Rónán Mullen
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“The fun side of her personality certainly came out during her participation in "Strictly Come Dancing". I think she had the humility to see that even if on occasions she could be seen as cutting a slightly absurd figure, she used that to generate affection and attention for the points of view she held a deep conviction for.”
“I also welcome our French dignitary and say, Vive la France ce soir et vive le Chemin de St. Jacques en France, I would say, à titre personnel. I do not think I was the only one in this House who was very shocked and upset by the news of the murder of Ann Widdecombe last Friday.”
“This Bill, I think, is the opportunity for the Government to recognise that it is not just extreme or violent pornography that is the problem.”
“Teresa's in Clarendon Street at 12.45 p.m. It is time for us all to reflect on the risks people in public life face, not just during their parliamentary careers but afterwards as well. Let us hope for a more secure and safer society for us all where people can express their ideas in a forthright and honest way and not be harmed for that.”
“He is so worried about adult privacy rights that he is not willing to commit to what is needed to protect children from being able to access pornography now. There is one thing the Minister of State did not say. He said that there is already existing online safety regulation restricting access to pornography, but is it working?”
“I acknowledge the work done by Coimisiún na Meán as the regulator in the online space. With all it has on, its role requiring parental controls, reporting, flagging and complaint mechanisms is important. It is undoubtedly attempting to fulfil its remit in demanding age assurance mechanisms of online platforms.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Rónán Mullen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“You had what appeared to be a deliberate splicing of two sections of a broadcast to link the call to people to go to Capitol Hill with the language of "fight, fight" and, of course, a failure to include another statement that was made that called for people to act peacefully. I am no apologist for Donald Trump here, but it is useful for us to think about how bias can operate, even in a very reputable broadcaster. It is useful for us to think about why and when it might operate as well. You can have a greater risk of bias and you can have a greater risk of a lowering of journalistic standards when the person who is at the receiving end of the defamatory comment is already a hate figure. I would dare to say that we saw this in Ireland with RTÉ at the time of the Fr. Kevin Reynolds affair on "Prime Time".”
“I urge that some consideration would be given to at least burdening them with costs in certain circumstances where somebody has been victimised by, for example, a defamatory statement made in the context of a live broadcast with a live audience. I was thinking recently about the current fiasco going on in the BBC and the way that President Trump was treated by a "Panorama" documentary where, basically, two statements - I think an hour apart - were spliced so as to give a certain impression. It does not matter here what you think of Trump; what matters is whether public service broadcasters or, indeed, any broadcasters are interested in keeping their own standards regardless of who they are dealing with.”
“Even if you remove actual liability, as this amendment seeks to do, should all burdens be removed from their shoulders, save the checks and balances or save the issues for the court to consider here in determining whether the broadcaster took "reasonable and prudent precautions"? Why not ensure that there is some possibility of financial discomfort on a broadcaster where this should happen? Surely it has some responsibility in the situation. It is a great privilege to be running an organisation that broadcasts ideas to the public and it seems to me that with that great privilege must go great responsibilities.”
“I refer to people who will watch their chance just to get in defamatory statements. If they are people without particular means, this amendment gives some comfort to them. It gives leeway to straw men, straw women or - for want of a better phrase - straw persons to make defamatory statements because a significant load is being taken off the minds of the broadcasters here. It strikes me as strange that the Minister mentioned, for example, the possibility of the correction order. Would any consideration have been given to the idea that the costs of a correction order, where it might be necessary to be made, would perhaps be borne by the broadcaster?”
“I am worried that, like the proposed amendment to section 11 which we discussed previously, this live broadcast defence is another very strong pro-media measure. It seems, notwithstanding the subclauses contained in the proposed amendment, that it takes us from one extreme to another and removes a necessary protection and issue that broadcasters, journalists and presenters should have in the back of their minds, that is, if someone is defamed by a third party, that can have serious consequences for them as a broadcaster and not just for the person making the defamatory statement. It seems that where the rubber hits the road on this one - where the risk is at its greatest - is where you are talking about a live broadcast with a live audience. There are undoubtedly destructive forces in our society.”
“It behoves the political system to ensure that people have somebody they can vote for on polling day. As we have a single transferable vote system, there is no reason political parties could not think outside the box, for example, where they have the numbers to nominate more than one candidate from the Oireachtas. That is the reason I have called for an all-party Oireachtas committee to be set up to look at our presidential nomination process and to hear from the public, political parties, political scientists and others to see how we can ensure that the public dissatisfaction that was recently registered does not have to happen again and how we can do it better in future, in light of the changing Ireland we are in.”
