THE Sunday Independent article in which the Minister for Social Welfare claims he was libelled appeared on December 13th, 1992, when attempts were being made to form a coalition government.
In the course of the article, it was stated that Irish society was divided. As the political parties manoeuvred to try to form a government, a clear picture had emerged, revealing the nature of our differences.
It continued: "On one side of the argument are those who would find the idea of Democratic Left in cabinet acceptable. These people are prepared to ignore Democratic Left leader Proinsias De Rossa's reference to the `special activities' which served to fund the Workers' Party in the very recent past.
"The `special activities' concerned were criminal. Among the crimes committed were armed robberies and forgery of currency.
"The people engaged in this business occupied that twilight world where the line blurs between those who are common criminals and others of that ilk who would claim to be engaged in political activity.
"This world is inhabited by myriad groups, some dealing in drugs, prostitution, prostitution rackets, crimes of which the weakest members of society are invariably the victims.
"It is therefore, ironic, wickedly so, that a political party claiming to `care' for the workers should accept funding from `special activities' of a particularly nasty kind.
"There is no doubt that elements of Proinsias De Rossa's Workers' Party were involved in `special activities'. What remains unproven is whether De Rossa knew about the source of his party's funds. There is evidence, strengthened by revelations in The Irish Times this week, that De Rossa was aware of what was going on.
"If one is to allow him the benefit of the doubt, and why not, one must nevertheless, have some misgivings about those with whom he so recently associated.
"Justice demands that we welcome Democratic Left's recent conversion to decency and, indeed, acknowledge that their Dail deputies are exemplary in the conduct of their work they engage in on behalf of their constituents.
"Still, questions remain unanswered about the Workers Party's `special activities' phase, not to mention their willingness to embrace the Soviet Communist Party long after the brutal oppression that this and other communist regimes visited on workers, intellectuals and others who would think and speak freely.
"Proinsias De Rossa's political friends in the Soviet Union were no better than gangsters. The communists ran labour camps. They were anti-Semitic.
"Men like Andre Sakharov and Vaclav Havel were persecuted. Citizens who attempted to flee this terror were murdered. In Berlin, the bodies were left to rot in no man's land between tyranny and liberty. Is it really necessary to remind ourselves of those `special activities'?"
"Let us just say that some of those with whom Dick Spring has conducted a pact for government have kept bad company in the recent past. Ireland divides between those who would choose to forget and those of us who do not."
Mr De Rossa, of Pinewood Crescent, Ballymun, Dublin, claims that the words meant, or were understood to mean, that he had confessed to special activities on the part of a political party of which he was leader; he was aware and tolerated them; the special activities were criminal in nature and consisted of or included armed robbery, forging of currency, drug dealing, prostitution or the managing of prostitutes for reward, and protection rackets.
It is also claimed the words meant he had knowingly accepted Funding, or allowed his party to accept funding, derived from "the aforementioned activities", and was knowingly party to them; that he knowingly benefited from them; and that he supported the running of labour camps, anti-Semitism, the persecution of intellectuals and politicians, and the murder of citizens attempting to leave communist dictatorships.
The defence admits that the words were published but denies they were published falsely or maliciously as alleged.
It admits that the words complained of meant Mr De Rossa had been leader of a party which had previously received funds raised as a result of criminal activities and that there had been public comment on a letter purportedly signed by him which appeared to refer to such activities. "In that sense, the words complained of were true and accurate," the defence claims.
Save as expressly admitted, it denies that the words meant or were understood to bear the meanings claimed. It is claimed they were fair comment on matters of public interest.