Michael McDowell
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“Then I think of this particular Chamber where people are polite and kind to each other and listen to each other respectfully. There is no baying or shouting down or whatever. It is a great tribute to the Seanad staff that that spirit continues to exist in this House.”
“I note that the whole scheme of the planning Act is that exempt development proposals are considered by the Houses. It is questionable whether this House has really considered the exempt development regulations. Without debate, we sent them off to a committee.”
“I am one of the people who disagrees with the substance of that report. We have to have a real solid debate on it here in this House, not merely a cursory one. It is an issue of fundamental importance. It cannot be avoided, one way or the other. Whatever your views are on it, it needs to be thrashed out.”
“Although coming up to the end of this term we are rushing things through, and the guillotine is well-oiled and slicing this way and that, we have a lot of work to do in the autumn.”
“The people who did that were brought before the International Court of Justice and condemned and imprisoned. If Ireland does not clearly state that there are to be consequences for people who do things like what Mladić, Milošević and Karadžić were brought to account for, if we are incapable as a State of publicly saying that what Secretar…”
“If we cannot, as a State, say publicly to Rubio, "Hands off the International Criminal Court", when they were quite happy when the people who did the 7,000 murders in Srebrenica got their just desserts, but when there is any suggestion that what has happened in Gaza, with 70,000 innocent people killed by aerial bombardment and land bombar…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,224 lines we hold for Michael McDowell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 25.
“I certainly hope that we will have a Senator from Northern Ireland to represent the unionists in this House again. We will never have the likes of Billy Lawless again. In one sense, this it is a sad moment for me to have to speak of Billy as a historic figure in the context of this House. In another, it is a great pleasure to bear witness to a person who was such a receptacle of humanity, decency and kindness. I welcome the opportunity that the Cathaoirleach has given us today to pay tribute to a man who deserves every single one of those tributes.”
“He said, "Michael, in America, you don't argue with the cops." What can I say about Billy that needs to be recorded here in order that his family hears it stated in public? He loved his family. He loved every single member of his family. He lived their problems and their challenges. He loved Anne above all. They were a model couple in so many ways. I know that for Anne, it has been a huge loss that she has to live without her life partner, Billy. I want to assure her that his tradition and memory lives on in these Houses. The people in this Chamber who were here when he was a Senator remember his kindness, his bravery and his voting on foot of his convictions. Maybe in future we will have another enlightened Taoiseach who will have a Senator for the diaspora.”
“He showed generosity to me and my wife, Niamh, by inviting us to go to Chicago when he was grand marshal of the parade there. He brought us to so many events. I remember on one occasion that he brought us out on a Sunday morning to show us the panorama of the buildings of Chicago. He stopped the car in a deserted park. It was like going up to the Phoenix Park on a Sunday morning here. There was nobody about. He was pointing out this building, that building and the other building. Suddenly, there was a knock on his window and there stood a policeman. He rolled down the window and was handed a $100 citation for parking on double-yellow lines. I remember saying that that was absolutely outrageous. He had only been here for half a minute.”
“He was a typical, thoroughgoing liberal in his approach to many issues. He brought that liberalism to this House. When he was appointed, he had a slight dilemma. He was a Fine Gael man by origin. He had been appointed by the then Taoiseach, but he understood that he was in this House as somebody who was non-partisan and he voted against the Government on occasion, which was sometimes to the disappointment of the then Government Whip. He showed his courage in so many ways. I do not want to speak about myself, but I want to say that I find it difficult even now to think that he is not at the end of the phone. I also find it difficult not to think that I could discuss American politics with him by bumping into him here or there.”
“Billy also spoke on the gender recognition legislation, stating: Let us not ever underestimate children, regardless of what age they are. I was watching a television programme the other night on this issue. What really struck me was that the young transgender girl told her mother when she was three years of age and the mother believed her. She is the most beautiful girl today and is so happy in herself. I was really overcome with emotion when I watched that programme and thought of what she would have gone through. That we in this country of Ireland are able to discuss these issues is a credit to everyone. The image that some journalists perhaps have of Billy as an Irish-American tough and successful businessman who had absorbed American politics to some extent, as somebody who was a typical American, is not true.”
