David Norris (Independent)

I agree with Senator Regan. I am astonished that a Fianna Fáil Minister would introduce this kind of thing in the light of the case mentioned by the Senator. This is the celebrated Reynolds case, which followed some American precedents that have been extremely damaging. Look at the state of play in America, especially for politicians and negative advertising. People can tell any quantity of lies with apparently complete impunity about opponents in a political race. People who are highly decorated war heroes can be described by little lice as cowards. People who never got their backsides off the seat in front of the television and who never fired so much as a pop gun in their lives, can still tell these lies. That is where all this thing started.

In my opinion, Mr. Reynolds was very badly treated by the British courts and I would be horrified that the same kind of practice could be pursued here. Senator Regan also made another point that I had intended to make. Under the Constitution, the State guarantees very strongly not only to protect but actively to vindicate the good name of its citizens. Yet this Bill states that someone can print something that is untrue, as long as it is done in good faith. That is not good enough and that is why my amendment is more limited than that of Senator Regan. My amendment just deletes the expression "in good faith". I do not believe in it and I think it is wrong. Why should people be allowed to print lies? What does good faith mean? Is there a definition of good faith? Does it mean that the publisher had the day off because of a hangover, so he did not look over the article in question? Does it mean that he was too stupid to realise that the thing was defamatory? Why should the stupidity or unprofessional behaviour of an editor be allowed to protect him or her against an action by a citizen?

I am astonished at this. A very distinguished former Taoiseach and leader of the Minister's party was very badly treated under similar ideology in the British courts, yet here we are happily introducing it into our own legislation. No thank you.