On Thursday last I drew the attention of the Minister for Justice to a communication published in the Irish Times, which they had received from the Federation of Old I.R.A. Associations, a communication which attempted to deter them from publishing pictures of the Armistice Day ceremonies. I asked whether the Government was proposing to do, or had done, anything about the matter. I gave notice to raise the matter on the adjournment because the Minister for Justice replied that he saw no reason for any kind of Government intervention. Now I do not believe in making mountains out of molehills, and, in view of the peaceful and dignified manner in which the Armistice Day ceremonies in fact passed over this year, I felt some hesitation about recurring to the matter to-night, but, thinking it over carefully, I came to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would be to the public advantage that something should be said about it in a moderate and temperate spirit. The Government have three ways of preventing things of this sort from occurring. They can prosecute where they think there is evidence of intimidation or attempted intimidation, they can exercise private pressure behind the scenes or they can express publicly their disapproval and disgust with regard to such courses.
If the incident to which I am referring had been an absolutely isolated one or if the Federation of Old I.R.A. Associations was a negligible body, the whole thing might, perhaps, be ignored. But such is not the case. There have been previous instances of traders being "called upon" not to stock certain goods, of cinema managers being "called upon" not to show certain films and now we have newspapers "called upon" not to publish certain photographs. I find that phrase a sinister one and I think it does clearly denote intimidation or attempted intimidation. The Irish Times, for instance, could not have any motive for complying with the demand that was made upon them except the motive of fear. I quite agree that the attempt to intimidate was a bluff, but that does not make it any the less an attempt to intimidate. I feel that we have to fight this sort of thing in this country or it will strangle us. There is far more intimidation going on than is generally realised because, in general, successful intimidation escapes publicity altogether and it is only when some tragedy discloses an unsuccessful attempt to intimidate that public attention is aroused. So I say we cannot regard this incident as an isolated and non-typical one. Neither can we regard the Federation of Old I.R.A. Associations as a body of negligible importance. It has, as a matter of fact, a semi-official character. Many Deputies and, I think, some Ministers belong to these associations. I have had occasion before now to criticise a speech made by one Minister to an assembly of one of these associations. These associations claim to speak for all those who took part in the Sinn Féin rebellion from 1916 onwards and to be the custodians and interpreters of the true national doctrine.
A fortnight ago, I said in this House that the task of Irish statesmanship was to combine into a tradition and heritage common to all of us the diverse memories, glorious and tragic, that are cherished by the various sections of our people. The point of view revealed by the present action of the Old I.R.A. Associations is directly opposed to this. They show an equal disregard for liberty, for tolerance and for the unity of our people, based on mutual respect and understanding.
The freedom of the Press, although capable of abuse, is an essential element of liberty. It may be right to forbid the publication of propaganda aiming at the violent overthrow of the State, but the truthful reporting of events that have actually occurred is something the newspapers should be allowed to carry out without interference. If the photograph of a public ceremony is a genuine one and is not faked, it is about as truthful a form of news as can be imagined. If the State were to forbid the publication of such photographs it would be tyrannical; for any organisation other than the State to prohibit them is not only tyrannical but actually insolent.
I have never believed in keeping alive past bitterness and it is not in a spirit of recrimination I feel obliged to remind the Old I.R.A. Associations that they have had extended to them a generous portion of the tolerance and charity which they refuse to extend to others. The appalling futility of the Great War is a cause of sorrow to every nation that took part in it but, here in Ireland, it was especially heartbreaking for all those thousands who suffered the tortures of Flanders and Gallipoli or who suffered the loss of their nearest and dearest to have to reconcile themselves to the fact that the rebels of 1916 and their successors had completely undone and rendered futile the work that those others had done for Irish nationhood and Irish unity. Nor has it been easy for them to forget and forgive many of the horrors that took place between 1918 and 1923 in the name of Irish freedom. Yet, it has been done. We have taken the most favourable view possible of the motives of those who were engaged in that struggle, and we have learned to think of the motives rather than of the deeds. Without opposition, pensions have been given even to able-bodied men who suffered no wounds or illness in the course of their service. We, of the older tradition of Irish nationalism, have not only preached appeasement but we have practised it. I suggest that these gentlemen of the old I.R.A. should do unto others as others have done unto them.
Armistice Day is a commemoration in honour of those who made the supreme sacrifice. There is nothing imperialistic about it. It is not imperialistic to sing "God Save the King," or even to carry Union Jacks, though no Union Jacks were, in fact, carried. Imperialism means the spirit of aggression and conquest towards other countries, and a desire to remain part of the Commonwealth does not in the least imply such a spirit. I doubt if there are 100 imperialists in this country unless you use the term as synonymous with narrow and jingoistic nationalism. At any rate, it is not for the Old I.R.A. Associations to determine what events may be lawfully reported in the newspapers or what opinions may be lawfully held. If they want to build up this country and make it great, I suggest that they could best do it by putting into practice the principle which I recommended a fortnight ago. They are fond of quoting Pearse to the effect that those who love good must hate evil, but before you apply a motto of that sort it is very necessary that you should understand what evil consists in. Moreover it should be evil you are really fighting, and not persons. There are many people who do evil things out of blindness and thoughtlessness, but they ought not to be regarded as beyond the reach of conversion. The greatest evil actually in this country is intolerance, and against those who practise it we must carry on a contest, not in any spirit of hatred but, as Campion the Jesuit martyr put it, "with the determination either to win them Heaven or die upon their pikes." It is in that battle that I venture to urge that the Government should do their part.