I was merely explaining that I do not want to be taken as attributing things. I have only a general impression from what Senator Magennis said and when I say that error is generally more from a distortion of truth than from falsity, I mean that a great way of distortion is stressing, and it seems to me that in this matter we can make a very plausible case, supporting what we are saying in a dozen ways, and misrepresent the fundamental relationship by a mere matter of stress.
I want to say first that the Constitution means very little to me. It provides for a continuity of government and, so far as Articles 41 and 42 are concerned, they are not enactments. They are only a statement of pre-existing fact and their interest is that they are, to a large extent, an admission by the Government that there are anterior to itself certain laws which limit what is called State sovereignty. We write things down in the Constitution that sound splendidly:—
"The State recognises the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society..."
—mind you, the family is something more than that. It is not merely a part of the whole of what is called here society—
"... and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights antecedent and superior to all positive law."
That sounds quite fine, but by positive legislation we may make enactments which, if not in direct contradiction of what is laid down in the Constitution, may be what I might call an infringement of or nibbling at it. Article 42 makes statements with regard to the rights of the family in relation to education and in sub-section (2) of Section 3 it affirms a mitigated right, another right, anterior but indirect as compared with the directness of the authority of the family.
In the statements I have heard here this afternoon, there were certain rather false analogies. "No one has a right to do things in a way which injures another," and the relationship in that was to the family or the father not doing something, to the injury of a child. The analogy was made of the shooting of crows and the killing of a man walking quite legitimately along the road. The family is an authority; the man shooting crows on his land has no rights whatever with regard to shooting a man on the road. The father has the right, the primordial right, anterior to, superior to and taking precedence of the right of the State with regard to the education of his child.
I think that the representation of the family or person in regard to society has also not been exact as given here, because although the individual is contained within and is subordinate to the national society, at the same time, that society does not contain in his totality that human person. That human person is himself the universe of liberty, the master of his own act, and you must take these two aspects—the sovereignty of the person, superior to the State and the individual in the relationship of the part to the whole with regard to the State— together. It is only by getting a right balance that you get the truth, and in so far as you stress one to the detriment of the truth of the other, you yourself will be making statements contrary to truth.
We are told about Catholic teaching in relation to this matter. The Catholic Church does assert the authority of the State and it does assert the authority of the family.
Notice this, how far the Church herself recognises the enormous import of the voice of the parents' authority. It will be admitted with regard to man's final end that baptism is as vital as a knowledge of Irish. Nevertheless, we are not entitled to baptise a child other than with the assent of the parents, except under specified conditions. What is implicit in the whole tone of the section we are dealing with is, that we have given lip service to the authority of the family in relation to education. You can always get away from that right. You can turn around and say that some parents get drunk, that some are ignorant, and that some bring children up in the way of crime. The parent is the authority directly preposed by God over children, and yet it is being assumed, by virtue of numbers, that the Minister, as in a paragraph like this, is to be indefective as to what constitutes the full implementation of the rights of the child. My interpretation, very defective as it is, is that inasmuch as the authority proposed for the child is the divine act of the parents, that is the operative authority. There is the right of the State also, directed to the common good, to take an interest in seeing that its citizens have a certain degree of moral intellectual and other education. But the primary right and authority are in the parents. The interpretation given in this Bill, and that has been given in some of the statements heard to-day is this: we will pay lip service to the parents' right, but here is the State, which has set down in Article 42 (2) of the Constitution a statement of its right to insist on a certain degree of education that is going to be the only operative right.
In Papal enactments I think there will be found instances, probably in Rerum Novarum, where the right of the family is asserted, and the right, under certain circumstances, of the State to take over certain functions is also asserted. If you read it you will find that the State only enters into that right when an enormous number of conditions have been fulfilled. What are we doing in this Bill? We say that there is a distinction now between “may” and “shall”. The beginning of Section 4 reads:
"A child shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be receiving suitable education..."