“In that regard, we need to take notice of what happened on polling day, with an unprecedented 13% of people who went to the polls doing something other than registering a preference for one of the validly nominated candidates. The decision to spoil votes in the circumstances that took place cannot be viewed as an antisocial act. This was a clear expression of displeasure by many voters at the inadequacies of the presidential nomination process this time round in particular and, I believe, at the unacceptable - in many voters' eyes - lack of choice and lack of representation of diversity on the ballot paper. Ireland is much less homogenous than it was before. There is much more division among people and people's ideas. Even within political parties, there is probably a greater level of division than heretofore.”
“Ní raibh deis agam go dtí seo gach rath a ghuí ar ár nUachtarán nuathofa, Catherine Connolly. I want to wish, as I know many in this House and elsewhere have done already, our President-elect Catherine Connolly the very best for her tenure as Uachtarán na hÉireann. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Coiste na Gaeilge, na Gaeltachta agus na nOileán with Catherine. Whatever disagreement I might have from time to time with Catherine on some issues, sometimes very important issues, I have always found her to be a very calm, courteous and open person. Those characteristics will serve her very well as she strives to be a President for all the people of Ireland. We live at a time when we need unifying forces in our country to bring people together.”
“I do not deny that the Minister is attempting to address the problem and that he intends to address it, but what is contained here facilitates less, and not more, responsible behaviour at a time when attention to standards in the publication of information, claims and allegations has never been more important. While I note what the Minister has said about considering whether the concept of fairness should be brought back, much more careful consideration needs to be given to this get-out in regard to the obligation to take steps to verify the truth. That needs serious consideration. It is dangerously problematic as it is set out at present.”
“However, the person who takes on the responsibility to publish is the initiator of the problem. If they do not, in certain circumstances, even have to take steps to verify the truth of what they are saying, it is a serious problem. The Minister rightly talked about the problem that exists now on social media with people being constantly defamed and subjected to abuse of various kinds, including defamation. I worry that what is going on here is that he is bringing everybody down to a lower standard of behaviour and not addressing the problem.”
“They could claim that they gave the Minister the opportunity to respond and he said he would not dignify the accusation and would see the person reporting in court if they publish. If that person publishes, he or she is entitled to ask the court to disregard the fact that no steps to verify the story were taken, other than asking the Minister if it was true. Is that what is meant by taking "steps to verify"? Is that all you have to do? Do you even have to do that? I do not understand how it is possible to give anybody a get-out on the requirement to take steps to verify the truth of something that they choose to put in the public domain. I completely get the Minister's distinction between the fact of an allegation and the facts or otherwise contained within an allegation.”
“As the Minister rightly says, it is not just possible and permitted but necessarily possible and permitted to report proceedings in court cases even where the facts of what is reported to be alleged have not necessarily been established. The Minister, however, is not talking about court cases; he is talking about an accurate and impartial account of a dispute. Let us suppose that somebody makes a horrible accusation about the Minister, and that the Minister chooses not to dignify that allegation with a response. Can someone then give an accurate and impartial account of the dispute? They could claim it is a matter of public interest because the Minister is a public person against whom X has made a horrible accusation.”
“I do not see how we subtract from the ability of good bona fide media or journalists, in particular - I know the Minister is not exclusively talking about journalists - to do their jobs by not giving this get-out that they do not, in certain circumstances, have to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation they convey. I cannot think of a single example where that get-out for journalists could be shown to be necessary. How is it ever not strictly required that you try to verify? The Minister is allowing this exception in circumstances where an accurate and impartial account of a dispute is brought forward. Senator McDowell has already asked what exactly is meant by "dispute". If we were talking about court cases, we could all understand.”
“There was a widespread discussion at the time that one of the reasons for the failure to check facts was that there was at the time a certain odium around church people, particularly in the context of abuse cases. The media dropped its guard and as a result an innocent person was libelled. But for the particular circumstances of the libel, that person might not have had the recourse they were eventually able to get. We are operating in a climate where the media does not always have clean hands, is not always scrupulously impartial and does not always subject everybody to the same test when it comes to hearing about, investigating and reporting wrongdoing.”
