Re-Hashing the Defamation Bill

by C Murray Mon Jan 14, 2008 20:58

Older people have concerns but brand-led politics utilising inept focus groups and spin
departments tend to overlook -the voter-. They ignore community concerns.

I have alluded to this over and over again.

People are not happy with rising creche fees.
people are not happy with re-located hospitals.
people are not happy with old folks being robbed by the state.

People who are generally unhappy tend to protest vote-and politicians would be well
reminded that they are public servants and not some fecking media construct that
does not do what it says on the tin.
HSE and Harney have buried so much crap, but the stories of bad hospital care
and waiting lists are not going away. I have myself experienced some terrible issues
with regard to medical access= PD health and basic rights issues failed and FF
are being blamed. They would do well to stop paying yes men and listen to the
people who are paying for their gross and baffling ineptitude.

now I am off-thread, so will conclude with the remarks made at the top of the page.
Lenihan has not sufficently removed himself from associating with Mc Dowell policy:-
this has come up in relation to the re-hashed defamation bill and in relation to the
incongruity on display in relation to Justice Dept policy on immigration.

by libertaria Mon Jan 14, 2008 20:44

If there was any substance in such a ridiculous scenario, the voters concerned would logically have given their support to parties which supported positions on immigration and health opposed to those of the PDs. They did not. The parties of the fringe left which had the sort of policies on health, immigration, and on the economy which you claim the electorate wanted, did even worse than the PDs. The beneficiaries of the collapse of the PD vote were parties which had adopted PD policies on these matters.

by C Murray Mon Jan 14, 2008 19:18

There was a huge protest vote in DSE regarding the issues of immigration (focussed on
integrity of family), I know cos I live there and the older people were well pissed at the
issues of constitutional breach in relation to our constitution. It was talked about amongst
many voters who noted the discrepancy between' what is said' about integrity and upholding
the constitution and how the deportation system actually functions. The FF/PD government did
not grasp that the issues brought to the door did not add up. The problems with care home charges
and leaving a % of the family home in the hands of profiteers also peed off many and watching their
kids struggle with problems in childcare and creche did not help. if the awful ads put up by FF:
'Lets take the next steps together' had any effect it was to make people even angrier.

The current government may whinge on about family when people can see with their own eyes that
there is a lack of generational impetus into government and that the harshness of PD policy had
created intense problems in health and education,l indeed, suspect that the problems
in the North-West will meet some irate voters along the way, where amalgamation and
excellence again causes transport problems, anxiety, fear and deep anger. These things do not
go away with brand politics but require grass-root fighting and the people of DSE did so
overwhelmingly. and will again , doubtless. I very clearly remember contacting someone
overseas and telling them that there would be a protest vote against FF/PD health/education/
policy on age and guess what- it happened, = people are let down by a profit-led
government incapable of understanding basic needs in basic health/education infrastructure.

by libertaria Mon Jan 14, 2008 14:31

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that McDowell lost his seat because of the immigration policy of the government. The PDs lost their seats generally for the same reason most small ideologically based parties lose their seats. Ironically, this was because of the popularity of PD economic and immigration policies. The electorate generally prefers to see its policies implimented by mainstream parties. Once FF had adopted PD policies on immigration etc., it no longer had need of the PDs. Similarily, the fact that, in ideological terms both FF and FG are slightly to the left of centre on domestic socio/economic issues has always been a problem for the Labour Party. Why bother with Labour when FF and FG have similar policies, but without the baggage of unpopular policies on immigration etc. that the LP carries.
The idea that our senior-citizens voted against the PDs on the grounds mooted is utterly risible given the demographics of the vote on the citizenship referendum. The present Minister for Justice has (and will continue to apply) exactly the same policies on immigration as the PDs - only he will do it with a smile. My bet is that it won't harm his re-election.

2. The press (for self-interested reasons) has tried to promote the idea that the reluctance of the politicians to weaken the defamation laws is to protect politicians from scrutiny. Not so, as Albert Reynolds and other politicos have found to their cost, the public-interest exception protects the press, and as a result politicians seldom sue (look at Bertie). When they do they usually come to grief. The real problem is that the press treats the truth as an economic issue rather than an ethical issue. The press takes the decision to publish vindictively motivated lies in most cases on the basis that the victim will not have the economic resources to risk shirt and shelter in bringing a legal action against a well resourced newspaper. Most of the people defamed by press bullies are 'little' people who have no come back because defamation is excluded from the legal aid scheme.

by Fey Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:00

Maybe Brian Lenihan did not get that Mc Dowell lostt his seat because people in his
constituency voted against rightist policy (in droves), many of the elderly came out
and voted against the PD's cos of their immigration policy (unfair to families) and
their health policy (endangering lives).

So today's Irish Times will piss off the Protest vote as Lenihan re-connects with PD
rightist immigration policy and sends Dept civil servants to Uk to look at
-Detention Centres- this is where people are imprisoned and separated from kids
because they are of the wrong colour.

So FF and Green have signalled that they are of the Centre-right concern, that puts profit
and abuse before basic rights of equality- we know where the lines are drawn and
they needn't be calling looking for a vote- cos its easy enough to ensure that the core protest
vote against neo-liberal policy comes out again:- be it on the schools/ hospitals/ human rights issues.

http://www.ireland.com

by C Murray Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:45

http://www.presscouncil.ie/v2/default.htm

http://www.presscouncil.ie/v2/pressombudsman/portal.php...t.php

[I wonder if we will be able to complain retrospectively about unfair media coverage in
some huge political stories involving the Current government- or State use and dominance
of press with regard to lack of 'debate' on issues pertinent to Irish people?]

My list would include:

Lack of info on HSE in relation to the Breast cancer figures.
Press coverage of the St Patrick's Cathedral hunger-strike.
Political use of Press without proper debate in the Oireachtas- this includes:
The pre-Mahon Interviews and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Bill 2006- 2007)
State and Green leaks on Lisbon Treaty 2008.
Representation of women in Irish media.

Swish Logo

by C Murray Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:29

The Bill- Privacy and Defamation Bill 2006- was shelved in sections. Minister Mc Dowell
himself shelved the Privacy Section which had caused consternation amongst European
and Irish Journalists.

Minister Lenihan temporarily shelved the 'Defamation' section, but has threatened to
re-introduce it, if the work of both Press Ombudsman and Press Council does not
'self-regulate' in terms of right to privacy.

Mc Dowell had sought to outlaw 'certain forms of news-gathering' through the Privacy
Section , which had been rejected by current Irish Times editor Ger Kennedy.

Mr Lenihan did not say last evening if there would be a review of the Defamation Section
of the 2006 Bill. I almost forgot to allude to the regulatory body's sponsorship by the
Print Industry-' self regulation on the basis of sales'.

*Another issue currently being investigated by http://www.justice.ie is the introduction of
the DNA database (Immigration/Residence and Protection Bill- the Protection Section was
introduced in 2006 under the title 'Asylum Qualification Directive'- this had to be accomplished
under EU Law in October of that year).

*The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill was drafted also by Michael Mc Dowell.