Rónán Burtenshaw
Editor

On February 6th, 2013 we reported that David Quinn, head of Christian conservative think-tank the Iona Institute, had issued legal threats against The University Times over articles they had published the previous month. The news story can be read here.

On February 8th a lecturer in the Law School of Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. Eoin O’Dell, who is acting on our behalf in this case, informed us that Mr. Quinn’s solicitors had made contact in complaint at the article. This was followed by three solicitors’ letters in which Mr. Quinn’s representative made five demands in relation to the story: that it be retracted, that we issue an apology for its publication, that we offer Mr. Quinn a right-of-reply inside the next print edition, that we offer his representatives editorial oversight over a subsequent article on The University Times‘ settlement of their case, and that we make a contribution to Mr. Quinn’s legal costs in pursuing this case. We were unwilling to meet these demands.

In settlement we offered to correct a factual error contained in the article by means of clarification. Despite this offer being rejected we added this clarification in the interests of accuracy on the 11th of March: “This article initially stated that Mr. Quinn “contested” Google’s claim that the Iona Institute’s YouTube account was not closed for reasons of censorship. In fact, while he initially contested this, he later accepted that this was an “automatic procedure on their part“.”

On March 13th we also ran a news story on the University Times’ settlement with Mr. Quinn. This article can be read here. We did not give Mr. Quinn’s representatives editorial oversight over this article, but we did include reference to the clarification we added to the original news story.

We have encouraged Mr. Quinn and his representatives to pursue this matter through the Press Council but, at the time of writing, the threat of legal action remained outstanding.

Some details of this case were published by UCD student newspaper The College Tribune on April 1st.

Trinity News’ position is that we stand by our reporting and are prepared to defend it.

The results of the Leveson Enquiry were published in November of 2012,
recommending replacing the existing Press Complaints Commission with a new
independent body. This new regulator would have a range of sanctions available
to it, including compelling apologies and the levying of fines for publications that
do not uphold ethical standards. Whilst participation in such a scheme would be
voluntary, it would be heavily incentivized, in particular by allowing exemplary
damages to be levied- you may refuse to comply, but it will cost you heavily.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t traditionally part of British common law. The UK,
for better or worse, has never had a formal constitution guaranteeing freedom
of the press and freedom of speech. It’s almost impossible to imagine how the
proposed changes could be implemented without substantial legislation. During
a House of Common’s debate on March 17th, David Cameron’s claims that this
was not a ‘statutory approach’ were somewhat undermined by his Deputy Prime
Minister’s claims that regulation would be a combination of ‘statute and Royal
Charter’.

A memo from Hacked Off, a hacking victim’s lobby group, was leaked to the Mail
on Sunday last week. Describing the conservative Tory MPs they hoped to lobby
during the debate, the memo declares ‘These people are likely to be people you
instinctively distrust, dislike and despair of. If they are what we need to win,
however, we must understand their value and not confuse our values with their
intentions’. The memo also explained that Hacked Off believe the MPs likely to
support them are those who have suffered at the hands of the press and want
retribution or simply want to destroy David Cameron’s career.

The memo also explicitly states that Hacked Off will only be satisfied with ‘an
independent statutory regulator with punitive powers’. Perhaps most worrying
are the frequent mentions of securing a deal that hacking victims can accept. The
targets of various hacking scandals deserve great sympathy, but that sympathy
shouldn’t extend to a rewrite of the British legal system. Hacking voicemails
and prejudging guilt are already illegal- why a regulator with punitive powers is
necessary remains unclear.

That British journalists have behaved badly in recent years is an indelible fact,
with the impending trial of several prominent writers and editors as testament,
but the Leveson Enquiry was a diagnosis of multiple organ failure. Police officers
were dishonest and corrupt and multiple Parliamentary committees failed to act
when the facts were placed before them. Replacing the judicial with the quasi-
judicial and ill-conceived will have little or no practical impact on press culture.

It’s not unlike the aftermath of the financial crisis. Certain individuals did things
that were not just unethical, but criminal. Rather than enforce existing laws that
exist to deal with such behavior, governments poured their time and money
into regulating a sector with little institutional respect for regulation. In 2013,
no banker has been arrested and no effectual change has been made to financial
regulation. Much too much, much too late.