The primary authority responsible, and with rights relating to the child, is the family, but this enormous abstract monster that we call the State comes in and, by virtue of a subordinate right relating to a lesser end that we propose in Article 3 (2), says: "We are going to lay down the entire conditions." It does not matter what the parents may do. I referred on a previous occasion to the case of a boy who, at the age of 13, had a remarkably competent knowledge of Greek and Latin, and who at an early age became a professor, but who when he was sent to school was not able to write his name and was sent home. In my view—a very defectible view—that boy in intellectual education had received equipment enormously superior to what he would receive at an elementary school. I would not mind betting that, if one of the officials of the Minister's Department came across that boy, who was educated at home, and became aware that he was not able to write his name, then, in the name of the almighty State, he would have found that the boy did not fulfil the conditions required, the parents' rights would be completely eliminated, and the Department would decide to what institution the boy was to be sent.
The Constitution lays it down that the authority with regard to education, moral, intellectual and so on, is primarily the father, but the State also says that it is going to assume, unless it decided otherwise, that the requirement of a minimum education is not fulfilled unless it decides it. Good heavens, if the family is the primary institution has a father not the right to say with regard to schools, that he is not satisfied they are giving the minimum education that he requires to be given? My interpretation is that the superior authority more immediately preposed to that end is the parent. In the light of that judgment or misjudgment we read Section 4, which is arrogant, arbitrary, and totalitarian in tendency by our Government.
(1) A child shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be receiving suitable education in a manner other than by attending a national school, a suitable school, or a recognised school unless such education and the manner in which such child is receiving it have been certified under this section by the Minister to be suitable.
I should like to propose as an alternative:
"That no schools shall be considered suitable unless each individual parent certifies that he is satisfied with a manner in which the teaching is being given the children."
The section continues:—
"(2) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to every certificate under this section by the Minister, that is to say:—
(a) the Minister may, before giving such certificate in respect of a child, require such child to be submitted by his parent to such educational test at such time and place as the Minister shall direct, and the Minister may refuse to give such certificate if such parent fails or refuses so to submit such child;"
We are assuming that Ministers are always perfect. We know that some parents get drunk. I hope the Minister will not take offence if we assume that by some particular grace applying to Ministers they never get drunk, that the parents might have a deleterious effect on the moral well-being of the child, but we must assume that no Minister can ever have any deleterious effect on anybody. In so far as this is permissive, it just permits him not to require something. Let us see how much freedom we get out of this:—
"The Minister shall not refuse to give such certificate in respect of a child until he has informed the parent of such child, and also, if such child is receiving education in a school, the manager or conductor of such school of the ground on which he proposes to refuse such certificate and has given such parent and (where appropriate) such manager or conductor a reasonable opportunity of meeting the requirements of the Minister..."
He shall not refuse until he has told the other people that he is going to refuse. But the power to refuse, so far as that sub-section (b) is concerned, is completely unmitigated. It merely says that he has still power to refuse. But, when he has made up his indefectible mind that he is not satisfied with the education, he will tell the other man so.
"Where a child is receiving education in a school (other than a national school, a suitable school, or a recognised school) and the Minister refuses to give a certificate under this section in respect of such child, the Minister may so refuse to give such certificate on the ground that such school is not appropriate for that particular child or that such school is not appropriate for children to whom the Principal Act applies."
I can see that what the Minister has in mind there is that certain incompetent people may set up schools and charge fees to parents and not give the children an education such as the parents have a right to expect. But, actually, what that is doing is again adding to this almighty power of the Minister to the further elimination of the natural and rightful authority in the parent.
"Where an application is made to the Minister for a certificate under this section in respect of a child, the Minister may make such inquiries and investigations as he shall think proper for the purpose of determining whether to give or to refuse such certificate...."
