The journalist and columnist John Waters has told the High Court that an article by columnist Terry Keane in the Sunday Times in June 2000 was a vicious attack on his character and reputation.
The article by Ms Keane said that her sympathy went out to "his toddler, Roisín", the six-year-old daughter of Mr Waters and singer Sinead O'Connor, which whom he had had a brief relationship.
Mr Waters told Mr Justice Kearns and a jury that that was to suggest that Roisín deserved sympathy because he was her father. What worse thing could be said than that his daughter deserved pity and sympathy for having him as her father, he asked.
Mr Waters is suing Times Newspapers Ltd, Victoria Street, London, over an article in the Terry Keane column of the Sunday Times on June 18th, 2000. It appeared shortly after he gave an address in the Abbey Theatre prior to the opening of the 2,500-year-old Greek tragedy, Medea.
During his cross-examination yesterday, Mr Eoin McCullough SC, for the defence, took Mr Waters through several of his Irish Times columns relating to feminism and men and women in modern society.
In the course of the article, it was stated: "His un-credo makes me cringe and my sympathy goes to his toddler, Roisín. When she becomes a teenager and, I hope, believes in love, should she suffer from mood swings or any afflication of womanhood, she will be truly goosed. And better not ask dad for tea or sympathy . . . or help."
It concluded: "He also left the stage quickly, thus depriving his audience of any right of reply. But I suppose we can hardly expect him let a woman have the last word."
Mr Waters claims the words meant he was a bad father; an unsympathethic person in particular in relation to his daughter and her needs; and a "masculinist" who was anti-women and/or a misogynist.
The defence denies the words bore the meanings claimed and pleads that they were fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely Mr Waters's speech in the Abbey. It is denied Mr Waters's character and reputation had been damaged or that the words were published maliciously.
In evidence, Mr Waters told his counsel, Mr Gerry Danaher SC, that the article stated he was the kind of man who would withhold support, affection and love from his daughter. The viciousness of the attack on his character and reputation was so bound up with his fatherhood that he could not imagine a more fundamental assault on his character.
It was also an assault on his journalistic reputation, to say he went to the Abbey for the speech and instead engaged in a rant against women. A lot of people believed he was a solid, responsible person, and to suggest that he would rant and use what were purported to be his own words from his speech to back up words taken out of context appalled him.
Asked about the statement that he "left the stage quickly", Mr Waters said he took that to mean he was a coward. The right of reply was not part of the assignment at the Abbey. There was not time on the night. He was limited to a half-hour. He relished and enjoyed controversy. It enhanced his own view and understanding of the subject.
After the article appeared he contacted his solicitor. He wanted an apology and for it to be made clear to readers that the article was wrong. He needed clarification, a few lines to say the article was completely wrong, that the newspaper apologised and accepted that Mr Waters was a good father and a journalist of integrity. That was all he wanted, and if he had got it, it would have been the end of it.
Mr Waters told Mr Justice Kearns and the jury that he had no desire to go through "this ordeal" of the action. The wording of an offer by the newspaper to publish a statement was completely inappropriate.
He wanted the Sunday Times to restore his reputation to what it had been before they assaulted it. What was proposed made the situation worse and amounted to a denial. Having called him a bad father, they were now saying they did not say that, which was not true.
Mr Waters was referred to further correspondence and said that at a later stage he was looking for a contribution to a charity and a sum in damages. It was clear as time passed that the Sunday Times had no desire to redress the wrong on his character and reputation and was treating the matter in a contemptous way. A clarification was published on July 9th, 2000, and legal proceedings then commenced. The clarification exacerbated the situation.
They were in court because he had no other choice. His reputation as a father was central to his identity as a human being, and his reputation as a journalist was central to him making a living.
The Sunday Times had called him a coward. To say that a professional commentator was unwilling to engage in public debate would disqualify him from commentating.
Under cross-examination by Mr McCullough, Mr Waters agreed that he had written about the family law system and, as he saw it, fathers being discriminated against in that system.
Copies of Mr Waters's columns in The Irish Times were handed to the jury. At one stage, when counsel referred to an article on male suicide and Mr Waters's comments and said it was "pretty strong stuff", Mr Waters replied:"That is my job." He said he did not find it difficult to produce such columns once a week and had lots of opinions.
He said his "core quarrel with feminism" was that feminists had no interest in putting men back into family life. He denied that his views were anti-women. He agreed that his weekly column, in which he frequently writes about the male role in society, could be strong stuff and got a strong reaction from readers. He believed that for 30 years there had been a one-sided debate about gender issues. As a journalist and editor he facilitated and participated in that debate.
But there was another side, he added during his cross-examination, and as a journalist he had a responsibility to put that side forward. There were problems in society as a result of extreme feminist ideology.
Counsel suggested that many people perceived Mr Waters was attacking women and that many of the letters in The Irish Times took the view that he had a misogynistic view. Mr Waters said that was alleged from time to time but he disagreed with it.
The hearing continues today.