The Leveson Inquiry has opened a very public debate into relations between
government, press and people, and Lord Justice Leveson, for any other flaws,
seems to have an excellent understanding of that. In his ruling, Leveson praised
Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, which has never signed up to the Press
Complaints Commission, citing his understanding of the consequences of any
perceived closeness between the Commission and ‘those often held to account by
that publication’.

To my mind, the press transgress public opinion regularly and the law only
infrequently. The latter is best addressed by creating strong instituions rather
than new ones and directing resources to where they will lead to the most
effective universal enforcement of law, rather than singular exemplary damages.
Non-legal transgression is more difficult, and no committee, however well-
funded or organized, will ever be able to interpret the tensions of public opinion.
Even those who decry the culture of celebrity magazines are often willing to
overlook the lengths political magazines go to obtain the material that satisfies
them, and whatever reading material you prefer, we still buy the ‘repugnant’
material into the millions.

Mahatma Ghandi is rumoured to have once said ‘I believe in equality for
everyone, except reporters and photographers’. The tensions at the heart of
the Leveson Enquiry resonate with everyone- and all the committees and
commissions in the world are not enough to resolve them.

Catherine Healy
College Affairs Correspondent

A delegate from Queen’s University, Belfast, to the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) National Congress has been barred from further participation in the Congress after voting against the union’s position on the issue of abortion. Aisling Gallagher, the NUS-USI Womens’ Officer, had her delegate status removed and was cautioned against re-entering the conference room yesterday as a result of her voting in favour of continuing USI’s work on combating rogue crisis pregnancy agencies.

The motion in question mandated the USI Welfare Officer to protest against agencies that misinform and intimidate pregnant women with the sole aim of preventing them from seeking abortions. It also mandated the Welfare Officer to lobby for the introduction of legislation in this area.

Ms. Gallagher had earlier voted in favour of another pro-choice motion and was cautioned that any further breach would result in the removal of her delegate card. Aside from her position as a delegate for Queen’s University, Ms. Gallagher is also the Women’s Officer for NUS-USI, an organisation formed by the National Union of Students UK (NUS-UK) and the Union of Students in Ireland (USI), to represent third-level students in Northern Ireland.

Queen’s University Students’ Union (QUBSU) adopted a neutral position on abortion in December of this academic year after passing a motion which noted that it is a ‘highly divisive issue and a matter for each individual’s conscience’. The motion was voted on by class representatives at a meeting of the SU Council without any referendum or preferendum having taken place.

Following the death of Savita Halappanavar, QUBSU also amended a motion of condolence to exclude any reference to the X-Case and abortion rights. Ciarán McKinley, the president of the college’s pro-life society, had argued at the debate on its amendment that the motion was potentially defamatory.

Though Queen’s SU Constitution does not explicitly prohibit student delegates ‘breaking mandate’ at conferences, a briefing meeting took place before USI Congress to advise delegates of the requirement to vote according to current QUBSU policy. It is understood that these arrangements were approved in late February to ensure delegate compliance at the Congress by the college’s executive management committee, consisting of the SU’s seven sabbatical officer as well its Director and Deputy Director.

Speaking to this reporter, QUBSU President, Jason O’Neill said, “Our policy at Queen’s University is to regard live policy as mandate. Delegates were pointed to the pro-choice motions before Congress and warned that they had to vote as democratic representatives of the student body.”

He added that, “There have been precedents in the past where students have had to vote according to mandate. Delegates were told that they could abstain on motions. We have nothing against someone speaking their mind.”

He said that Ms. Gallagher will remain in Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, where the USI Congress is taking place, until tomorrow and commented that it would be “improper to send a delegate home”.

At the time of writing, Ms. Gallagher was still seeking to put in an emergency motion of support that would grant her readmission to the conference. She was not available for comment today but has stated on her Twitter account that only two QUBSU delegates have supported her position. A statement issued by Jason O’Neill has stated that “the actions of the individual in question will be considered by the Students’ Union Council on 18 April 2013”.

Editor

Elaine McCahill, Editor-at-Large of Trinity News 2012/’13, has been elected Editor of Trinity News for the 2013/’14 year and 60th volume.

