https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/23/sinn-feins-rising-tally-of-lawsuits-fuels-fears-it-is-trying-to-stifle-scrutiny
In Ireland, Mary Lou McDonald, the leader of Sinn Féin, is suing the national broadcaster RTÉ for defamation, while her husband, Martin Lanigan, is suing the author of a biography of McDonald. Chris Andrews, a Sinn Féin member of Ireland’s parliament, is suing the Irish Times and one of its reporters.
In Northern Ireland, Gerry Kelly, a Sinn Féin member of the Stormont assembly, is suing two media commentators. John Finucane, a Sinn Féin MP, is suing a unionist councillor over Twitter claims. Michelle O’Neill, the party’s deputy leader, recently sued another unionist councillor over a Facebook post.
As the number of Sinn Féin legal actions has grown – there are believed to be at least eight active cases against media outlets, with additional cases against political opponents – concern has mounted that the party is attempting to intimidate critics and stifle scrutiny.
A coalition of press freedom organisations last week said the party’s actions had the hallmark of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or Slapps, a form of legal harassment intended to intimidate and silence public watchdogs.
“The number of legal actions that have been filed by Sinn Féin members points to a coordinated campaign against the media in Ireland,” said the joint letter signed by Reporters Without Borders, Index on Censorship, the National Union of Journalists, Pen International, Article 19 and other groups.
Irelands Future Presents “Together We Can” Event<br>DUBLIN, IRELAND – OCTOBER 01: Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald speaks to the audience during the Irelands Future Together We Can conference which discussed planning for a united Ireland on October 1, 2022 in Dublin, Ireland. The leaders of northern political parties Sinn Féin and the SDLP and senior figures from all of the main political parties in the Republic of Ireland are attending the Dublin conference which follows the census reveal in Northern Ireland that the proportion of the resident population which is either Catholic or brought up Catholic is 45.7% compared to 43.48% Protestant. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)
Sinn Féin having ‘chilling’ effect on Ireland’s democracy, says taoiseach
Read more
It expressed alarm that the action against the Irish Times – over an article about Sinn Féin’s response to the Hamas attacks in Israel last month – named a reporter. “The fact that Sinn Féin’s most recent legal action has been filed against journalist Harry McGee – as an individual – gives credence to the idea that it is intended to chill public interest speech.”
The taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, accused Sinn Féin of trying to “take away” Ireland’s democracy through threats. “It’s designed to make journalists afraid. It’s designed to make them think twice about what they write, and I think it’s wrong,” he told the Dáil.
Sinn Féin was the IRA’s political wing during the Troubles and is now Ireland’s biggest opposition party. Opinion polls suggest it is on track to lead the next government. It is the biggest party in Northern Ireland.
A party spokesperson said McDonald had no intention of responding to “inaccurate suggestions” in the press freedom coalition letter and said public discourse should be based on fact and truth. “All citizens have the right to protect their name and reputation, and such fundamental legal rights in no way cut across or undermine robust political debate.”
The spokesperson said the letter seemed to hold Sinn Féin to a higher standard than the two main ruling parties. “It is interesting that the same concerns are not being expressed to Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, given dozens of current and former Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael representatives have taken or threatened legal action against media outlets.”
At a Sinn Féin conference earlier this month, McDonald said the party did not consider itself above scrutiny and critique. “Criticism is all part of the cut and thrust of the democratic process,” she said.
Index on Censorship, a London-based watchdog, said other parties also threatened and took legal action but not on the same scale. “We are not aware of members of any other Irish party taking a comparable number of concurrent cases against the media in recent years.”
Last year the group filed media freedom alerts to the Council of Europe over McDonald’s action against RTÉ and Kelly’s action against the Northern Ireland commentators Malachi O’Doherty and Ruth Dudley Edwards.
O’Neill, the party’s deputy leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister-elect, won a libel action against a Democratic Unionist party councillor, John Carson, who in 2021 posted that she would be “put back in her kennel”. However, a high court ruled she would receive no payout because the remark, though offensive and misogynistic, had had no adverse impact on O’Neill’s reputation.
by HeWasDeadAllAlong
17 comments
It’s literally the law here. Change the law you fucks.
Imagine being libelled, pursuing your right under the law to have that person retract their libellous statement and for the court to make scathing comments about the person who libelled you and these fucking wingnuts somehow thinking you’re in the wrong?
If you don’t like the application of the law by impartial judges, I don’t think your problem is a concern with freedom of speech, rather a problem with the people (and their ideology or political affiliation) who are seeking resolution after having been libelled.
I’m unable to think of an instance where any Sinn Féin politician has actually lost one of these cases (willing to be corrected on this of course) – furthermore it’s pretty easy to see that SF have indeed shown support for reformation of defamation laws. This is making my head hurt.
