Results 16,621-16,640 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

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...

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 disagree vehemently with the disgraceful way in which this Bill is being rushed and I would like an explanation from the Minister why it is being reintroduced on Committee Stage rather than Second Stage. Thirty-five out of 60 Members in this House have had no opportunity to speak on it, including some very eminent legal people such as Senator Regan, a senior counsel. They have been...

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

David Norris: It published a report which urged the creation of a new tort of privacy.

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

David Norris: We should be on Second Stage.

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

David Norris: The Senator's own Members are acting as if we were on Second Stage.

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

David Norris: Let us have Second Stage. Let us have a vote.

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

David Norris: Is it possible to put a motion before the House that Second Stage be taken now?

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

David Norris: It is clear that this side of the House wants a Second Stage debate but the Government has deprived us of the opportunity.

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

David Norris: The rules are being flouted. They may not have been flouted by Senator Regan but they are being flouted all over the place by Fianna Fáil.

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

David Norris: I wish to respond to some points made by the Minister. He stated that the Seanad was continuous under the Constitution and this is quite true but it is not continuous in terms of its membership. I wish that was the case. Why did I fight the last election if it is so continuous?

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

David Norris: If it is continuous why are there more people on the Government side who want to have a Second Stage debate? I reiterate what Senator Regan said. Has the Minister read the Seanad debate in full? There were various points at which his predecessor, the then Minister, Mr. McDowell, indicated that he intended to make changes or was thinking of making changes but none of those have been made....

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

David Norris: It is as relevant as anything that was said over there.

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

David Norris: On that point, it is clear there is disagreement on this side of the House; it is also clear that there are Ministers who disagree with a great deal in the Bill and would have welcomed it being reintroduced on Second Stage. I believe the Minister knows this. Many of his colleagues do not want the Bill in this form but it is being rammed through. I have asked the question why and I have...

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

David Norris: The Leader of the House said it would be the reasonable and sensible thing to introduce it on Second Stage; either that or he is talking nonsense. It was force majeure.

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

David Norris: I did not agree with him.

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

David Norris: It is the reason we have to be elected.