David Norris (Independent)

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 something like this trailing after these types of judgments. A judgment in the United States some years ago in the case of Sullivan v. The New York Times was based on a first amendment argument. The net impact of this has been to introduce negative advertising whereby people can say whatever they like about their opponents in election campaigns and can pay people to lie on public television and get away with it. Is that what we want?

Mr. George Galloway can be an awkward customer and sometimes plays to a low gallery, something I am sure no Member would accuse me of doing. On the other hand, he was well able for the Senate of the United States when he went there and blazedly told the truth. The truth is something to which The Daily Telegraph is a complete stranger. That paper repeatedly published lies about Mr. Galloway and tried to rely on the justification of fair comment. It lost its case, however. Are these the standards we wish to import into Irish law?

My amendment No. 14 proposes to delete paragraph (a) of subsection (1). This provision is a squalid piece of work. I ask Members, my fellow turkeys, to note that subsection 2 (a) refers to the "extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions". This provision purports to do something I maintain is unconstitutional because it creates two ranks of citizens. On the one hand, there is the ordinary Joe Soap who has never lifted a hand to serve his community or do anything of a public nature. It seems such persons are entitled to a higher degree of protection than somebody who enters public office in an attempt to do some good.

As politicians, we are saying here that there should be a weaker test of truth in what newspapers and other media sources write about us than there is in regard to ordinary citizens. Why is this the case? What is the caratage of truth? Should it not be an absolute standard? Is a lie somehow lesser if it relates to a Deputy, councillor, Senator or Minister rather to an ordinary citizen? I do not understand the logic of that.

I understand that newspapers must pursue matters of public importance. Above all, however, is the question of truth. My standard can be summed up as "Print the truth or pay the price". In 1909 or thereabouts, a contemporary of James Joyce, Arthur Cleary, observed that a nation which takes an English paper for its Sunday lunch will one day find a change in its Friday menu. I should explain for younger people that at that time, Roman Catholic people who were citizens of this State were required not to eat fish. What Mr. Cleary meant by this observation was that if one allows one's ethos to be overwhelmed by the standards of the British tabloid press, one will find one's entire ethical context changed. I do not say this in any racist way. I am proud of the fact that my father is English. I am not anti-English but I deplore and despise the standards of the British press.

Under Article 40 of the Constitution, the State guarantees to secure the good name of every citizen and, by its actions, to vindicate that good name. The Constitution does not provide that this will be done for Mrs. Olivia Boylan in Sallynoggin but not for Senator Maurice Cummins, because he is a Senator, nor for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, because he had the cheek to put himself forward for election. We would want to be very careful before we vote through a Bill that states that if somebody is in public life there is a weaker test of truth to be applied in what is written about them, and I do not give a tuppenny damn if I attract the further ire of Fintan O'Toole for expressing this view in Seanad Éireann. Much as I am interested in Mr. O'Toole's commentary, he always goes on about the freedom of the press. I have every freedom to express these opinions in defence of what I see as proper and decent standards in this House. That is at least as much part of the freedom of expression in a democracy as is the freedom to print lies about politicians.

I remind Members, if any of them are in the slightest doubt, that politicians are routinely held up to contempt and ridicule by commentators. Only last night I was listening to Vincent Browne, whom I usually enjoy, but I had to switch off the programme because he was posing loaded questions, barracking people, interrupting them and groaning and sighing all over the place. It was the most ridiculous performance. He did not give people a chance to speak. He was holding them up to ridicule because they were politicians, and here we are again allowing a lesser standard of truth and decency to be applied simply because we are politicians.

We have been let down by some members of this profession who appear to have sold themselves out, especially over planning, for pathetic amounts of money but I still hold that this is an honourable profession where honourable and decent people work hard in the interests of the community. If there are rotten eggs we should go after them, sort them out, find out the truth and publish it fearlessly but we must not publish half truths and lies. We must not encourage that kind of low standard of journalism.