“They might not succeed in verifying or satisfying themselves one way or the other to a court level of certainty, but that it might not be to their disadvantage that they did not even try is a concern. The defence the Minister gave for that, and I do not want to put words in his mouth, was that he wanted to protect neutral reportage of issues and to protect the media watchdog function. We all know that media, various media and some media, are capable of selective watchdoggery. The Minister must have in mind the possibility that the media might be interested in particular potential villains and less so in others. I remind him of what happened with RTÉ and Fr. Kevin Reynolds, for example.”
“Even at that, I cannot understand how it can ever be right to say that there are circumstances where the court is not interested in whether the defendant took steps to verify the truth of an imputation that it conveys, which is the subsection (3) exception: "Where the statement in respect of which the defamation action was brought was an accurate and impartial account of a dispute", and that the court can disregard the defendant's failure to even take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it. In what world and in what circumstances is that get-out fair? Surely as a matter of precaution it should always be the case that there should be an absolute obligation to try to verify.”
“Surely there is every possibility that the reason section 26 has not been successfully invoked is that it is acting in the preventative way the law should, which is to prevent false or defamatory statements from being made. Is it not the correct question for Minister to ask himself and to address here what type of stories or things we are now aware of that should and could have been reported in the past but for the fact that there was not a strong enough public interest defence for publication? Are we talking about situations in the past whereby if journalists had a stronger public interest defence, they could have reported more freely on allegations that politicians were taking money from donors, illegally or otherwise?”
“- are having extended to them here a form of qualified privilege, which I would say at best is only mildly qualified. As I have heard Senator McDowell say, there is a case for adjusting what is there already in section 26. The question is whether the Minister is going too far here, and I think he is. The Minister has made the point that he is concerned the section 26 defence has never to his knowledge been successfully invoked. I heard a form of that argument here last year when we were discussing the hate speech legislation, when it was said we were not managing to get convictions or, as I believe it was then Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, who said, one of the reasons for changing the legislation was to make it more possible to get convictions. I find that a troubling line of argument.”
“I have some sympathy there and Senator Ruane has raised some very interesting points on the right to recover a reputation. It reminds me of that idea of the right to be forgotten as well. Some of us have been reflecting on that in recent days with the question of whether a person who had a conviction for firearms could be employed in the precincts of the Oireachtas. I remember thinking that they should certainly have to go through the scanner for a few years anyway but there should certainly be a focus on allowing and enabling the rehabilitation of a person over time. I do sympathize to some degree with what Senator Ruane has raised in that regard. On the Minister's reply to the concerns I raised, it does seem that the media, and not just the media but others the Minister mentioned - academics, etc.”
“What I find strange is that this proposal appears to be going exactly in the opposite direction and to the other extreme vis-à-vis the supposed concern of the previous Government. I worry that this proposal pulls the rug out from under the protection of people's rights to their reputation in a way that is careless and risky, to say the least. Like T.S. Eliot, I will end up where I began, by asking whether this could be an unconstitutional move given the risk to people's reputations, to which I think people are going to be unfairly exposed.”
“I understand it is not the Minister's intention to proceed, for the moment anyway, with legislation - pardon me if I am wrong - that will change the situation, although there is a case to be made for an adjustment to legislation and an updating of the 1989 legislation. My point is that the momentum from the previous Government was, at that point, to dangerously close down free speech or to recklessly expose people to the risk of being targeted and ultimately prosecuted for the legitimate expression of political ideas, for example because hatred was not defined in the legislation, or because new definitions of "gender" were being imported into that legislation. We rightly opposed that in this House because the threat was to the free exchange of political ideas, which is so important for our democracy.”
“The other matter I recall is the incitement to violence or hatred and hate offences Bill of last year. Again, it is an example of the Seanad doing what the Dáil failed to do, which was to bring tough scrutiny to a proposal that had the potential to curb the free exchange of political ideas in a dangerous and unhelpful way for society. Along with Senators McDowell, Keogan, Craughwell and Clonan, and others, I was involved in bringing a measure of scrutiny to that legislation which gave the Minister's predecessor pause. A truncated form of that Bill was eventually put through.”
“She said we risk losing the very essence of democratic representation and that it is incumbent upon us all to collectively defend the integrity of political debate and cultivate an environment that encourages participation without fear. I am asking the Minister to consider whether a section like this weakens our ability to protect people in public life in the way the Ceann Comhairle was describing. If this makes it easier to put out statements that could destroy people's reputations without necessarily being true, is the Minister not creating a more dangerous and toxic environment, not just for politicians but in particular for politicians? Is what the Ceann Comhairle had to say not something that should give us pause and something that should inform our consideration of this proposed change?”
