I gave notice that I would raise certain questions relating to the censorship, arising out of a group of questions I put to the appropriate Minister and which were replied to on 4th February, 1942. Some of those questions I can hastily refer to in order to get to the important one which I consider is in the forefront of the series. With regard to some of these smaller ones, two or three points arise. I had previously raised a question as to an editorial published by a Dundalk newspaper, and, in reply to it, the Minister told me that the same treatment was being meted out to that newspaper as to other newspapers which had fallen foul of the censorship. I raised a question as to whether that was a fact or not, and I was more or less told that it was. I assert now that it is not a fact that the same treatment was given.
The Kilkenny People in January, 1941, ran across the Censor, and the wire which the editor got was that his whole issue thereafter was to be submitted to the Censor before publication. So far as the Dundalk paper was concerned, it made a much more defiant attempt to bring this country into dispute with a certain friendly country which was then neutral. That paper was asked to submit editorial matter before there was any publication. How anybody can say that the same treatment was accorded to the two newspapers when one is asked to send the whole issue and the other only the editorial comment passes my comprehension, having regard to the fact that the Dundalk newspaper had tried to get this country at loggerheads with America by a very abusive and scurrilous type of editorial comment on certain things President Roosevelt had said.
The reason why the Kilkenny People was held up by the Censor on this occasion was that the issue complained of published a Pastoral Letter sent by a Bishop of the Catholic Church of Ireland to a priest in County Carlow, in which, referring to a certain bombing episode which occurred here, the question was asked: “What do these accursed bombers mean by bombing our poor country?”
There was no reference to the country from which the bombers came. I do not know whether the peccant word was "accursed", but simply because the words: "What do these accursed bombers mean by bombing our poor country?" were used, that editorial is not merely suppressed but the editor is told that all future issues of the newspaper will have to be submitted to the Censor.
It is noteworthy in that connection to find that, within a very short period of the attempted publication of that letter from a Bishop to a member of his community, the Department of External Affairs charged German air craft with violation of Irish territory. It appears to be an odd performance that a Bishop cannot complain of bombing being carried out on this country without stating where the bombers came from and that in a few days the Department of External Affairs can accuse Germans of violating territory here and of being responsible for the bombing. I think that was admitted at the time. Nevertheless, the editor is told that he must submit the whole issue before publication. The contrast is that the Dundalk Examiner is told to submit editorial comment. I say that equal treatment was not given, and the statement made in the Dáil that equal treatment was given was, to my mind, a falsehood.
The second question related to an alteration in a communication sent by a Press agency for publication here from which the Censor struck out the word "not." I was told in reply to my question in that connection that the blocking out of the word "not" changed what was a false statement, deliberately offensive to a particular nation, into a true statement which could be offensive to nobody. It is peculiar that, in this situation, the fact that there was an intermediate course and that part of the sentence could have been left out was never thought of. If people want to say that in a certain area troops when fighting will meet Germans and not Italians, it seems to be odd that they must say that they will meet Germans and Italians, instead of being allowed to say that they will meet Germans. That intermediate situation, however, was not recognised as one that could be passed. It was a true statement —that they would meet Germans. That is one of the smaller matters.
The third matter related to an official statement issued by the United States State Department as to the removal of General Weygand from office. That statement was held up, and, when I queried it, I was told that the reason was that the censorship staff had stopped the publication of various rumours and unofficial surmises to the same effect, and when the official announcement came in, the staff went on in their own quiet way and decided that it was surmise. It turned out to be an official report which had to be, and was, published eventually. It was held up, although it was a United States Department publication.
The other matter to which I called attention related to four meetings attended by members of the Local Defence Force. At each of them, memorials were unveiled to people who had taken part in the struggle against the British here. News as to three of these was published, but news as to the fourth was stopped. I could see no distinction between the four. The memorials were to men who fought for the same purpose and they were unveiled at meetings attended by Local Defence Force members. The reason given for withholding one publication was "in order to give co-operation to the military authorities in keeping control on the functions to be attended by the Local Defence Force." I cannot believe, nor is it a fact, that members of the Local Defence Force were forbidden to attend the meeting publication in regard to which was suppressed, and I do not see the purpose of suppressing publication of the fact that the meeting did take place. If the military want to ensure co-operation, I am sure they have ways and means of doing it. One way would be to prohibit members of the Defence Forces attending any or all of these celebrations. I cannot see how they distinguish between the three cases in which permission was given for members of the forces to attend and the one where some doubt is raised, but if that had to be done, it is surely a matter for the military authority to say that no member of the Defence Force should go to the meeting. When the meeting, however, is held, it seems to be an absurd use of censorship to say: "We will publish three but not the fourth." These, however, are minor matters.
