As arranged earlier today, we will take a motion by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on the refusal to allow Mr. Ralph Schoenman to enter the Republic of Ireland.
Adjournment Debate. - Visit of Ralph Schoenman.
I am not quite sure whether the Minister is on his way.
I hope he is. He is here now.
He is in the precincts.
I am grateful to you, Sir, and to the House for allowing me to raise this matter of the refusal to allow Mr. Ralph Schoenman to come into Ireland on a visit. We have no question time in the Seanad, which I think is a pity, and, consequently, this kind of question can rarely, within the terms of our Standing Orders, be raised satisfactorily except in this way on the Adjournment. My main reason for raising this is that there has been no official statement at all, no reasons for the refusal of permission to Mr. Ralph Schoenman to visit Ireland. I want the Minister, therefore, to tell us the facts however terrifying those facts may be. I know from a report which appeared on the 22nd May in the Irish Press that when Mr. Schoenman got off an Aer Lingus plane and went into Brussels—I am now quoting the Irish Press—“Aer Lingus officials immediately after Mr. Schoenman's disappearance notified the authorities in Brussels but the authorities at that time did not seem unduly worried.” Not unduly worried; I should like to know why the Irish authorities here were so acutely worried by his landing here.
I quote from the same date, the 22nd May, the Irish Times which says: “The Department of Justice yesterday refused to reply to a question from an Irish Times reporter seeking the reason for the refusal to allow Mr. Shoenman into Ireland.”
Now who is Mr. Ralph Shoenman? We no doubt will come to that in a moment.
Do you not know all about him yourself? Do you not know all about your pal?
I am going to listen with great attention to the Minister's point of view, which he will have an opportunity of putting but not by way of interruption. I feel sure that he will make his case more effectively by waiting until it is his turn to speak. Perhaps the Minister could with more dignity and effect make his point in his own speech rather than by crossly and grossly interrupting me.
I only want to know what you are at.
If the Minister wants to know what I have to say he has two instruments for finding out. Those are his ears, if he will use them, rather than his tongue.
Ralph Schoenman arrived in this country on 17th May, 1968, at 7.25 p.m., according to the Irish Times of 20th May, coming from Rome via Zurich. He is a director of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. I know that he was private secretary to Bertrand Russell for a time. I know that there was some difference of opinion there— I am not familiar with the details—but he was private secretary to Bertrand trand Russell, one of the greatest Englishmen of our time, for a period of years. After he arrived at Collinstown he was held at the airport for 2½ hours and then transferred to Mountjoy and kept there, apart from a short appearance in court, until his departure. Question to the Minister: On whose authority was he transferred to Mountjoy?
A special court was held on the night of Saturday the 18th and Mr. Justice Teevan granted a habeas corpus order asking for the production of Mr. Schoenman the following morning in the High Court. Mr. Seamus Heavey, S.C., appeared for Mr. Schoenman before Mr. Justice Teevan and said— and I quote from the Irish Times of 20th May: “My real objective is to prevent this man being put on a plane tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock without the opportunity of the court considering his position.” An affidavit was then read by Mr. Heavey and it stated that Mr. Schoenman's passport was valid and in order. I quote again from the Irish Press of the 22nd May which quotes the head of the Brussels immigration authorities as having interrogated his officers as to under what circumstances Mr. Schoenman passed their table in Brussels, and he was told —and I quote—“That he had an American passport and that it was in good order.” That is from the Irish Press of 22nd May. Mr. Heavey in the affidavit said that Mr. Schoenman had current credit cards and 200 dollars in his possession.
On a point of order I object to——
The Minister is not entitled in this House to raise a point of order.
I am entitled.
The Minister is not.
This case was tried by our courts. I am objecting to the Senator trying to re-try this here. In fact, this man had agreed to leave the country after his case was before our courts. It is absurd to go on reading affidavits that were quoted in our courts.
Senator Sheehy Skeffington to continue.