They’d make excellent Reddit moderators.
It’s a bit weird to say that Michelle O’Neill ‘won’ her libel case as it implies Sinn Fein are suing on merit. In reality she obtained a default judgement because Carson was too stupid to contest the lawsuit in court and only participated when it came to assessing damages. A default judgement is made where the defendant doesn’t dispute the lawsuit and doesn’t look at the merits of it at all.
When Carson actually contested damages the judge decided that none should be awarded and stated that the lawsuit should never have made it to the high court in the first place and was wasting court time. But because the default judgement was in place it couldn’t be set aside.
Edit: [For those downvoting here’s the relevant quotes from the judgement](https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Master/2023/9.html)
> In my view what was posted on social media by Mr Carson was verbal abuse of a misogynistic nature which, though highly offensive and which should never have been said, was not actionable and in respect of which defamation proceedings in the High Court ought never have been brought. [73(v)]
Judge says that the case had no merit.
> When the court’s time is taken up with cases involving disputes between politicians involving insults which one imagines are sometimes heard in school playgrounds or outside pubs on Saturday nights, then serious cases of the type I have mentioned inevitably suffer delay. This is undesirable and not in the public interest. These kind of minor cases should not be the subject of High Court proceedings. [75]
Judge says the case was wasting the time of the court.
> Index on Censorship, a London-based watchdog, said other parties also threatened and took legal action but not on the same scale. **“We are not aware of members of any other Irish party taking a comparable number of concurrent cases against the media in recent years.”**
From the phrasing, it doesn’t seem like they’re actively trying to quantify these things… but they’re pretending they do. Are they doing so (or pretending to do so) south of the border too? Because that’s part of the charges here and all.
That aside, seems to me that no other party is subject to the same amount of _unfair_ adverse press coverage (and, very likely, Twitter vitriol from establishment figures on this island).
As the article notes, Kelly is suing _Malachi O’Doherty and Ruth Dudley Edwards:_ stalwart investigative journalists and ardent truth-seekers, for sure, and definitely not unabashed Unionist-Loyalist apologists who churn out vapid, rabid froth for coin, opinion pieces whose sole source is their own arse, from whence they are pulled.
_Have at Sinn Féin if it’ll stick, by all means. That’s only right and fair._
(And, meanwhile Leo, the obsequious toad, and his cohorts are loving all this far, far too much; there’s the _real_ ‘taking away’ of democracy. Fine Gael are ‘not a normal political party.’)
This party are unfit for office.
Well imagine that, a cult that doesn’t like scrutiny.
The case by Andrews takes the biscuit – personally suing a journalist is unprecedented. He shouldn’t have posted those tweets if he didn’t want scrutiny. Maybe he should have learned from past transgressions and why he left FF, that he should stop using Twitter as he does.
If Sinn Féin keeps winning their cases then that is proof in and of itself that they are in the right.
If they’re doing it more than other parties (and other parties do take these cases) then it shows that the media are likely defaming them more than they are other parties.
If journalists don’t want sued for defamation then stop writing defamatory statements.
Sinn Fein have a lot in common with the Scientologists!
Libel laws are far too strict in both jurisdictions and need to be relaxed, but they are the law and the Sinners or anyone else are entitled to use them if they believe they have been broken.
There is absolutely no chance these laws will be reformed because they are there for one reason and one reason only. To protect people with power, influence and wealth.
Party that doorstepped it’s own member for tweeting out of line in being anti free speech shocker.
When it comes to libel, I differ to the leading expert on the matter.
Ian Hislop
The editor of Private Eye has dealt with more libel and defamation cases than most people have had hot breakfasts. I think it was during the Levesin Inquiry where he remarked something to the extent he doesn’t settle out of court because he knows he is right and always wins. An editor should know whether what they publish is legal.
In other words, if Sinn Féin is winning these cases, then the newspapers have properly fucked up.
But they’re winning the cases? How is this controversial when they are proving these to be libel? We should be looking at why media and politicians are printing libelous claims about their political opponents.
Surely the easiest way to avoid such lawsuits is for articles to be factual and not libelous🤔
Some of the print media in relation to shinners reads with a long while like the comment section of twitter…..really poor standard openly libelous or nod/wink of libelous stuff
Usually such a scenario would see standards rise to meet the challenge….in Ireland….the establishment want to change the rules to suit emselves rather than rise standards
Despicable party. If you can’t handle criticism, don’t go into power.
Is it any wonder they are trying to silence people, They are playing the system and hiding their dirty laundry. They’ll get away with it too, using this new found leverage to win the votes… They are pure scum.