Seanad report:A provision in the Defamation Bill would have far-reaching consequences because it set up a defence which effectively meant that a publisher could print an untruth and defame somebody, Eugene Regan (FG) said.
He was speaking on a section dealing with the proposed defence of "fair and reasonable publication" on a matter of public interest. Mr Regan said the defence was based on jurisprudence that had been established in the UK, but had not been finally determined by our courts. He believed it infringed the constitutional right to one's good name.
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Brian Lenihan said he was also concerned about the issue, because he believed that truth should be at a premium in defamation matters and he did not believe that our laws should encourage the publication of falsehoods.
Jim Walsh (FF) said this was a significant shift in our defamation law. It would undermine all the other balances they were trying to achieve in deference to people who were defamed.
David Norris (Ind) said he was absolutely astounded that a Fianna Fáil Minister would introduce this kind of thing. The Reynolds case had followed some American precedent that had been extremely damaging. "As the Minister said, truth is at a premium. If we allow newspapers, and particularly with the impact of the British tabloids in this country at the moment, to tell lies then they will be happy to do so."
Mr Lenihan said the new defence had been set out by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in the case of Reynolds and the Times newspapers which had effectively developed it. The case of Sullivan and the New York Times in the 1950s had originated this defence. A decision in the Irish High Court four years ago had adopted the Reynolds case reasoning.
Earlier this year, Mr Justice Charlton had been of the opinion that a fair and reasonable type defence existed.
The Minister said he shared the reservations that senators had expressed about the matter and he would be very interested to see if Mr Regan's party would adopt the same approach when the Bill was debated in the Dáil. All-party agreement would put them all in a stronger position.
As Minister for Justice, he found himself in a difficult position, because were he not to legislate in this area, he would in fact leave the matter to the courts, and the signals from that quarter were not encouraging. He felt the only option was to legislate in a way that provided for the greatest possible restrictions.
The committee stage debate was concluded.
There was a case for mandatory random drug-testing in places of employment, including the Oireachtas, Eugene Regan, Fine Gael Justice Spokesman, said. Calling for a debate on how the "demand side" of the cocaine epidemic could be tackled, he said there was an issue of political philosophy which required that the liberties of individuals be restricted only to the extent that was necessary in the common good. There had been a suggestion by the Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny in relation to voluntary random drug-testing in schools, to which he thought the Taoiseach had responded positively.
"But I think there is a case for mandatory random drug testing in places of employment, universities, places of work and public institutions. I think that that could start with the Oireachtas.
It would be a very serious measure, but if we're serious about tackling the usage and the downstream effects of the usage, then this is one mechanism that could be considered. We do it in the case of motorists. We have random testing for alcohol and also for drugs. It's in the public interest."
Ivana Bacik (Ind) said calls for mandatory drug testing in schools, hospitals, universities and the Oireachtas could not be taken seriously. That would be far too great an encroachment on the civil rights of all of them. This sort of knee-jerk reaction was not the way to tackle the drugs problem.
Eoghan Harris (Ind) said the taking of drugs, "like the taking of alcohol or any other substance like that, is fundamentally a matter of individual choice, and if people want to kill themselves then the same number of people who kill themselves with alcohol will kill themselves with cocaine".
The disruption, agony and horror of society was being caused by the fact that drugs were illegal and the criminal classes had attached themselves to the body of society.
Mr Harris said they had to deal with the question of the right of adults to decide what to do with their lives. They also had to consider the need to protect young people from drugs in the way that they were protected from alcohol or tobacco, for example.
"If we're going to have a debate, let's think the unthinkable. Let's actually think about whether the question of the decriminalisation of drugs must be actually seriously addressed as part of the debate on drugs."
House leader Donie Cassidy suggested that members with legal expertise form a sub-group to advise on the most appropriate approach to the content of an early debate on drugs for which he would make government time available.