“It is therefore interesting that at a time in our public, political and social life when there is huge concern about the way people are being targeted online with statements that are at the mild end untrue or uncharitable, and at the extreme end horrible and defamatory, where it sometimes seems that parts of the online world are the wild west, I think everybody understood that the Ceann Comhairle was speaking for all reasonable people by saying that elected representatives need to be able to carry out their duties and stand up for different ideas, values or political proposals without being excessively prone to being victimised online and otherwise. In her own words, she warned against a culture of fear and intimidation taking root.”
“Those are among the legitimate concerns there must be on a plain reading of this section. I could be wrong on this but I understand this section came up for discussion in the Dáil relatively late in the day and was not discussed over and back in the way that something so far-reaching might be expected to be discussed. Last week, I began to mention what the Ceann Comhairle had to say in a related context recently. On the first day of the new Dáil term, she called for action, saying that more must be done to combat the threats and abuse of politicians. Whatever about threats, it is reasonable to consider that a defamatory statement about somebody is an example of abuse.”
“If an aggrieved parent, however, tells a plausible-sounding story alleging, for example, abuse against a teacher in a school or against the principal of a school, what recourse does that teacher or principal have to prevent publication? Or, in the case of a false and possibly malicious claim having been made, what recourse do they have to get redress? The question arises, as was discussed by Senator McDowell last week, as to whether we are talking about unnamed sources. If, for example, there is a straw-man figure, a person without significant resources, somebody who in the legal jargon is not a mark for compensation, but if such a person was willing to put himself or herself out as an accuser, is a newspaper, a broadcaster or an online publication then home free to carry what would previously be classified as a libel?”
“Am I correct in thinking that this would allow in certain circumstances journalists citing unnamed sources to simply repeat allegations of one side of a dispute and that as long as they accurately repeat that allegation as they come to discover it, they could be considered to be acting in good faith, and that as long as the story appeared plausible to them, they could be considered to have reasonably believed that it was in the public interest to publish it? As politicians, we naturally think it is ourselves in the firing line, and it might well be that politicians would be among the most obvious victims of such a change in the law.”
“We have to consider not the situation where a publication online or printed, or by a broadcaster, would be malicious - let us assume good faith - but where they put themselves in the hands of a source of information who may or may not be malicious in what they claim, or who may just be wrong, or who may have imagined a version of the facts that is wrong but which nonetheless the publication, acting in good faith, goes ahead and brings that statement to public attention by publishing it. Is it about reasonably believing according to their own lights or would an objective test have to satisfy the court?”
“As regards the statement being published in good faith, that reminds me that qualified privilege, such as that enjoyed by people when they make a complaint to the Garda that involves saying something about a person that if untrue would be libellous, is only to be enjoyed where a person is communicating such a statement in good faith, and certainly malice would defeat it.”
“Does the replacement that we propose to insert uphold responsible journalism and require responsible journalism? To recall what is here in black and white, the defence on a matter of public interest first subjects the defence to the requirement that the statement was on a matter of public interest. It seems to me that any statement that could be regarded as libellous is mostly a statement that is in the matter of public interest because if it were true, it might well be very much in the public interest to publish such a statement. The reasonable belief that publishing the statement is in the public interest is, of course, where the rubber hits the road. We have to wonder what would constitute reasonable belief for that defence. How demanding would the courts be in requiring reasonable belief before the defence can be permitted?”
“I had recourse to an AI overview to get a simple characterisation of the Reynolds defence for the purposes of helping us to consider this matter here today. It talks about its being a common law qualified privilege in defamation law that protects journalists who publish material in the public interest. The phrase it uses is interesting whereby the defence allows a publisher to avoid liability for defamation if they can show that they engaged in responsible journalism. I admit that that is a summary of what the Reynolds defence is about, but it is useful to consider that. If we are taking out something that subjects a journalistic defence to the requirement that they have engaged in responsible journalism, the question we must ask ourselves is what we are replacing it with.”
“in particular, by its laws protect, as best it may, from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen. It is not just the life, person and property rights of every citizen, but the good name of every citizen. It is in that light and in the light of whatever jurisprudence has occurred over the years giving effect to the recognition not just of the right people have but of that duty of the State towards them that we must consider any change such as that proposed here today in our law on defamation. It is interesting to consider that, alongside this defence of publication on a matter of public interest, we have the abolition of the so-called Reynolds defence.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach agus cuirim fáilte ar ais roimh an Aire. On the last occasion, I had just begun to speak when we had to report progress. I expressed my wonderment at how this section had got through the Dáil, considering how far-reaching it is in how it changes the situation with regard to the protection of people and their right to a good name and reputation. Both the Minister and Senator McDowell beside me are senior counsel and they know a lot more about defamation than I do. I only spent a short period at the Bar before escaping to the relative security of politics. One starts at the provision in Article 40 of the Constitution which states: The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen [and] ...”