“He also made an important point when he said: It is clear that the authors of the Constitution believed deeply in the importance of the Irish abroad, codifying that recognition in Article 2 which recognises that the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage. I acknowledge that there may be some in the country who fear that those who may wish to vote in presidential elections do not fully appreciate or understand the Ireland from which they departed or from which they derive citizenship. Billy supported votes for the Seanad for Irish citizens living abroad. He also moved to persuade the Irish Government to do something about according voting rights to Irish citizens abroad.”
“He stated: Who would have thought that in 1973, when Senator Norris commenced his campaign to decriminalise homosexuality, Ireland would become the first country in the entire world to equalise our marriage laws through a popular vote? There are generations of Irish people who would scarcely believe that being homosexual was a statutory offence between 1861 and 1993. As a proud father of a gay daughter - my business partner who is now married to a Texan with a beautiful daughter - it is a great measure of the social transformation which has taken place in our society. That was Billy. He was not just the returned Irish émigré, who was the Yank in our midst. He was very much his own man.”
“In 2019, in this House, he said: Our own history is indelibly linked to the refugees of today. Irish people sought sanctuary in the US, were shipped to Australia, and went to England for work with the hope of building a new life for themselves and a brighter future for their families. Former President Mary McAleese recently stated that considering their own history, Irish people have no right to be racist. This was one of the cornerstones of his beliefs. In 2018, he said: As an Irish citizen and American citizen, I am very proud that this is one of the few countries in Europe that does not have an anti-immigrant party. Long may that last. I echo those sentiments today. Billy was a liberal.”
“I did it myself. He stood for the party in the local elections, which I did too, and he also stood against Michael D. Higgins, narrowly missing out on one occasion in 1991. Eventually, he went to Chicago and he and Anne established a great family there. It is worthwhile repeating some of the things that were said about Billy in Chicago. The head of the Irish American News , a man called Cliff Carlson, said: No one in Chicago has done more for immigrants and refugee rights than Billy. Mr. Lawless has only been in Chicago since the late 1990s, yet his impact on our great city is indelible. Billy formed, as you mentioned, a Chathaoirligh, a movement to ensure that there would be justice in Chicago for the undocumented Irish and to foster the Irish-American community's future in Chicago.”
“Regarding the economic relationship between Ireland and America, Billy never stopped seeking to develop contacts and encourage business relationships and mutual investment, both by the Irish in America and by the Americans in Ireland. That was because he knew from his own experience what could be achieved in terms of economic prosperity and the like. Billy started off - it is not a sin - as a member of the Fine Gael Party.”
“He travelled to Washington and he knew all the main players on both sides of the aisle. He was hugely committed to developing relations between this country and America, and between members of both Houses of Congress in the United States, with a view to achieving certain aims, one of which was to assist the undocumented Irish who for so many years were living in a shadow. Things have moved on since then, as we grimly know today. Billy was somebody who saw the humanity of their situation. He did his level best to ensure that families were not broken up, that people were not rounded up and put into detention centres and that children were not left without their parents. These were the ideals that drove him in that area.”
“As has been said, Billy emigrated to Chicago in the 1990s, but although he had been a publican in Ireland and in the hospitality business, when he went to Chicago, he grew his workforce from ten to 250 people. No less a person than Barack Obama said "This is what we emigrants do." He built a hugely successful business, the Gage Hospitality Group in Chicago, largely through commitment, the efforts of his family and his personal qualities. When Enda Kenny decided to appoint him as a Senator for the diaspora, he did so on the basis that Ireland needed connections with its allies in the United States, and Billy took that role. Apart from being a leading member of the Irish-American community in Chicago, he took his role as diaspora representative and Member of the Irish Senate very seriously.”