I am afraid that the Minister is unfamiliar with the procedure of this House. He is sitting outside the bar of this House and has no right to raise a point of order. The Minister would like to interrupt my speech because it is awkward, but it might be better for him, if he feels that way, to leave this House and allow me to continue without these petty interruputions.
I will listen to any lunatic.
As I was saying, I am quoting from the affidavit read in the court. He had this money and—I quote—"His passport and air tickets had been taken from him." I ask the Minister again in his reply, if he comes to it, to say why were his passport and air tickets taken from him. He was detained in the airport until 10 p.m. and then escorted to Mountjoy. Why? I quote from the Irish Times of May 21st. “Mr. Siev, his legal representative, said that the authorities had refused him permission to inspect the warrant under which Mr. Schoenman was brought to Mountjoy.” Again, I ask the Minister why was Mr. Siev refused the right to see this warrant? Mr. Schoenman then, on Monday the 20th, left voluntarily for Amsterdam and was, in fact, sent back again and arrived here again on that Monday. During the habeas corpus proceedings in the High Court the judge—for some reason the Minister does not want me to refer to what took place on the 20th —who was the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe, said, if the Minister will be patient enough to allow me to quote him here, and I am quoting now from the Irish Times of the 21st: “Under the code of international practice one could not throw a man from Billy to Jack around the world. Either one sent him to the country of which he was a citizen or to the country from which he came. He did not think that this country was under any obligation to see that he went back to Italy; the only thing was that the Italians were under an obligation to take him back, but if any other country was prepared to take him, he thought that our international obligation was fulfilled.” Whereupon Mr. Niall McCarthy, S. C., for the Governor of Mountjoy and the immigration officer, observed—and I quote from the Irish Times—“That there was an added obligation because there was no limitation on passage between this country and Britain and Northern Ireland; a person released here could go to Britain without limitation.” The Senior Counsel then, appearing for the immigration officer and for the Governor of Mountjoy, said there was “an added obligation” on us to reject people who might travel freely from here to Britain. Is this true? On what compulsion does this obligation rest? Does our obligation on this arise from our proximity to Great Britain? Again, I quote from the Irish Times report of the 21st:
Mr. Schoenman told reporters that he came to Dublin to visit friends, including myself and Dr. Noel Browne.
I had correspondence with Mr. Schoenman. I have never met him. I knew he was anti-nuclear armament. I know he is a socialist. I do not believe he is a communist, though I regard that, in those circumstances, as totally irrelevant. Whether he is a Maoist, a Khrushchevist or a Kosyginist is completely irrelevant. I do not think he is a communist, but I do not regard that as particularly relevant to the question of his deportation. He is a man of courage and initiative, that I do know. The occasion I corresponded with him was in connection with the Stockholm Vietnam Tribunal presided over by that great Frenchman, Jean-Paul Sartre. I have been told that he is not a good committee man, that he is not always easy to get on with; but he is not alone in that!
He lived in Britain from 1958, when he was 22. In 1961 he was put in jail in Britain and faced deportation for pro-nuclear-disarmament activity. Then he was quoted as saying: "I believe the work of Bertrand Russell to be vital to human survival." In 1964 following the Warren Commission's report on the assassination of President Kennedy he announced in a statement from Bertrand Russell that "the report conspicuously fails to dispose of the doubts as to the latest official view of the assassination." In 1966 the State Department in Washington announced that it had revoked Mr. Schoenman's passport, as he had twice visited North Vietnam without permission. He had not gone in on a broadcasting team. He went in to see what was happening, and the State Department took a very grim view of this major "crime" of his. He actually went twice into North Vietnam to see what was happening. This was a major crime.
He was later present as an observer in Bolivia at the trial and frame-up of a fine young Frenchman, Régis Debray. In October, 1967, he got up and tried to read a statement to this Bolivian military tribunal, which was unwise at this mock trial. He was again arrested. He has shown himself, as the circumstances suggest, as being a very fine man, a man of conscience and of courage.
