I gave notice to-day that I intended to raise on the adjournment the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures to a question I addressed to him this afternoon as to the manner in which he has exercised his powers as Censor. It might be well if, at the outset, I were to indicate my general view in respect of censorship. I have already expressed my views on censorship, but lest there should be any misunderstanding of my attitude, I should like to say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I am favourable to a reasonable censorship of obviously propagandist news and obviously propagandist views from the propaganda machines of the belligerent countries. I am favourable also to a censorship of articles which are critical of countries with which we have friendly relations, and to a reasonable censorship of speeches or articles which cast doubt upon the genuineness of our neutrality, or which endeavour to drag us towards one set of belligerents or the other. I believe that, in present circumstances, the obviously same policy for us to pursue is a policy of making sure that our neutrality is known to be a genuine form of neutrality and that we are not the plaything of one set of belligerents or the other.
That is my general viewpoint in respect of censorship, and, notwithstanding my criticism of the Minister's recent action, I must say that I do not share the views of others, as expressed in this House, as to the manner in which the Censor's powers have been used in respect of external matters. I think that, generally speaking, the censorship in respect of external matters has been applied in a reasonable manner, and it is in the field of external affairs that I think there is need for particular care and particular caution and, above all, the overriding consideration that nobody ought to be allowed in the present grave circumstances to make comments on external affairs which are calculated to put us in a false light with any of the belligerents. The whole concern of a small and relatively defenceless people such as we are in present circumstances should be not to go about trailing our coats, but to keep to the middle of the road, taking care that we are not pushed hither and thither by every kind of pressure, or by every economic or political breeze that blows.
In respect of external matters I had no great cause to complain against the manner in which the powers of censorship were exercised until recently, when I discovered, as the rest of the country to its amazement discovered, that a member of this House, in exercise of his citizen rights, admittedly, delivered a speech for which he was permitted to secure publicity not merely in our newspapers but on the wireless, and which I can only describe as a passionately vehement speech, in the course of which he advocated a declaration of war against certain countries with which we have friendly relations to-day. That advocacy of an open declaration of war by this Deputy was permitted the widest possible publicity in our newspapers and on the radio. When I saw that, I began to wonder what type of censorship we had in this country and what functions the Censor regarded as functions properly performable by him. I think the whole country has begun to wonder why the Censor permitted such widespread publicity for a speech which was very definitely calculated to represent to one set of belligerents that there was a public opinion in this country favourable to intervention on the side of another set of belligerents. I do not believe, of course, that Deputy Dillon represented 2 per cent. of our people when he made that speech. That is immaterial. He was quite entitled to make that speech if he wished, and if he felt any pleasure in making it, but when we have a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures and a censorship in operation, surely it is highly undesirable, and highly negligent on the part of the Censor, to permit the publication of such a speech in our Press and on the radio, and apparently to surrender completely whatever powers he had to suppress the publication of that speech in other countries where it was definitely calculated to misrepresent us.
Let us examine for a moment the reasons given by the Minister to-day in an attempt to justify his complete abdication of his powers in respect of censorship, so far as that speech was concerned. The Minister said he decided to permit the publication of the speech for the following combination of reasons:—
"(1) That with the powers which we then possessed we could not have effectively stopped the export of the speech for publication abroad; (2) that the speech was a premeditated and deliberate statement of policy on an important occasion by a Deputy who was then Deputy-Leader of the second biggest Party in the State; and (3) that copies of the speech might have been exported beforehand by the agents of foreign newspapers and others for use in their own countries."
One of the reasons given is that the Minister could not have effectively stopped the export of the speech for publication abroad. Even if the Minister could not have effectively stopped the speech being exported, he was nevertheless bound as Censor to endeavour to stop the publication of the speech. If a person is charged with the administration of the law and certain people break the law, there is none the less an obligation on the administrator of the law to endeavour to uphold it, even though he may have to see occasions on which the law is broken in defiance of his efforts to uphold its sanctity and its majesty. In this case, the Censor appears to have decided that he could not effectively stop the export of the speech. In other words, if he could not be sure of 100 per cent. success, he was not going to be satisfied with 90 per cent., and therefore, he completely abandons his functions as Censor in respect of preventing the export of the speech.