The matter with which I am chiefly concerned is a matter in relation to which the Censor finally said that, in the interests of national unity, he took it on himself to stop controversy of a political nature in this country. The way in which that arose was that a book, to which very widespread publicity, and very proper publicity, has been given, was published in this country. It is written by a distinguished member of the National University and the title of it is The Church and State in Fascist Italy. The book was sent to the reviewers for review. It was reviewed in England, and I think two papers published reviews here. Amongst other newspapers, the Irish Independent decided to publish a review. In talking of Fascism, the author of that book said:
"Mr. de Valera, so often accused of dictatorial ambitions by his opponents, has in fact stood four-square for Parliamentary democracy and popular government."
That phrase was not censored and I am glad it was not. I think it would have been a tragedy if that book had been forbidden publication or circulation in this country. The book was allowed in. That is a very small comment in the whole book and it is made as an aside. I personally think it was not appropriate for the reviewer to advert to it at all, if he recognised the significance of the work, which was the relationship of the Church and the State in Italy. However, the comment having been made, the reviewer thought fit to say:—
"Mr. de Valera was not always standing four-square for democracy and popular government,"
and he referred to the fact that he had fought a civil war against popular government and had denied the right of this House to its sovereignty, even at a time when he was a member of this Assembly. That was suppressed by the Censor and, in fact, the review, when it came back, was so scored that it was decided not to publish it; but a little later the Censor bethought himself that cutting out any reference to that particular period might have logical conclusions which he did not want to stand over, and there was a certain amount of retreat hastily beaten on the point.
There was a second point referred to. There was a statement with regard to flirtation with Fascism which had been gone on with by Mr. Cosgrave and that was properly taken to be a reference to the Blueshirt movement. The statement made in the review was that, so far from there being any flirtation with Fascism, the Blueshirt movement stood here for freedom of speech against blackguardly interference by people who, as I would put it, were favoured by the Government even in their blackguardly attempts upon public meetings. The statement by the reviewer that the Blueshirt movement stood for freedom of speech in the country was, the Censor decided, not a fit thing to be published, and the reason given was this:
"That at a time when the unity of our own people was more than ever called for, it would be contrary to the public interest to allow a fresh controversy to break out in the Press regarding either the Civil War or the Blueshirt movement."
Remember the book was not censored. The comment that Mr. de Valera had stood four square for certain things, was not suppressed. People knew that he did not stand that way always, and when the reviewer decided to point that out, then, if you please the interests of national unity come along and must be put on a pedestal. It would be contrary to the public interest, we are told, to allow a fresh controversy to break out in the Press. In a second letter the Censor beat something of a hasty retreat, and wrote this:
"Naturally the weight to be given to the last-mentioned consideration —which could be urged in support of the suppression of all political controversy—must depend a good deal on the circumstances of each particular case."
The result was that certain alterations in the review were suggested, but if these were made in part of the text they would take away completely the point of the review. For instance, the reviewer had said:—
"The author is never at pains to conceal his rooted dislike for the Fascist system."
The suggested alteration there was that the reviewer should cut out the words "For the Fascist system", and leave the sentence: "The author is never at pains to conceal his rooted dislike." Later in the article, the reviewer wrote:—
"Occasionally, indeed, one feels that he travels rather far afield in search of a weapon or two with which to lambast it."
The end of that sentence was cut out so that it was made to read:—
"Occasionally, indeed, one feels that he travels rather far afield in search of a weapon."