A good organiser of anarchy.
Mr. McCarthy said, and I quote from the Irish Times of the 21st of May, 1967:
Under the terms of the Aliens Order, 1946, ...an alien coming from a place outside the State or Britain or Northern Ireland, to whom leave to land has been refused —which was Mr. Schoenman's position—was to be removed from the State by the master of the ship on which he arrived.
This then was Mr. Schoenman's position, that he had been refused leave to land here. I should like to know on what grounds was that decision made, and I should like to know at what level? Was it the Minister himself who made that decision? Schoenman himself is quoted in the Irish Times of the 21st May as saying:
He knew he was banned in England and had no intention of going on there from here. He held a valid American passport, and saw no reason why he should not have been allowed into Ireland. The Irish Government, he said, ought to guard its sovereignty rather more jealously, and not just try to keep in line with everything which was done in Britain.
I should like to put the question to the Minister. What are we afraid of? Why are we so cowardly? Why in relation to this matter are we behaving in this way? The same attitude was taken against Ernst Toller when he wanted to come here in 1934; and similar treatment was very nearly accorded to Jan Masaryk during the war. They too were treated with similar fear and hostility.
I would like to ask the Minister nine questions which summarise all I have been saying. They are:
(1) Why was Ralph Schoenman refused permission to visit Ireland?
(2) If there were good reasons, why have those reasons not been publicly stated; why has the Government been reluctant to tell the public why the Government was thus acting on our behalf?
(3) Was this at the behest of the USA Government, the British Government or without any such request? Or was it by some unwritten law of obsequious toadying to either Government?
(4) Why was Mr. Schoenman sent to Mountjoy and kept there?
(5) On whose warrant was he sent there?
(6) Was there such a warrant? Was there any warrant at all?
(7) If there was, why was his legal representative, Mr. Siev, not allowed to see it?
(8) On what legal grounds is based what Mr. Niall McCarthy, appearing for the immigration office, calls our "added obligation" to the British Government?
(9) Are we prepared to ban and deport every alien who is persona non grata in the United Kingdom or the USA.
If there are legitimate grounds for thinking that an alien constitutes a real danger to the public weal should the reasons not be made public? Should we not be allowed to consider them? Should it not be publicly decided, a case stated and the person given an opportunity to answer?
No such case has been established or made against Mr. Schoenman. Indeed, if we were to deport all those who constitute a genuine and great danger to the community, I am afraid the Minister would at once lose a number of his more vocal Cabinet colleagues. They are not passing visitors but permanent residents which, of course, makes the matter worse. One might possibly include the Minister himself. Let us not, therefore, be so afraid of every stranger, and let us not allow our deportation orders to be framed in Washington or London. If our Government does persistently humiliate us by slavishly obeying the crack of an alien Government whip, let us at least be boldly and publicly told the reason why.
Before the Minister answers, may I ask Senator Sheehy Skeffington if he has seen this picture which was in the Evening Press where this man Schoenman who is supposed to be a pacifist turned up at the demonstration in Paris with the black flag of anarchy? May I also ask him if he was planning to use Mr. Schoenman to support the Chinese Communists in Trinity?
I have been asked two questions.
The Chair must have regard to the time.
It is only a quarter to ten.
I am entitled to 20 minutes and during that time I have been asked two questions. My answer with regard to this being an anarchist demonstration in Paris is that that is utterly false. With regard to the student movement in Paris, they were completely orderly up to the time the police intervened. They prevented them from marching forward. If you stop 30,000 students from marching forward they spread across the city.
I said the black flag of anarchy.
As to the second question, about Mr. Schoenman and the Chinese in Trinity, my friend the Senator is talking through his hat.
