In my opening remarks I indicated that it was impossible to consider the amendment in vacuo and that we could consider it sensibly only in relation to the entire section because every Act of Parliament must be interpreted first, according to the letter and if the letter is defective or obscure or ambiguous, the court is then entitled to look to the spirit which appears within that letter. In considering the amendment as now proposed this House must at least be entitled to the same rights. Consequently, I would submit that what I am saying is both pertinent and relevant.
The point I was making was that this section has within it the possibility—I suppose one could say the probability—of inhibiting Press comment and, depending on the personality of the occupant of the Ministry for Justice at any particular time, it could have within it the certainly of inhibiting Press comment, the certainty of denying the Press the full freedom that it, like anything else in a free, democratic society, should be able to enjoy. The amendment seeks to soften this section in relation to the Press. It seeks to exempt the Press from the possibility of committing an offence under this section and for the life of me I fail to see how the members of a party who pride themselves on the label "republican" can support a section which has the possibilities I have outlined and can deny an amendment, the whole spirit of which is designed to protect freedom. The first hallmark of a true republican is a regard for freedom but I am afraid that the quality of republicanism as being practised by our colleagues on the other side of the House has changed or diminished and does not permit the acceptance of freedom in the fullest concept of that ideal if it might impinge on their activities. That is the sad reality because if that were not the reality, this amendment would be accepted without question. It would have to be accepted and no Minister of a republican party would be allowed by his colleagues to introduce a section such as this which has within it such potential danger to one of the basic tenets of republicanism—liberty.
There must be a dichotomy of personal ideal within Fianna Fáil at this moment. The Minister has shown himself to be a man of strength within that party by being able to persuade them to come here and support the chop but I would appeal to the other elements to realise the mistake that they have made and to appreciate the harm they have done if not to this Parliament at least to themselves and their ideals and to assert themselves on the side of freedom.
That is all we are asking. We are not asking them to assert themselves on any unjust or outrageous cause. We are not asking them to support subversives, scruffies or queers but to assert themselves on the side of freedom. It is a simple appeal and I cannot understand why a party professing proudly their republicanism cannot accept that appeal. I suppose it is a matter of internal politics within that party as to the reasons why they cannot accept the appeal but if they are the only reasons, I would say that they are sordid reasons and that they are unworthy.
Amendment No. 7, was akin in spirit to this amendment. It was wider in the sense that it sought exemption for radio and television journalists. The objections to that amendment put forward by the Minister were that it was unreal to exempt the Press on the offence of incitement, that they were always liable to be prosecuted for that offence. I quite agree with the Minister; they were always liable and should be always liable; but I disagree with the Minister when he says that that is all that this section does—to create the offence of incitement. It creates an entirely new offence and it expresses a new concept and a new mentality. Because of its vast width, vast area of potential application, it is designed to get at the backroom boys, as the Minister calls them, and in that design it can get at perfectly innocent people, among them the Press. I do not think that the end ever justifies the means and certainly the end of squashing the few scruffies conspiring in a backroom does not justify the means when the means involves muzzling the Press. This consequence has been pointed out often in this House and has been pointed out by the newspapers themselves. As a result of all this that consequence must be well known to the the Government and to the members of the Government Party. In spite of that we are no nearer a position in which the leopard might change his spots in regard to this amendment.
I find it difficult to understand the type of mind that can be so deaf to so much valid argument, the type of mind that can just stare valid argument in the face and completely ignore it. I find it difficult to understand the personality, the ethos of the Fianna Fáil Party in this regard. All this amendment wants is to ensure that the Press will be free. I know the Minister's objections to the earlier amendment were that a person with a pamphlet or an irresponsible guest on television would be exempted under the terms of the earlier amendment and that that would be unfair. That objection does not even arise on this amendment because this amendment is confined to giving exemption from prosecution under this section to comment appearing in a newspaper, magazine, periodical or book.
I use the word "comment" but unfortunately the section as drafted could be applied to the mere reportage of news. The way news was presented, the pictorial illustrations that went with it, cartoons that might be used to highlight it, those things could be alleged to constitute encouragement. In addition to their first duty of reporting news, and I cannot see that there can be any argument in favour of a section which could curtail the right to report news, newspapers traditionally, and very properly, have always conceived it as part of their duty to comment on news, to put forward a point of view so that public opinion might be swayed by it, to accept it or to reject it, so that the attitude of the public would be educated as a result of the comment appearing in the Press. What could be more relevant for a newspaper to comment on than matters of social grievance, the very types of thing that have given rise to this Bill initially— lack of homes, an inequitable situation with regard to the fishing rivers in Ireland? These are matters of social grievance and if they overflow in protest, protest involving trespass or temporary occupation, perfectly justifiable protest in the thinking of very many responsible and what one would call conservative people, surely a newspaper must be allowed to comment one way or the other on such activities? If it comments in favour of them there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that that newspaper is committing an offence under this section unless this amendment is accepted and the newspapers are exempted from the effect of the section.