Elaine has previously edited TCD Miscellany (2011/’12) and also served as Secretary on this year’s Publications committee.

She met the election criteria, having previously served in a position in a Publication in Trinity and being a current student, and was the only applicant by the deadline. Under such circumstances she is elected to the position barring a veto from the senior editorial staff of Trinity News 2012/’13, which she did not receive.

As this year’s editor I wish Elaine the very best of luck on her election. She brings with her great experience of publications and journalism in Trinity and a close proximity to this year’s Trinity News production process, which is an invaluable asset for the position.

Elaine assumes editorship of Ireland’s oldest student newspaper on the occasion of its 60th volume and is a fitting custodian for the position.

Ian Curran
News Editor

The University Times, the newspaper of the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union, was forced to retract two of its articles, print an apology and a reply, and pay legal costs, after being threatened with legal action. The newspaper was accused of defaming Mr David Quinn, a founding member of the Iona Institute and prominent conservative Catholic commentator.

The newspaper published two articles which were contested by Mr Quinn. The articles, “Queerly Beloved”, written by Paul Doyle, and “What Lies Behind the Facade”, written by Conor Kenny, were responses to the Iona Institute’s YouTube video entitled “The Case for Man/Woman marriage”. According to the editor of the University Times, Owen Bennett, “both articles strongly attack the video and the reasoning which informs it.”

Mr Quinn had a particular issue with Mr Kenny’s article which made reference to Quinn in relation to anti-gay legislation in Uganda. The article also mentioned that Mr Quinn had founded a “bigoted hate group”, which Mr Quinn claimed was a reference to the Iona Institute. According to a solicitor’s letter, Mr Quinn was “enormously upset” with the characterization and felt “personally defamed”.

The University Times was informed by Mr Quinn’s solicitors in the last week of January of their client’s distress with the article. Mr Quinn sought a full retraction of both the articles from the University Times website, as well as an apology and a right of reply in the next subsequent issue.

On 1st February, Owen Bennett responded to a request by Trinity News for comment and Trinity News published an article about the matter, which quoted Mr Bennett.
Mr Quinn received a published apology in the 12th February issue of the University Times. The apology, which was situated on the back page of the University Times’ election supplement, admitted that the two articles “contained defamatory material in relation to David Quinn”.

It described Quinn as a “well-respected commentator on religious and social affairs”. The newspaper “unreservedly” accepted that it was “entirely inappropriate to refer to him as a person whose character is questionable”. The University Times also apologised for referring to the Iona Institute as a “bigoted hate group” and further “unreservedly” apologised for “the hurt and distress caused to Mr Quinn and his family and colleagues at the Iona Institute”.

Quinn’s reply article, entitled “The Gay Marriage Debate: Who is Really Spreading the Hate?” was published underneath the newspaper’s apology. Quinn complains in the article that individuals in Trinity College who are pro-life or anti gay marriage, to whom he refers as “dissidents”, are “likely to be accused of being anti-women if they oppose abortion or ‘hating’ gay people if they oppose same-sex marriage”.

He writes that there are “countless” examples on social media websites of “the vitriol against those who hold ‘traditional views’”. He adds that it is “much harder to find equivalent amounts of equivalent abuse being directed at those who are pro-choice or pro-gay marriage”. He described the two articles to which he had objected as a “blatant attempt to discredit” him as a “holder” of pro-life and anti-gay marriage views.

Mr Quinn also made several references to Owen Bennett’s interview with Trinity News. Mr Quinn accuses Trinity News of “dismissing” his concerns in relation to the articles, which were that the University Times had defamed him by effectively describing him as “a racist” who had “formed a ‘bigoted hate group’”.

He writes that while he accepts the University Times’ apology, Mr Bennett’s “misleading comments to Trinity News entirely undermines this apology”. Quinn finishes the article by accusing the University Times of “shameful behaviour” and attempting to “shut down the debate”.

The Trinity News article quoting Mr Bennett had also said that, after the release of the Iona Institute’s video, their YouTube account was suspended for a time, that Google stated that it was not shut down for reasons of censorship, and that this claim was “contested” by Mr Quinn. In fact, while he initially contested this, he later accepted that this was an “automatic procedure on their part”. We have added a clarification to this effect to the online version of that article.