The next reason given is that the speech was a premeditated and deliberate statement of policy. Is that to be a new reason for people getting publicity for views which will misrepresent us in other countries? All one has to do now, apparently, is to say that one wrote it in as a deliberate and premeditated statement of policy, and once it is deliberate and premeditated, once it is deliberately and systematically calculated to misrepresent us, according to the Minister, that is a reason for the non-prohibition of its publication. The third reason seems to be the weakest of all—that copies of the speech might have been exported. There is no certainty that they were exported, but they might have been exported, and, because they might have been exported, the Censor merely sat down and permitted the widespread publication of the speech in the newspapers and on the radio.
These seem to me to be very strange reasons for permitting the publication of a speech which, more than any other speech delivered in this country for the past two years, has definitely done us harm from the standpoint of endeavouring to show that our neutrality is of a genuine variety. That speech was a very obvious speech of hostility towards countries with which we are not at war, with which we are on friendly terms and have friendly relations, and in which in certain cases we maintain ambassadorial representatives. Yet the Censor here, notwithstanding that he must have known that a speech of that kind misrepresented us, and was in no sense in tune with the aspirations of our people, gave his benediction to very wide publicity for that speech.
Contrast the treatment of that speech with what has happened in other cases. There is a weekly Labour paper published in Dublin known as The Torch. It wanted to publish a poster one weekend, the contents of which were “Fill the larders—with what?” One would not imagine that a poster of that kind was going to bring down the fabric of this State but because a weekly Labour paper, thinking of the conditions under which working-class people were living and bearing in mind the advice given by the Minister for Supplies to fill the larders while the goods were there, produced a poster asking, “What are the larders to be filled with?”, the Censor apparently thought he was preserving this State from destruction by refusing to permit an innocent poster of that kind to be published. So the position is that a Deputy can declare war, apparently in the name of this country, on certain States with which we have friendly relations, but a weekly Labour paper cannot ask the simple question of its readers: “What are the larders of the working-class people to be filled with?” and if it does it will merit censorship. If it were to advocate a declaration of war in its poster, then, presumably, like Deputy Dillon it would have been able to get away with it as he was with his speech.
I made a speech which, I think, I was entitled to make, and when examined was found to be quite constitutional. In that speech I said that I would persuade the trade unions not to apply for a negotiation licence under the Trade Union Act of 1941. That is not an offence because a union need not make application for a negotiation licence. I said in the House that I would endeavour to persuade the trade unions not to make application for that negotiation licence so that the Act could not be operated, and it cannot be operated if the licence is not applied for.
But, within an hour after I had made that speech, the Censor was despatching telegrams to the newspapers prohibiting them from publishing a speech of that kind. The speech was made by myself in the first instance, and was repeated by Deputy Corish. But there were no telegrams sent out when Deputy Dillon's speech was made. My only offence was that I was talking on behalf of trade unions to an Irish Government on a matter of internal policy which did not affect our relations with any other State, and because I made a statement of that kind the Censor felt obliged to despatch telegrams here and there, and subsequently to issue an Emergency Powers Order prohibiting the publication of that portion of my speech, a speech which was constitutional in conception and quite constitutional in the manner in which I desired to exercise the course of action which I then foreshadowed.
Let me contrast by another example the manner in which the censorship powers are being exercised, in this instance by a complete close down on a matter of purely internal politics. Nobody will be permitted to suggest to an Irish farmer that he ought to get 51s. a barrel for his wheat. The Censor will not permit you to do that, although it is a purely domestic internal matter between the farmers of this country, the producers of wheat, and the Government, the guarantors of the fixed price.
