will be happy to withdraw the amendment, I am glad I tabled it because it has teased out a number of issues. I greatly welcome Senator Walsh's comments that were supported by Senator O'Donovan. I agree that one must protect the independence of the Judiciary. However, one of the instances given was very interesting. If, for example, a judge in his or her court told someone, who was...

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

David Norris: I thank the Minister for his undertaking and his understanding of what I was getting at and I am happy to withdraw it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: I agree, but I support the points made by Senator Walsh. It is a fact that the chairmen of committees, in advance of hearing submissions from members of the public, clearly indicate to them that while members of the committee are covered by privilege, the witnesses are not. It is correct to put them on notice of this because some controversial matters have been broached at committees in...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

David Norris: That includes our revered colleague from the other House. The difficulty is the matter of delay. The tribunal is not a court of law and has a lower standard of proof in terms of giving evidence, which is not tested in quite the same way. The tribunals always make the point that they are not courts. However, if somebody makes an outrageous, defamatory and untrue statement, and that is...