asked the Minister for Justice if he will state whether he has received in any Gárda Síochána reports information that organised attempts have been made to interrupt or prevent public meetings; whether he will state the number of such attempts reported in each county since 1st April last, and what steps he proposes to take to secure that public meetings may be orderly and peacefully held?
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Interference With Public Meetings.
I had received, up to yesterday, in all, four such reports as are referred to in the question, the meetings affected being at Waterford City, Kilmallock, Mallow and Ennis respectively. I was further informed, this morning, that the police had information of six other similar episodes which were not thought sufficiently serious to report specially to me. These six other incidents occurred at Cork City, Trim, Paulstown (Co. Kilkenny), Aughamore (Co. Mayo), Carrick-on-Suir, and Clonmel respectively. Arrangements have been made to have a sufficient force of police present at any meeting where there is reason to anticipate organised opposition.
Can the Minister say if the meeting at Cork, which was not considered sufficiently important to report, was the meeting addressed by ex-President Cosgrave, to break up which a very serious attempt was made?
In order that I might, so to speak, meet the full sense of this question, I asked the police to send me a supplementary statement. I had received, as I stated, reports of four incidents. After getting notice of the Deputy's question, I asked the police to send me a full and comprehensive report. In that report the other meetings to which I have alluded are mentioned. The guards probably had not thought it necessary specially to report to me.
Does the Minister propose to take any other steps than having police present to secure order at these public meetings?
The general duty of the police is to preserve order and to see that a lawfully constituted and lawfully assembled meeting is not interfered with. It is hardly necessary for me to give any special instructions in the matter. However, arising out of this question, I have had certain communications with the police authorities and I have learned that a special force of police is to be sent, if necessary, to public meetings. I approve of that, but I think it would have been done in any case, without consulting me. I approve also of any prosecutions which the police may, in their discretion, think it right to institute but I do not want the House to be under the impression that the police await instructions from me before they prosecute anybody who interferes with public meetings.
Does the Minister, in his desire to secure that order will be preserved at these meetings, appreciate the very bad effect on persons likely to interfere with these meetings of articles in the Press inciting persons to the breaking up of these assemblies and has he had his attention drawn to any papers in which such statements as this statement are made: "Free speech and freedom of the Press must be denied to traitors and treasonmongers"? Will the Minister take cognisance of incitements to breaches of the peace and disturbance of order in articles in the Press?
The newspapers are rather unhelpful to me in regard to these meetings. One of the meetings I mentioned in reply to the question put by the Deputy was the meeting at Ennis, because I did gather from the police reports that persons assembled outside the Town Hall at Ennis and that the meeting was interfered with. In the "Irish Independent" of to-day there is a letter from one of the persons present at the meeting which states that the meeting was not interfered with—that it went on.
Will the Minister read the letter?
It is very short. It is addressed to the Editor of the "Irish Independent":
"In reference to a report appearing in the ‘Irish Independent' that an Army Comrades' meeting at Ennis on the 21st instant was broken up, I wish to inform the public that we had elected our officers and only left the hall when our business was finished."
The organisers of some of the meetings want to have it both ways. They want to allege that the meetings are broken up and also to allege that they are so powerful and influential that they are able to hold their meetings.
I think the Minister may rest satisfied that the general daily and weekly press will cooperate in every way to preserve order at public meetings. The question is directed to papers like the "Phobhlacht" which set themselves out to deny the right of free expression to people whom they call "traitors and treason mongers." Will the Minister undertake to see that incitement of that kind will not be allowed?
Without aid from newspapers or anybody else, the police will see that the meetings are not interfered with. If the police are lax in that, I shall see that the police become very active to prevent anybody from interfering with a lawfully constituted meeting.
Will the Minister say what steps the police will take in respect of papers which print such statements as this: "Free speech and freedom of the Press must be denied to traitors and treason-mongers"?
I am willing to answer any supplementary question, but that can hardly be called supplementary. If the Deputy seriously desires an answer to his supplementary question, I invite him to put down a question on the paper.