I should like to ask a question, too. As one on this side who has no particular brief for Mr. Schoenman but as one who has always been properly concerned about the liberty of individuals, I would like to ask the Minister to answer the questions posed by the Senator. I should hope the Minister would answer those questions now without showing any feeling about Mr. Schoenman, that he would answer them in a fair way and would show that he was concerned with human rights.
To go back to the beginning my powers in this matter are contained in the Aliens Order, 1946, under which no alien can land in this country without my permission or that of an immigration officer. I exercised my judgment in stopping this potential tourist landing on our shores for my own good reasons. I do not have to give the reasons why that was done. Let me say that I was not alone in my view that this gentleman would not add anything to the future of our country and I could give you a litany here of very many others who took a similar view to mine about this same gentleman. He was pitched out of Holland; he was pitched out of France; he was pitched out of Bolivia; he was pitched out of Denmark; he was pitched out of Sweden; he was pitched out of West Germany; he was pitched out of Finland; he was pitched out of Austria; and he was pitched out of other countries. In fact, his own Government, I am sure, would love to have some place to stick this particular agitator, but under American law a citizen has a right to a passport and he is still an American citizen. That is why he was roaming around the world, around all those countries to which he came if he still arrived back on our shores, not being allowed to land anywhere else, under national law his country of origin, America, would have to take him.
I object to the particular air of hypocrisy to this particular question in this House. The gentleman who raised it knows this gentleman far better than I do. I should like to pose this question: the Senator has put a number of questions to me. I should like to know from the Senator and his friend, the Vice-Chairman of the Labour Party, how it was that when this gentleman was detained for a short time at Dublin Airport by sudden inspiration the Vice-Chairman of the Labour Party and the Senator got in touch with him. How did that happen? Was it by Divine inspiration? I do not know? How was it done or was it the secretary of the Communist Party who tipped you off?
That is false.
Who got you out there and who got Dr. Browne out there?
I was not out there.
The Minister must be allowed to make his speech.
How did you know he was detained in Dublin Airport?
I heard it on Radio Éireann.
Before it came from Radio Éireann the Senator and the Leader of the Labour Party were in touch with him.
The Minister should be allowed to speak.
What the Minister says is not true.
The Chair insists that the Minister must be allowed to speak.
As far as Mr. Shoenman is concerned he had his friends.
On a point of order——
You tell him, Sir, points of order are not allowed.
The Minister has made a serious reference to me which is quite untrue. I ask him either to withdraw it or substantiate it.
Was the Senator at Dublin Airport or at Mountjoy a short time after?
No, no, no.
If the Senator denies that he saw or that he called on this gentleman shortly after his arrest——
I do deny.
If the Senator says he denies all that I accept it.
It is very irresponsible of the Minister to make this charge.
Do not you talk about irresponsibility. This international Communist agitator has been pitched out of all the countries I have read out in this House. In addition to that, he prostituted the procedures in our Irish courts by using them with his friends when asked by his friends to this country for his own particular purpose. He had his way, allegedly undertaking to the courts to go back to Rome from where he came to this country, and he disappeared from the plane at Brussels. We have the picture Senator Ó Maoláin has referred to appearing at the barricades at Paris the following day. This is the gentleman the Senator and his friends are so concerned about.
Taking a rational view of this matter and this gentleman and his history, there is no responsible Minister for Justice who would let a type like this into this country for his own fell purposes. There may be some misguided people in this country who would take the view of the Senator in this motion but the vast majority of the Irish people have no hesitation in saying that they do not want this type of international tourist agitator in this country.
It is my duty to administer the Aliens Order, which is made under an Act of an Irish Parliament passed for this specific purpose. The execution of this duty was not wished on me by any Government. If there are some of his type who want to come here as aliens and I know they are coming I will ensure that they will lay their agitators' eggs elsewhere and I make no apology to the Senator or his friends in this regard.
On a point of order——
Tá an Seanad ar ath-ló go dtí a 3 a clog Dé Céadaoin seo chughainn.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5th June, 1968.