“It reminds me of a strange event that occurred once upon a time when a priest, an imam and a rabbit went in to donate blood. The rabbit commented, "I think I must be a typo."”
“Some are annoyed, perhaps justly, about the way that the parties, in particular, have acted, even in the nomination of their own candidates. They may choose to express that. If we are democrats, we will respect that and will not try to denigrate other people's choices in that matter. I commend Senator Nelson Murray on what she said about blood donation. I am a recent addition to the pool of people who donate blood because a loved one needed blood transfusions and found herself no longer in a position to donate blood herself as a result. That was a reminder to me to start doing what I should have started to do long ago. We can and should use our positions and contacts to encourage people who are in a position to do so to give blood.”
“We could do with some nuanced thinking about the whole question of spoiling one's vote. To be clear, if one can make a clear choice between candidates and express a clear preference, it is entirely reasonable to express that. If on the other hand you are unhappy that you have been left with a bad choice and if your feeling of indignation is so strong that you choose, American style, to write in the name of somebody you would like to see on the ballot paper, that is a reasonable thing to do, too. The voter is sovereign. The only thing I would ever discourage is resorting to obscenity or otherwise. We must respect the voter and what he or she decides to do. Some will decide to vote because they have a clear preference.”
“In nine years' time, we will be marking the 200th anniversary of the beginning of rail in Ireland with the opening of the Kingstown line which, if I am not mistake, goes back to 1834. Let us hope that when we get to that point, and the Minister of State may be Taoiseach at that stage, we can say that, in the past decade, we really took rail transport seriously, especially and including the western rail corridor, by ensuring an extension of high-quality and, in places, high-speed rail transport that also offers people comfort, security and safety so that we again put rail transport at the centre where it should be for all sorts of environmental, financial and trade reasons.”
“We need not only to keep a close on eye on it but also to consider how to address it so that people not only have access when they take the train or other forms of public transport but have safety and comfort as well. It might seem like a trivial matter in comparison, but I cannot honestly say what the current position is on the improvement of catering facilities across the rail network. There was a time when you could get breakfast and know for sure when getting on train that there would be a shop or somewhere to get refreshments. That is a very important part in making rail transport attractive again. Looking to the future, I was listening to the BBC the other day and it was marking the 200th anniversary of rail in Britain this year.”
“We are ranked 218th out of 234 in terms of infrastructural development. Only 16 regions are in a worse position than us. When we talk about increasing rail services in the north west, it is no special pleading. It is central to the long-overdue revival and enhancement of this region. I will mentioning something briefly that we do not really have time to address, which is the social dimension of rail transport. We need to keep a close eye on the behaviour of people on our transport network. We need to consider what it says about our society and what it is becoming if there is unacceptable behaviour, if people are in fear or if they are in any way being intruded upon in way that used not to happen to the same extent.”
“The reopening of the railway would help reduce congestion on the approaches to Galway and it would offer hard-pressed commuters a sustainable alternative to tailbacks and gridlock. It is very much a case of enough talk, we need to see shovels in the ground. We live, as the Minister of State knows, within the northern and western region which is one of the three regions in the Republic of Ireland and one of 240 regions in Europe, including the eight outer most regions. Of the three, our region, the northern and western, is the only one categorised as a NUTS II region or a region in transition. The other two are developed regions. In 2022, our region was downgraded to a lagging region by the European Commission when our GDP per head of population fell to 71% of the European average.”
“The whole project will happen inside Irish Rail's fence line, meaning that commuters from Mayo and Tuam could be on the train to Galway city in less than four years. Would it not be a wonderful thing if the Minister of State was facing into the next general election having posed on a train or outside a train in Ballyglunin where my late uncle, Jim, worked for five wonderful years when they made "The Quiet Man" or in Tuam station where he worked for 20 years? Beimis uaillmhianach. We need to be ambitious. I hope the Minister of State does not stop until that train goes all the way to Sligo. That western rail project is a testament to the tenacity and determination of many good people. It is time when we have the resources that we see that project through to completion.”
