asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if the permitted publication by The Examiner (Dundalk) in its issue of the 1st November, 1941, of the editorial entitled “Roosevelt's Cock-and-Bull Story” indicates a change in censorship regulations; if the revised regulations under which this editorial was allowed have been or will be circulated to the Press generally; if the freedom of criticism granted to The Examiner will be accorded to writers in other newspapers, journals and books desiring to criticise the pronouncements of the Executives or members of Governments of States with which Eire has friendly relations, and if other newspapers may now publish such information as they may have as to the attitude of the belligerent Powers to religion and to Church institutions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Censorship Regulations.
The censorship regulations prohibiting the publication in newspapers and periodicals of offensive references to the heads and peoples of friendly States have not been revised and it is not proposed to change them.
Publication of the article to which the Deputy refers was not permitted, as alleged in the first part of his question. It was published in contravention of censorship regulations without submission to the Press Censor.
The moment the matter came to his notice the Chief Press Censor addressed a strong remonstrance to the editor calling for an explanation and directing that in future all editorial comment be submitted for censorship before publication. The editor has since replied apologising for the publication of the article. He stated that it was written in his absence and would not have been allowed to appear if he had an opportunity of seeing it.
Has the Minister overlooked that other part of the question which has reference to the publication of information as to the attitude of belligerent powers to religion and to Church institutions in view of the fact that the newspaper in question recently published a statement that the Nazi organisation in Europe was looked upon in reliable circles as the natural protector of the Catholic Church? In view of the permission to that newspaper to publish that statement, why have the sermons by the Bishop of Münster in Germany and pastoral letters by the Bishop of Achonry in this country, and other statements from far more responsible sources, suggesting that the Nazi dispensation in Europe is the enemy of the Catholic Church, been suppressed?
In regard to the first part of the Deputy's supplementary, I have not the paper here, but I have no recollection of ever having seen such a statement made in that paper. Certainly, if it was made, it was not called to my attention. In regard to the second part of his supplementary, it has been our practice to prevent propaganda being made here for or against either belligerent on the basis that its enemy was anti-religious. The Bishop of Münster's article came to this country in two parts, one part of which was supplied by the British Press Association, another part supplied by the German Press Agency. Both portions were stopped. My recollection of that statement is this—that one portion of it was a condemnation, starting off with a quotation from His Holiness the late Pope, condemning Communism, and going on to attack Communism and all its works and pomps, and claiming that one belligerent, the belligerent he favoured, was making a fight for religion. We are not entering that question. We are taking up the attitude that was taken up by Deputy Cosgrave on that point and we intend to stick to it.
Does the Minister advert to the fact that I now allege that this newspaper was permitted by the censorship to publish a statement that the Nazi Government in Europe was regarded in authoritative quarters as the natural protector of the Catholic Church? If that statement were permitted to be published in this newspaper, is it just that an equally authoritative statement, pointing out that it is the irreconcilable enemy of the Catholic Church and of Christianity itself, should be suppressed? If one tale is told, the answer should be allowed. One side of the story, the lying side, should not be published while the truth is suppressed.
We are doing our utmost to keep the papers in the country from making statements such as that the Deputy alleges this paper made in an issue which has not been brought to my attention. If the statement quoted by the Deputy appeared in that paper, it was not permitted and it would not have been allowed if the censor had seen it. The system of censorship is not that every editor in the country submits every point he is going to publish. If we were to adopt that system of censorship, it would be an undue burden on all the papers. We cannot guarantee ahead that every editor in the country is going to comply with our regulations, but the few offences that are committed by an odd editor at an odd moment would not justify us in adopting the other system. The editors throughout the country, thanks be to goodness, have co-operated very well. We have adopted a system of regulations which we issued to them, in which we say that they must not talk offensively about either the heads or the peoples of foreign friendly States. A few of them have at various times attacked the heads of friendly States and the same action was taken against them as was taken against this paper. I think we shall have to be judged in this matter—and I think the Deputy and the people abroad will have to judge us—not in relation to a particular statement which slips through without being submitted, and against instructions, but upon the general tone of our papers. I say this much, that the general tone of our papers is not that indicated either by what the Deputy refers to or by other cases which other people could bring up of similar mistakes.
Will the Minister say whether he has examined the editorial complained of in this question?
Yes, I have.
Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, at a time when the propaganda machines of the belligerents are working overtime in an endeavour to deceive the people of various countries, the paramount consideration for this country, maintaining a policy of neutrality, is not to say anything in editorial comments calculated to misrepresent us before any group of belligerents, and, bearing that in mind, will he issue instructions to papers that in present circumstances it is a good Irish policy to mind our own business and not to be induced to take the probelligerent line recommended to him by Deputy Dillon?