“When I came here as a Senator for the first time in 2016, Billy had been appointed by Enda Kenny to be a Senator for the diaspora, and on the same day Ian Marshall had been appointed as a representative of the unionist community in this House. Both of them joined with a number of the rest of us to form a Seanad Independent group. We got to know each other obviously over the term of that Seanad. The great thing about Billy was that he was remarkably decent, kind, loyal, forthright and honest in all his dealings, not merely with the members of his own group, but right across the aisle, so to speak, in this House. He was somebody who was kind-hearted and slow to anger, but very clear about what he believed in and very true to what he believed in.”
“A Chathaoirligh, thank you so much for those very kind words in tribute to our good friend, Billy Lawless. I would like to welcome his wife, Anne, his daughter Amy, who has travelled from Chicago, his sisters Helen and Mary, and family friends Carol and Maura. I also acknowledge the presence of Tracy Young, who you have mentioned as well, a Chathaoirligh, because if ever there was a relationship of loyalty and friendship between a member of staff of this House and their employer, it was that relationship between Billy and Tracy. She, like all of us, was very saddened by his death last November. I know also that Billy Junior, Clodagh and John Paul are listening in to us from Chicago. I just want to say a few words about their father, in particular, the following.”
“All of us here know that if a story of that kind is published on the front page of a newspaper to the effect that one of us or a chief superintendent, a bishop or whomever is under investigation by the Garda for doing X, Y or Z, that is fine and there is nothing the person involved can do about it at all. That is what the Minister is proposing. Even if, as in Senator Craughwell's example, it is found that there is nothing to the story, the newspaper, RTÉ or whatever organ published it is not even bound to say a year later, "By the way, when we published that story, it turned out we were wrong, but we have a full defence under the laws of defamation."”
“Once those three criteria are satisfied, there is no point in suing. There is no point in asking why the details were put on the front page of the newspaper. Someone could not ask, "Why did you ring me up and say we are going to publish this unless you deny it?" All of that just goes out the window. A simple test. I am not going to say that what is proposed is unconstitutional, but it is verging on the unconstitutional to say that that is a full defence for a person who is grossly damaged by a story of that sort appearing on the front page of a newspaper.”
“If what is proposed comes into place, then any accusation of any other kind - be it in respect of a wife beater, a corrupt person, a bribe taker or whomever - in any ongoing investigation will be able to find its way on to the front page of any newspaper. There will be a 100% cast-iron defence given to the newspaper involved to the effect that it is true, that it was informed that it was true by a particular garda and that it saw the file. That story could, therefore, be published. The person against whom the accusation was made would have no access to redress whatsoever under the Minister's proposal. That is the bottom line. There would be no redress whatsoever if a newspaper says that it is in the public interest that the public should know the details of a case and that those details were published in good faith.”
“If a Member of this House, or the other House, or somebody in a public position is being investigated by the Garda for corruption and the Minister’s amendment is put through, it can be the front-page story of any newspaper anywhere as long as the editor and the journalist who wrote the story believe in good faith it is in the public interest for the public to know that investigation is taking place. A point that I would throw out for the Minister's consideration is that we put protections around people who are accused of rape. Anybody accused of rape who is brought to court cannot be identified for good reason.”
“There will be no obligation to come back and say, two weeks later, that by the way the Garda has dropped the investigation. Section 26 as originally proposed may have been a bit nerdy in terms of setting out all the hoops that had to be jumped through, but that was done as a result of very close political pressure – I will use that phrase – to ensure we did not sweep away the rights of persons in public life. It did not come into its present form on the back of a cigarette packet. There was huge discussion to get it into law at all. There was huge interaction between politicians to ensure protections were put in.”
“That will be a full defence and thus it will be all over the Sunday papers that so-and-so is being investigated by the Garda for X or Y.”