“Establishing similar facilities just off the N17 in Milltown and at the N63 near Ballyglunin will take commuters off the already crowded road network before they reach the first of the morning tailbacks. The N17 north of Tuam has seen a 47% increase in traffic in the past ten years. At the same time, as I have said, a single full intercity train can displace close to 275 cars. Fewer cars means less congestion on the approach to Galway and it means safer driving conditions. It is worth noting that rail as a commuting option is nearly 30 times safer than road transport. Following the publication of the revised national development plan, it is now vital that the next phase of the western rail corridor project commences without delay.”
“That is very much to be welcomed. This is a shovel-ready project. It will connect all the main towns of Mayo via Tuam to Galway and take thousands of cars off the road every year. It would also offer a direct gateway to the southern ports of Foynes and Waterford for those major exporters currently using sustainable rail services out of Mayo but in a way that would avoid the more congested Dublin zone. That is what I mean when I talk about trade. The success of the Galway-Limerick route proves that when rail services are put in place, they will be used. Oranmore Station, which opened in 2013, demonstrates that the appetite is there for park and ride. Passenger numbers have increased by 1,100% in the past ten years.”
“One can think of the potential of the western rail corridor; the opportunity for decongestion - a full intercity train would take 275 cars off the road as we know; decarbonisation; and of course the social dimension of it. We all need our cars; that is understood. However, in thinking about the loneliness in our society, one can see that the car is almost a symbol of that every time somebody makes a solitary journey, which is sometimes necessary. However, it would be great if we could get to the point where people would make journeys not in cars but on communal transport as much as possible. The Department of Transport press release on 8 October gives us to understand that the next phase of the western rail corridor from Athenry to Claremorris is to be restored as a priority project, as cited in the strategic rail review.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I was thinking of Percy French because the debate got off to a rather slow start. I was wondering whether we would get there before the night. As I was listening to the Minister of State the thought occurred to me that if the review recommendations were to be implemented, the rail network would increase from 2,300 km to 3,000 km, which would be commendable. However, I was wondering how many kilometres of rail there were at the time of the West Clare Railway. We have a long way to go in the important task of restoring rail transport to the very central place it should have in the ordering of our transport system, including for the sake of trade.”
“Another thing that strikes me is that what is in this section is so out of kilter with what the Ceann Comhairle had to say recently at the beginning of the Dáil term, when she basically called out the abuse of politicians in particular and asked for all sides to work together to combat it. When I heard her comments at the time I wondered what she meant? Were this to be acted on or interpreted in a particular way-----”
“I am afraid I will be one more voice contributing to the rumour of the Minister's fallibility on this. Senator McDowell offered an answer to a question I had in my mind when I read this section, this dramatic proposed change to the law, which was, "How did this section survive? How did it escape the scrutiny of the Dáil?" I felt the same about this section as I did about the ill-fated so-called hate speech legislation last year in that here, it seems to me, is legislation that fails to understand and respect the necessary balance that must be there in order to protect freedom of speech, the expression of ideas and the expression of opinion and, on the other hand and at the same time, to protect people's right to their reputation.”
“I know it is irrevocable at this stage that this forensic exercise is going on, and I hope it leads to facts that will bring justice to some person living or dead, but I really doubt it. We should have a discussion about the Tuam babies, the narrative around it, the role of the State, the way the State is acting on this, the type of motivations it appears to have and the way it publicly expresses its policy around this because I am not sure that justice is being done in the present in connection with the realities of the past.”
“Some see it as the State giving into performative politics or maybe catering to the asks of people who have been hurt in life in some way connected with the homes, and I understand that. I also wonder about the role of public commentators who are anti-Catholic and who want to ferment public rejection of Irish Catholic heritage and culture. Is that in play here? I am interested in the truth, but the truth is complex and textured. Every time I hear RTÉ talk about a disused sewage tank, I know what that is contributing to in people's minds, and it has very little to do with a broad understanding of historical reality. It is for that reason that I ask that we have a respectful debate in the autumn.”
“I have heard a whole lot of doubt about how and when a structure that may have had a connection with a sewerage system at some point in the past came to be used as a repository for some children's bones. I suspect I am one of many silent dissenters from the idea that the State should be digging up and examining the bones of long-deceased infants who were unfortunate enough in life to begin with and concerning whom no credible claims of foul play or deliberate neglect have been made, to my knowledge. I have secular friends who dismiss the exercise as a waste of money. It would not be a waste of money if there were a real and honest purpose, but how realistic is it to expect that this long forensic exercise will unearth any significant fact that will lead to justice for any person, living or dead?”