I must say that, when I asked this question, I thought the Minister would have said that he would have that particular statement of the Censor's reviewed, especially when taken in conjunction with the promises that were made in this House when we gave leave to have censorship in the country. On that occasion, when we asked that there would be no censorship of the political point of view we were told very definitely that that was the situation. The phrase that went round was that the censorship was to attend to news but not views: that the political point of view would still be allowed, that people could have their views and have their controversies over them. The point was that news might be censored, only such news as might give offence to either of the belligerents, or that might give away information of some type that it would be wrong to give away. The position was that news, not views, was to be the subject of censorship. I felt, when I raised this question, that I would not have got the reply the Minister gave. Instead of the Minister saying that he thought the Censor had gone too far, he said in the course of his reply:
"In regard to the guarantees with respect to the censorship which were given to the Dáil in September, 1939, all I need say is this: that there was never any guarantee, express or implied, that in allowing full freedom for political discussion the censorship would allow any section of the community or the Press to undermine public morale or the authority of the State."
Therefore, to say that Mr. de Valera had not always stood for Parliamentary government in this country is, according to this, going to undermine public morale or the authority of the State. The reply went on:
"And, in my opinion, any attempt to revive, at the present time, the animosities and bitterness of the Civil War would be disastrous to public morale and national security."
Who wants to revive the bitterness of the Civil War? If the author of a book says that Mr. de Valera stands in a particular way, is a reviewer not entitled to say: "Well, he did not always stand that way"? Is a reference of that kind going to revive the bitterness of the Civil War and undermine public morale or the authority of the State?
We know that this matter has a wider fling. The criterion—the standard—that is to guide the Censor in future is his view of public morale or the authority of the State. On the day that I had these questions down my colleague, Deputy Dillon, had a question down regarding the price of wheat. We know what happened with regard to that. A Pastoral Letter was issued by one of the Bishops in answer to the appeal made by members of the Government that the pastors of the Church should urge their flocks to carry out the Government's desire for an increase in the acreage under tillage. That was accepted by a particular Bishop who wrote what amounted to a Pastoral Letter in which he asked the priests to encourage the people in that direction.
There was one paragraph in his letter to the effect that it might be well worth while considering whether something more could not be paid for the wheat grown in this country instead of spending vast sums of money on trying to bring in wheat from outside. That paragraph in the Pastoral was allowed to be read in the churches, but it was not allowed to be published. An editorial in the Independent, which was written for the 11th December of last year and which backed the wheat movement, at the end raised the question whether the imports of wheat might not be brought in here at an inordinately high cost, and asked whether, on that basis, it would not be better to reconsider the question of the State price for wheat, and find out what was the economic price to be offered for wheat so as to induce the farmers of the country to grow it. The references to wheat-growing in that article were ruled out.
The statement was made here that once a thing is decided in accordance with the powers given by the Dáil, the policy in regard to it can only be changed in the ordinary Constitutional manner. When the Minister was heckled about that, his answer was:—
"Is the Deputy trying to argue that every galoot in the country should have the power to try to advocate starving our people or to disrupt the economic life of the country by refusing?"
It is very easy to talk about what galoots in the country try to do, but we all know what was happening—that the people were pleading for a better price for wheat, and that that price has since been guaranteed to them.
An editorial in the Independent dealing with the number of civil servants was held up for two or three days. Contrast that with a speech made recently which got a certain amount of publicity. It was a speech that might have a very serious effect on the neutrality of this country. Anyone can see that it was not the sort of thing the Censor would ordinarily let pass, but in the case of that speech the newspapers were told to publish every line and comma of it. That was making a Party use of a power that was given for a national purpose, and was allowed at a time when we had this call for national unity: at a time when as the Censor says—and the Minister stands over him—the unity of our people is more than ever called for.
Let us be honest about this unity of the people. There is no such thing as unity of the people. There is a pretence of unity. As far as this Dáil has decided, two representatives of this Party and two representatives of the Labour Party, joined by members of the Government Party, meet in conference to discuss certain matters of defence. Outside that there is no such thing as unity. This conference has been used through the country as a means of pretending to the people that there is something like a National Government in the country. We know that is not so. We know it is the other way, and that the same old Party policy is being pursued. We know that every appointment to be given is at the mercy of the Fianna Fáil Clubs, and that every appointment is filled by a Fianna Fáil partisan. Even though we have the Council of Defence, matters are still going on in the same old way. As far as I am concerned, if the censorship is now going to be devoted to upholding this farce of national unity, I would feel bound to suggest to my colleagues that the time has come when that particular farce should be ended and that we should definitely get rid of that pretence of national unity now being made an excuse for an outrageously partisan type of censorship.