“If you could not arrest somebody or arrest the journalist to whom they had spoken, you could not prove the source of leaks from An Garda Síochána. The good name of the citizen is not purely that of the citizen themselves but all of their family. Sometimes the family members deserve protection. When we come to Report Stage, there have to be amendments to this. It is not adequate to leave it in its present state. It has been pared down to the absolute minimum. There are no protections, really, for people who will be plastered all over the front page with a caption stating that so-and-so is under investigation for X. That is a simple statement of fact. The public should know about it, the journalists will say. They will say they are publishing it in good faith.”
“It is an entirely different situation. The Minister referred to the prosecutions that have been brought, as they have been, but the only the reason they have been brought is that it became an arrestable offence to release information. Prior to that it was an offence under the Official Secrets Act, there was no power of arrest and there was a culture of impunity for a minority of gardaí who knew they could never be caught if they brazened out the matter. The genesis of the five-year penalty arose from the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána reporting that he could not control the flowing-out of information unless he had a power of arrest. It was not a desire on my part to start introducing a regime of fear in the Garda - on the contrary.”
“We will, as the Minister said, come later to what to do about anonymous publications but if he is actually talking about the loner in the boxroom in the house of flats in Rathmines, what is he asking him or her to do by way of verification before he or she makes an accusation? Is the Minister seriously asking him or her to knock on the doors of people and take witness statements from them, and the like? No, he is not. Senator Craughwell mentioned the leaking of Garda information. Virtually every week there is a story that the Garda is investigating such and such. It is fine if it says, “Gardaí are investigating a gang of burglars operating in the Carlow region” or something like that, but if it is “Gardaí are investigating Senator Michael McDowell on suspicion of corruption", that is entirely different.”
“What is the single test for the guy in the boxroom at the top of a building in Rathmines? What is the test in relation to having made reasonable inquiries? Is it the same as that for the media? Is the Minister seriously saying a loner in his bedroom deciding to upload his accusation, or whatever it is, has the same onus on him to stand up the story as there would be on a newspaper? I make that point because it is so possible to defame somebody now by putting something out on the Internet without accountability, without any check and without anything like that happening.”
“That is his point and it is an entirely valid one. He is saying it is a checklist a newspaper or broadcaster would go through. They would ask whether they are satisfying the checklist or whether they are hoping that the fact Senator McDowell did not answer their Friday afternoon telephone call means that on Sunday they can publish X, Y and Z and that it will help them in some way in defending any proceedings that are brought. That is important. I agreed with the Minister when he said that if we removed section 26(1)( c ), then we would have to change subsection (2) and we would have to have a knock-on effect of some kind if we were going to include the criteria that were not simply the fair and reasonable criterion. The other thing the Minister says is he wants a single test for everybody.”
“Before we put the matter to a vote, in fairness to Senator Mullen, he was not saying the purpose of this was preventative. He was saying that in many newspapers and out in RTÉ and various other places where publications happen, people would take a look at section 26 as it currently is and ask whether they are satisfying all these steps. That is what they would ask themselves. Is it enough for them to say they asked Senator McDowell for comment and he refused? They know they will not be able to rely on that in court, so that is not good enough. Senator Mullen was not saying it is designed to prevent people publishing things. On the contrary, he was saying that just because you cannot point out cases where section 26 was successfully invoked by a defendant, you cannot say it did not have an effect on publishers.”
“On the face of it, it seems to apply to anybody whose behavioural standards or the like comprise a matter of public interest. You do not even have to show that the publication was for the public benefit. That is going to be got rid of. I will leave it at that.”
“-----on three occasions. In future, is that to be material in determining whether the story as published should have a defence under the revised section 26? If it is to cease to be material, that is fine, but let us tell the people that. We should let the people of Ireland know that, in the future, adverse inferences can be drawn if you say nothing. Let us tell the people that is the change we are proposing. I am putting my trust in the Minister that he is willing to take another look at section 26 because it is not just me but also other Members of this House who are worried about this. The Irish political system is only one potential casualty. As the Minister has said, this applies to all publications in all forms, including social media.”
