Results 17,281-17,300 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: The Minister of State should not tempt providence because he might well get one, even though my lungs are not what they were last week.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: The intention of the amendment was to allow for the proposed insertion of the word "automatically" as a possibility after the word "not" in subsection (3)(a) which, as drafted, states: "does not constitute an express or implied admission of liability by that defendant, and". That means that it cannot constitute an implied admission. However, when one says that it "does not automatically"...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I beg his pardon, the grand panjandrum himself, Minister McDowell, TD and Tánaiste.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: He is a distinguished Minister of State, a decent man, and I know him well but I thought, since I could not see Minister McDowell, I would do as the Leader says and read what Mr. Fintan O'Toole said in his column in The Irish Times on this subject and the subject of investigative journalism.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I think any restriction on the discussion of the opinions of Mr. Fintan O'Toole would only be for the greater sanity and welfare of the people. On that jocular note, I will listen to the Minister of State if he has anything more to say.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I am impressed by Senator Walsh's contribution which was fair, measured and reasonable. I also have a degree of sympathy with Senator Maurice Hayes's comments because I understand that one does not want to have blood in the water, in other words, the fact that an apology is given means that people who might not otherwise take an action sniff blood and decide that, having received an apology,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I agree with much of what Senator Cummins said. My understanding, although I may be wrong, is that we are attempting to introduce a new concept into Irish law. It is a concept that is highlighted by the infamous Reynolds case in which a former Taoiseach was libelled and pilloried by a trashy rag owned by that despicable man, Rupert Murdoch. It is astonishing that we should introduce...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: Exactly.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I move amendment No. 14: In page 18, subsection (1), line 31, to delete paragraph (a).

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I will not press it now because I want to return to it on Report Stage but it would strike me as perfectly reasonable that in a matter of public importance truth, and not partial truth, is essential. The number of people, including some of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues, who have privately told me I am right would horrify the people sitting behind him.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I move amendment No. 15: In page 19, subsection (2)(f)(i), lines 9 and 10, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 9 down to and including "standards" in line 10. This amendment concerns the press council. The press council is absurd. The Bill refers to the standards. What are the standards? Where are they? Are they adumbrated in the Bill? Will the Minister of State tell the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: Not at this stage. I will await developments.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: There is something lopsided about this approach. If one opts to seek a declaratory order, one is not entitled to any other kind of compensation. I do not think that is fair. If one gets an order that indicates one has been injured, why should one not have a redress? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest declaratory orders are awarded in cases that are not of sufficient seriousness; they...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: That is absolute nonsense. With the greatest respect, I do not imagine the Minister of State believes for a minute what he is saying. He could not possibly do so, certainly not as a politician. In effect, he is saying that if somebody puts into print or into the airwaves something that is criminally wrong and damaging about another person and if, in order to protect one's reputation, one...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for that clarification. However, I still think it is daft.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: I support what Senator Jim Walsh said. I welcome the Minister of State's enthusiasm for the Law Reform Commission. I hope that enthusiasm will be sustained throughout the rest of this debate, which cannot go on for very long. I will be suggesting some other things that were recommended vigorously by the Law Reform Commission should be taken on board. The points made by Senator Jim Walsh...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: He received €100,000 and did not think it was enough. If he had been granted a declaratory order he would not have been granted anything. The entire country is laughing at him and he has been exposed to ridicule. It does not matter to people whether he is running a brothel. I have no idea if €100,000 was too much, too little or exactly right.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: In that case I will send him a few bob in the post. If he nipped this in the bud as provided for in this Bill he would receive nothing. He has been damaged and exposed to ridicule. I read the article, accompanied by a photograph, and laughed like a drain. It cheered up my morning but I do not see why he should not have some recourse. That may have been innocent nonsense but I am using...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: Why? Is that not for the Oireachtas to decide?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

David Norris: Senator Jim Walsh is correct. Here is a situation where lies have been published and the publication can get away with refusing to withdraw them or apologise. There is much rubbish spoken here about free fees, which is an oxymoron. This Bill establishes free lies and that is not right.