He may, if he likes, make such inquiries as he thinks proper. Implicit in the whole structure of the section we are dealing with is the elimination of the right of the parent and the responsibility of the parent. If I am a parent, as I am—I do not want to go on exalting myself unduly—I do think that I am at least as good a judge as to what the well-being of my children requires as is the Minister or his officers, and I think I am at least moved by the same degree of affection and care for their well-being as is the Minister or his abstraction which we call the Department. But it will be assumed until I satisfy him under conditions laid down by the Minister that I am legally liable as a person who has failed to fulfil my most elementary duty as a parent.
My interpretation of that is that it is unjust in this way, that it is one authority blotting out and arrogating to itself the authority which, by natural law, belongs to another authority, namely, the father. I am not denying that a case can be made —and I support it—that the common good requires a certain degree of moral and intellectual education amongst the citizens and, as the State is preposed for the common good, that it has the right to require that the parents will make provision to see that a certain minimum requirement is fulfilled. But I do not say that that particular right in the State should be used, as is done by all States to-day, to the obliteration of those lesser but more direct and immediate societies, such as the family. That is what we are doing here.
The last time we were discussing this here I listened to Senator Buckley and I was rather amused, although it was an unworthy amusement if you like, because we are so enormously intent upon reaching that ideal condition in which we all shall be like Senator Healy and be able to begin what we have to say in English with the words: "Tá cúpla focal le rádh agam." We are intent upon reaching that ideal condition, but what we are doing is taking the latter-day heritage that we got from England; not that British Common Law, which I think is one of the greatest assets and inheritances that we have, that Common Law which has now been distorted in the light of modern conceptions of reality such as is embodied in the section here. We are so determined on Gaelicising ourselves so as to be able to say: "Tá cúpla focal le rádh agam", that we are going to follow in the most slavish and contemptible fashion the worst tendencies that are in England and, not merely in England, but in the modern world generally.
I have consistently tried to fight this continual tendency for the State to grasp more and more power to grip the human persons within it and practically eliminate their dignity as human persons, which is not only here, but is world-wide. Because it is world-wide and because we are so slavish, I know well that in getting up here to argue against it I am just wasting your time and my time. We assume that what modern clamour and ignorance are assuming is some sort of eternal and immutable law and that we have to follow that just the same as other people.
My reading of this section here is that it is a direct attempt to enable the State, if not to eliminate, to act in complete disregard of that natural right which is not created by the Constitution, but which the Constitution has merely set down—and the Constitution is the work of the present Government—apparently with a view to whittling it away by specific legislation. What is the meaning of the word "lawful" in the Constitution? We are here purporting to enact a law. Personally, I do not think it is a law, because nothing that is contrary to the Constitution has the binding effect of law. I myself, in my interpretation of this, interpret it as the State claiming for itself here what it denies to itself in the Constitution and denying to the parents what the Constitution recognises belongs to the parents by natural law without their being indebted to this State or this Constitution for it.
I do hope that in this matter we will forget Party differences. I do not think there is anything vital in this particular section for what you might call the desirable aspects of the Bill. I want to be perfectly frank and say that I think there was a certain soupcon or tinge of irritation in the minds of the framers of this section at the idea that this all-powerful State is not able to take the children of all parents, irrespective of the parents' rights, and insist upon ramming Irish down their throats. So far as I am concerned, I may say that, in spite of the Minister and the Government, I would not hesitate, and would not have one flicker in my conscience, to send my boys abroad if I thought that, spiritually, morally or intellectually, they would be bettered in any way, rather than by fulfilling the Minister's desire to force us all into the one mould. Human nature and human life are infinitely varied. Our little bureaucrats in the Department have sat down and decided that every little child in this State at a given moment will be learning or not learning some particular thing. That was an idea that came in with the French Revolution. That is the idea that is implicit, and within it is the whole evil of modern social life, and implicit within it is the whole negation of the tradition of 2,000 years of enlightened Christian minds. We are now ceasing to be parents, ceasing to be persons or individuals. The individual is becoming completely contained in the State. The State is going to decide. We pay lip-service to the family, but what is the family? It is to be only the “cell” of the State.