I dealt earlier with the thinking that must have gone into this section. I indicated, because of the type of drafting that appears in the section and of the novel legal principle of guilt by association, that that thinking showed a person determined to crush what he considered to be an irritant in this country. It showed a carelessness in that thinking, a dangerous carelessness in regard to the ideal of freedom, because as I have demonstrated the section as drafted can catch innocent people. Once it can, it must be repugnant to this House. In its ability to do that it inhibits freedom. We then have to consider that section and this amendment in the context of the ideal of freedom. Especially when it is under potential attack, as it is in this section, we have to consider how that ideal can be protected. We live in a free democracy and our basic freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution and by the courts. This Parliament is one of the organs of State under that Constitution and, knowing the guarantees of freedom the Constitution provides, it must be careful not to pass any law that would violate those guarantees. In addition to the guarantees, there are certain conventions of society which themselves have considerable force in acting as guarantors of our liberty. One of those conventions is that our Press shall be free to report. The necessity for this is painfully obvious when we take the example of countries which lack freedom and when we consider the state of the Press in those countries.
People will not tolerate their freedom being diminished provided they know the attack on their freedom is being made and this is where the Press assumes a major importance. It is through the Press that the attacks by the Executive on the freedom of individuals can be made known. It is through the Press, by its ability to comment on and sway public opinion, that the electorate—who are ultimately the masters of the politicians—can be informed of what the politicians are up to. It is through the Press the politicians can be given the message to desist. This convention of an independent and free Press is as important in a democracy as the written guarantees contained in the Constitution. We should be as careful to preserve it in its entirety—to expand it if possible— as we are to ensure that basic constitutional rights are never infringed or impaired.
Another guarantee should be Parliament itself. Parliament is representative of the people and it should follow that the people, through their representatives, would never want to do anything which would in any way limit or inhibit their freedom. I do not mean just basic freedoms; democracy means more than that. The spirit should be free and there should not be any repression anywhere in our society. It would seem a contradiction in terms if Parliament, composed of representatives of the people, should ever seek to introduce legislation which would diminish any of these freedoms. However, the Parliamentary system has lost its independence in the sense that Parliament, in effect, is subject to the Executive. There has been a further gloss on that in that the Executive frequently is subject to the will and the whim of a single man, the chief minister—in our case the Taoiseach. Consequently, the people are not entitled to look to Parliament for the protection they should receive from it because Parliament has allowed itself to become subject to the Executive, and even subject to a Taoiseach. This has been an unfortunate development in the evolution of parliamentary democracy in this country and in every country which has that particular system of government.
It is a disturbing development. I do not impute any particular malice to the Executive we have at the moment although there has been justification enough in today's "chop" to attribute malice to it. The Executive does not like to see its will baulked and it does not like to see its proposals curtailed or diminished. It has given thought to them and, in its wisdom, it has decided they are for the benefit of its subjects. The inclination of the Executive is to impose its will on Parliament. We must consider what are the likely antidotes to this rather poisonous development. As I see it, there is one certain antidote—a free and fearless Press which will expose such an Executive to the people so that they may remove it from office. If the Executive are not inclined to move, the Press can send a message via public opinion that the Executive is exceeding itself.
There should also be the other antidote within Parliament itself in that Parliament should be a body that should reject such activities by the Executive. Parliament is the repository of all things democratic. It should rise up in wrath and turn on an Executive that would ask it to pass legislation of a repressive kind, legislation of this kind which, as drafted, is so wide that it could conceivably harm innocent persons.
However, Parliament does not do that. We had the sad and distressing spectacle of a majority of Parliament accepting what the Executive purpose. It is not just in this nefarious incident. Parliament is prepared to accept everything the Executive propose. It is no substitute, within the context of a Parliamentary democracy, to say that the majority party have debated all these matters within the private confines of their party room. This is the place for these things to be debated by all Members of this Parliament because every TD who is elected is elected as a parliamentarian first, and as a member of a political party, second. Unfortunately, that is not the way we are inclined to look at our situation. We have allowed the party game to intervene and to prevent Parliament from becoming as powerful an antidote to poison in this legislation as the Press is.
It is only a mechanical majority, to be triggered off to pass any piece of legislation that the Executive decide ought be passed and which allows it to be passed. It behoves the rest of us to look at our society and see what protection there is for us from that politically dangerous situation. When we look around us the only protection we have is public opinion. I equate public opinion with the Press. Consequently, it becomes a matter of grave importance, a matter of great urgency, when the one real protection we have can be threatened, as it is threatened in this section. The Minister, by implication, admits that this section can stifle newspapers from commenting. That implication arises from his argument that newspapers have always been liable to be prosecuted for incitement.
