Seanad debates

Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I concur with Senator Mansergh. The excesses of salaries and bonuses paid in some areas can leave one slightly shocked, especially in respect of publicly quoted companies. However, I think that is a fault of shareholder power rather than a weakness elsewhere. There is no doubt that excesses exist in the capitalist system but I make the different point that we should not idolise failure when making commentary on our society. The words "prosperity", "profit" and "multinationals" should not be used as terms of abuse because these concepts have transformed this country and brought substantive social justice much further than the theoretical social justice on offer for so many years. Theoretical and ideological social justice is of little use to people who cannot put bread on the table or provide their families with a decent way of life.

Senator Jim Walsh has stated on several occasions he is unhappy with the requirement to take up a lodgment for defamation and leave quietly. In my rebalancing of this Bill as it progresses through the Houses, I will consider the possibility that where a person takes up a lodgment, he or she will have a means of recording that the action was compromised on the basis of a concession and payment from the defamer. I find it slightly obnoxious that a newspaper could seriously defame a person, lodge a sum of money in court and leave the person with nothing without even covering the fact that it had spent enough money to deter the person from suing, or that a newspaper chain could be directed to ignore the fact that €250,000 was paid to frighten someone from suing it over a serious libel. That is a worrying prospect and Senator Jim Walsh is on to something.

I do not know exactly how to deal with the issue but in making an apology unreliable for the purposes of a case and also making a lodgment have this effect, we must remind ourselves that somebody who has been seriously defamed should be in a position to receive some sort of public vindication. If a payment is made without liability, it should at least be acknowledged if the recipient so chooses. It is not necessarily enough simply to lodge a payment and deny libel while leaving somebody with nothing besides a private accretion to his or her bank balance.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.