“If that subsection is deliberately being taken away by this House, the courts will notice that it used to be law that no adverse inference could be drawn but that it is no longer the law. They will say that Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann deliberately swept that safeguard aside. Is the Minister content to get rid of that safeguard? I will finish now but it is very easy to write a story and say that you contacted Senator Conway, who failed to respond-----”
“At this stage, I am entitled to ask the Minister whether he believes in the existing section 26(3), which states: The failure or refusal of a plaintiff to respond to attempts by or on behalf of the defendant, to elicit the plaintiff’s version of events, shall not— (a) constitute or imply consent to the publication of the statement, or (b) entitle the court to draw any inference therefrom. Does he believe in that? Are we changing that law? Are we saying courts can draw an inference from the fact of a person saying nothing or that one's solicitor says "publish and be damned"? Does the Minister agree with section 26(3) of the existing law? It is hugely important.”
“They talk about the importance of the legislative process and holding Members of the Oireachtas to high standards but when their own interests are concerned, there is not a peep out of them. It is depressing. That is all I will say. If this Bill goes to Report Stage, and I have no doubt that it will, there is provision in the rules of this House to remit the consideration of whatever section is put forward or any amendments that are put forward to Committee Stage, in other words, to reopen the matter at Committee Stage so that a genuine discussion can be held rather than what happens on Report Stage, which is that Members may make one speech and that is it. That does not really work in this context so I am glad that the rules of the House so provide.”
“Not one word of the debates in this House has been published by the stakeholders. You can search RTÉ or every newspaper, but not one comma of this debate has been published. That is because they hope it will go through unscrutinised and unchallenged. That is what is going on. You might think that they are interested in this. I think Professor Eoin O'Dell, an academic, is the only person who has said a word about it. Not one word about the issues we have been debating here for the last two days has been put in the public domain by the so-called mainstream media, the non-mainstream media, all of the online commentators or even the academics. Why is that? It is because the stakeholders stand to benefit from the Minister's amendment. They want to wave it through unchanged. It suits them very well, thank you very much.”
“You then say that the Bar Council is a stakeholder. I wonder are they really stakeholders who should be listened to more than the interests of the public and the individual citizen represented by TDs and Senators. That is what was so disappointing about the debate on section 26 in the Dáil. It never even looked at what the difference actually was between the new section 26 and the old one, what would and would not be permitted and what defences would or would not be put in place. The debate in Dáil Éireann never really examined the change that was being made. When the Minister says that he is prepared to consider looking at his proposed section 26, that is good. I presume he will do it with an open mind and pay attention to what has been said in this House, at the very least, in relation to it. It is extraordinary.”
“To see somebody defamed with immunity and impunity because the newspaper thought it was in the public interest that it should be made public, the devastation that can cause to the child of a public figure, to see their parent plastered all over the front of a newspaper, the subject of an in-depth RTÉ investigative report, attacked mercilessly by one of the online magazines or just simply under siege from a constant barrage or anonymous online postings, is huge. Everybody is a stakeholder here. That is something that it is very easy in our new society to forget. You set up an NGO such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, voluntarily or by the State, it does not matter, or you listen to McCann FitzGerald, which is a very substantial legal firm that specialise in defending newspapers and perhaps broadcasters.”
“Just because you run a newspaper, an online magazine or because you call yourself the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, a body which I greatly admire, it does not mean that you have some special function, especially when the ICCL approached it, and rightly so, from the point of view of freedom of speech. That was its particular perspective. Politicians, by the way, are stakeholders in this. They will find out if it is passed in its present form just how much they were stakeholders and ignored their own self-interest. Every single citizen is a stakeholder in this because every single citizen has an interest in protecting their good name or the good name of members of their family. It is not just politicians; it is politicians' spouses and families.”
