asked the Minister for Justice if he will state the reasons for the suppression of last week's edition of "An Phoblacht" by members of the C.I.D. Force, the number of copies seized, and whether any compensation will be made to the proprietors for the loss sustained by them.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Seizure of “An Phoblacht.”
The issue of the weekly paper known as "An Phoblacht," bearing date the 23rd February, was seized because it was generally treasonable, and in particular contained matter which amounted to the encouragement of the murder of jurors who carry out their duty. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
May I ask the Minister what authority there is for the suppression of newspapers at the present time?
There is full and ample authority for seizing documents of this nature.
A newspaper is not a document. Does the Minister take up the attitude that a police officer has the right to seize any newspaper and to prevent its publication by the subterfuge that it is a document? Freedom of the Press surely is allowable under Article 9 of your Constitution?
I take the attitude that it is a correct and proper thing for the Guards to carry out the law and to seize documents of this nature.
I must again ask the Minister to quote to the House the authority under which the police acted in this matter.
The Deputy can get some of those magnificent lawyers who advised them on other matters to advise them on that.
I must press the Minister for an answer to my question. It may appear to be a great joke to the members on the other side.
It is not a joke at all — not a bit of a joke.
The time is coming ——
Mr. Hogan
It is anything but a joke.
I must again call the attention of the House to the lack of responsibility that the Minister is showing in this matter. We have an interest in this matter just as well as those on the opposite side.
Here is a document advocating murder, and the Deputy has a great deal of interest in it.
Answer the question.
I would like to ask a further supplementary question. Am I to take it that there is now a permanent prohibition of this newspaper? According to to-day's Press there has been a further raid and a seizure before the actual publication of the paper was made.
That is quite a different question.
May I ask whether, on previous occasions, when reports of a similar character appeared in this paper, the newspaper was seized?
I have already explained to the Deputy several times that this was seized because of its encouragement to murder. If the Deputy approves of murder, I understand his interest in this paper. I cannot do so otherwise.
That is a matter of opinion.
It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact.
It is a matter of opinion whether the paper encourages murder. When the Minister shows us that the paper stands for murder, we may change our opinion. We have never approved of that, and we are not going to take the ipse dixit of the opposite side.
Then am I to take it from the Deputy that he has never seen a copy of the paper?
Of course, I have.
Why has the issue for this week, dated for Saturday next, been suppressed?
If the Deputy is prepared to put a question on that point, I am perfectly ready to answer him.
With regard to the answer given to Deputy Derrig and the suggestion that the Deputy approves of murder, I would like to say this much to the Minister for Justice——
The Deputy must not make a speech on it now.
All I have to say is that he himself must approve of murder, judging by his Cabinet company.
rose.
The next question — Deputy Myles Keogh. I will not allow Deputy Derrig to go further.
I protest, and wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
We will take that at the end of Questions.