Results 17,321-17,340 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: I move amendment No. 10: In page 18, subsection (3)(a), line 15, after "not" to insert "automatically". The issue of apologies and their effects is troubling. The Minister has substantially weakened the interest of the ordinary citizen. I disagree that an apology would not constitute an express or implied admission of liability. It is plain common sense that it would constitute an...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: There will not be an independent press council.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Does the Senator agree with the inclusion of the word, "automatically"?
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: In that case, they should not be allowed to use it as mitigation either. They cannot have it all on one side.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Such people are not compelled to sue. They are not obliged to continue with their actions.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: I am not sure I used those phrases but I am grateful for the Minister's suggestions, as they will come in handy later.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: The people were in shock.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: I accept it is better to cut down on litigation and so on. I am glad the Minister has conceded there is an artificiality about this issue. Persons who are satisfied with an apology will not continue the action further, which is correct.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Is the Minister imputing impure motives to his own profession? I am so shocked I can hardly stand up. Somebody who wants only an apology will be satisfied with that. The concept of apologies being viewed as a mitigating factor in settlements for damages has been introduced. Nothing in the legislation inhibits apologies. My amendment is weak, as it states, "does not automatically...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: The Minister should have a little wordÃn in private with some of the colleagues.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: That is a sensible arrangement. The matters being teased out are serious and I hope I am not wasting the time of the House. The Minister's replies have been interesting and clear.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: It would be good if we could continue the debate on another day.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: I thank the Minister for his clarification. My objection is to the idea that at the time of the publication statement, the defendant believed in the truth of opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion but believed the author believed it to be true. However, I see that is subject to subsection (3), and that is the one I had difficulty with because I do not believe it is...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Hear, hear.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Perhaps the Minister might like to christen this the "Joan Rivers defence", because he may have heard, as I have, the advertisements on radio for her forthcoming show, where she worries about defamation. She is calling the show "Allegedly" and after every defamatory comment she makes about her neighbour she says, "...allegedly, allegedly". Perhaps the "Joan Rivers defence" might be the new...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: I take it this is a codification of existing practices and that there is nothing vitally new or significant in it, or is there?
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: With what section are we dealing? It states section 17 on the monitor. Is that correct?
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Section 18(2)(a) states "where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true". If a person says Joe Bloggs in the Evening Herald said something with which he or she completely agrees but which turns out to be defamatory, is that the type of example contemplated in the provision? Perhaps the Minister could give the House an example of a...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: Say that outside this House.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)
David Norris: The Press Council is a rather weak body. It is not independent and is financed by those whom it is supposed to police. Senator Maurice Hayes ought not think people will be fooled by that. I certainly am not, even though its head is the former Provost of Trinity College. Every time there is a problem in another profession this is a group that calls for independence. Independence suits for...