“Nobody really looked at it at all. It was just nodded through. As Senator Mullen says, the same happened with the hate speech legislation. It was just plonked into this House, largely unconsidered as to what exactly it would mean. It was when it was put under the spotlight that people began to have questions about whether it should or should not be passed. I am glad the Minister says that he is prepared to entertain proposals for changes to section 26. Apart from opposing his version in its entirety, it is difficult to ask this House to come up with an entirely different piece of law where we have not had any consideration of it by the Dáil. The Minister mentioned the word "stakeholders". Everybody is a stakeholder in this. Every single citizen is a stakeholder in this.”
“That suggests, somehow, that you could not publish something that you believe is a wildly incredible allegation, and I go along with such a view. If, however, two people are standing up in public and accusing each other of bribery, theft, corruption, sex abuse or whatever, you name it, and I say here is a dispute, I will tell you all about the dispute impartially and accurately, and I have no obligation to check out whether the fundamental allegation in that dispute is true, I cannot understand how the Minister proposes to bring that into law. The Minister gave the background to how section 26 came to be in the Bill, and I accept what he said about that. When I checked the Dáil record and looked at the interaction between him and Deputy Matt Carthy of Sinn Féin, none of these matters were considered at all.”
“In those circumstances, if you are impartially and accurately describing the dispute, you do not, if you are the publisher, have any duty to take any steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by the publication. I think that is wrong. That is not a simplification of the law. That is the introduction of an entirely new species of reporting. There is a dispute. A says B is a child abuser. B says he is not. This dispute exists between them. I am going to fairly, impartially and accurately print the fact that this dispute exists. It is a defence to the imputation against the person accused of child abuse. It is a defence that it was in the public interest to publish it about him. No duty is cast on the publisher to ask if it is true or whether it rings true. You might say it was done in good faith.”
“Where does the Minister's proposed revision of this section deal with that? He does bring it in respect of disputes because it has to be an impartial and accurate account but that issue does not seem to have any weight at all for other defamations. The 2009 Act states, "if the plaintiff's version of events was not so represented, the extent to which a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain a response from that person; and ... attempts made, and the means used, by the defendant to verify the assertions and allegations concerning the plaintiff in this statement". Then you go to the Minister's subsection (3). Effectively, it is predicated on there being a dispute. It does not say a public dispute, but a dispute between the plaintiff in the action and somebody else.”
“Any press council that gets statutory recognition, as this gave it, would have to be entirely independent of the State. That is what happened. The provisions of the Defamation Act 2009 made it clear that if the media in Ireland established a press council, it could be recognised for the purpose of that section, but not otherwise. I disregarded the report recommending a ministerially appointed press council. Another issue is the extent to which the plaintiff's version of events was represented in the publication concerned and given the same or similar prominence as was given to the statement concerned. As in the Gerry Adams case, is it fair if at the end or at the beginning for someone to say that Gerry Adams denies the following and then have 20 minutes of anonymous allegations made?”
“I was told that in total confidence by somebody who is absolutely trustworthy." Are we going to accept that kind of publication and say that it is a good defence for any of that spectrum of publishers to say that they acted in good faith in publishing it? In paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection 2, the whole idea of the Press Council was brought in. I just want to remind the House about what the background to that was. There had been a proposal in the programme for Government for the establishment of statutory press council. A report was done and submitted to me as Minister, which effectively recommended that there should be a press council. Members will be glad to hear that I was to appoint most of the members of it. I said to myself that this is absolutely unacceptable.”
“Is that to be a criterion by which, once satisfied, defamatory matter can be published about somebody, as in that case where there was an untrue allegation that Gerry Adams had been party to the decision to kill Denis Donaldson? Is it legitimate at all to put forward a programme of that kind if you are entirely dependent on off-stage actors who either are disguised and appear in profile and shadow, or who are just sources who are dependable and who you have checked out carefully? I wonder if any of us were the subject of an accusation of very serious criminality, whether we would be content for a broadcaster, online newspaper, a newspaper or an online poster from a bedsit to be able to say: "Well, I believed very much that the source, which I'm not going to reveal to you, was true.”
“In those circumstances, outside of the criminal law, are we to have situations where there can be discussions about people tending to suggest that there is an allegation or a suspicion that they have engaged in criminality, based on good sources? The funny thing about the recent Gerry Adams case before the jury was that the producer of the programme, as I understand it - I was not there for most of the case; I only saw the bit when I was there as a witness - said that she had very good anonymous sources for the accusations that were made against him. Is it legitimate for someone to say that they have very good anonymous sources, that people are trustworthy and that they tested them out and what they were telling seemed correct?”
“The Minister's section just does not deal with that issue at all. The second point is the seriousness of any allegations made in the statement. The court is to look at the context and content of the language used in the defamatory statement. The extent to which the statement draws a distinction between suspicions, allegations and facts is very important. I have seen in my own lifetime people who are, let us say, dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations, going to the media and saying the DPP would not prosecute or the chief superintendent would not send forward this file or whatever, but here it is and it makes a very serious allegation against a person in public life.”
“One view of the public interest apparently can be that particular crimes are committed by immigrants, migrants, asylum seekers, or people who are here illegally. That is newsworthy, but the others are not. If section 26(1)(c) were excised, that would leave the other criteria in section 26(2) of the existing statute to be considered. The first one is the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions. Let us take the case of an entirely private dispute about whether somebody sexually abused his or her own daughter or whatever the case may be. Is it in the public interest that the person be exposed or is it only in the public interest for the person to be exposed if he or she is a public figure in any event or carrying out some kind of public function?”
“I noted that none of the online publications that would have been the first to point out if he was a migrant did not bother with that story. They were not interested in that case. If there had been a minor stabbing involving a migrant, it would get top billing in certain online publications. What Senator Mullen said about being a selective watchdog is very true. We think and we hope that, let us say, RTÉ is not selective in that way and that it does not just look at foreigners committing crimes in Ireland, but looks at everybody who commits crimes in Ireland and reports fairly on all of those news stories. There is no obligation at all to be fair in that kind of way, cast by the Minister in the proposed section.”
“The second point that has to be borne in mind, and which was mentioned by Senator Mullen, is that you can have people who consider themselves to be watchdogs in the public interest and who post online for consumption by the public but who are highly selective. I do not have to remind this House this week that there are very many people who put up on social media items to do with crimes alleged to have been committed by asylum seekers and migrants. The same people, some of whom actually use online magazines, do not seem to be interested in whether an Irish person perpetrates the exact same crime. We had a case the other day, publicly dealt with, in which apparently an Irishman brutally stabbed an Irishwoman with whom he had had a relationship, because she was ending it. She suffered grievous injuries.”
“He is not a person you would normally think of, such as a politician or officeholder, as attracting the Minister's defence; however, there is no criterion set out in the Minister's proposed section that distinguishes whether the man is fair game for a publication about whether he is a child abuser and whether parents should be informed of serious allegations to that effect if they surrender their children to his temporary control every day on the way to school. There is nothing in the Minister's section that differentiates between his activity and a member of the Oireachtas taking bribes, and that worries me considerably.”
“That was to reflect the Reynolds decision, implying there are people and things already in the public domain that may be treated differently. That criterion is to be scrapped. What is a matter of public interest? Is it a matter of public interest that the lollipop man outside a certain school has been accused of child abuse? Arguably it is because children will be crossing the road every day under his control and interacting with him in doing so.”
“Teacher A may say teacher B is a child abuser and teacher B may hotly deny it, saying teacher A is malicious and has no grounds for making the accusation. Is that a dispute? If, say, the dispute goes to the board of governors of the school and the governors are divided 50:50, is it a dispute that can be fairly described impartially by stating the following six governors think X and the following eight think Y and that the substance of the issue is that a party to the dispute had been defamed and it was in the public interest that the public should know about it? The media and public-personages aspect of the existing law is reflected in the proposition, in section 26, that one of the criteria the court have to consider is “the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions”.”