I propose to ask the House to accept all the amendments to this Bill which have come from the Seanad. None of these amendments affects the principle of the Bill in any way. In fact the only amendment which might be considered in any way important is that which alters the number of members of the Censorship Committee. The first amendment is to Section 2—after the word "medical" in line 32, the words "or legal" inserted. That is an amendment which I do not think is in any way objectionable because nobody would dream of censoring a medical book.
In Committee on Finance. - Censorship of Publications Bill, 1928—From the Seanad.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in the amendment"—put and agreed to.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 3 sub-section (1)—the word "nine" deleted in line 40 and the word "five" substituted therefor.
We disagree with this amendment. The matter was very carefully debated from all parts of the House and the number nine was arrived at after very careful consideration. We cannot see that there is any reason now to go back on the decision we arrived at then. We think that the only reason that the Minister desires this amendment is that he is afraid he would not be able to get nine men who would be willing to act. Really, I think as soon as the Minister finds that this provision is inserted he will be able to find people to carry out the Act. I do not think that reason is sufficient to depart from the principle of having as wide a review of books as possible in order to prevent a fantastic or unreasonable decision being arrived at.
I submit to the House that if you have nine members you will be more likely to have a fantastic decision arrived at than if you have only five members, because naturally the suitability of your five will be greater than the suitability of your nine. The further you increase the membership of your board, the less suitable will be the last persons whom you appoint. You naturally will appoint the most suitable person first if he is willing to act, and go on until you are driven to select persons less and less suitable. I ask the House to accept this amendment. I believe that a Committee of five will prove a good, workable Committee. Later on certain provisions are made as to the majority. We will deal with those when we come to them, but as far as this section is concerned, I would ask the House to agree with the Seanad and to insert five instead of nine. I think the only argument put forward in favour of the nine was that there would be a larger religious representation than if there were five. My hope is that this will not be run on religious grounds at all. It was debated here before and the House, by a majority of one, favoured nine members as against five. That was a very slender majority, and I ask the House now to agree with what the Seanad has done.
Question put—"That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in the amendment."
The Dáil divided; Tá, 63; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
Amendment 3 is consequential, is it not?
Yes. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the amendment, which is as follows:—
Section 3, sub-section (2). The word "nine" deleted in line 44 and the word "five" substituted therefor.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 4:—
Section 5, sub-section (3). The words "one or two (but not more than two) vacancies" deleted in lines 36-7 and the words "a vacancy" substituted therefor.
This really rather follows from the alteration in the size of the Board. It was thought that when the Board was nine it should be able to operate, even though there were two vacancies. Now that the Board is to be five it is considered that it ought not to operate if there is more than one vacancy. I think that really it is the same as the old principle.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 5:—
Section 6, sub-section (3). The word "may" deleted in line 52 and the word "shall" substituted therefor.
This amendment substitutes "shall take into consideration" for "may take into consideration." I must frankly admit that I cannot really see any substantial difference between the word "may" and the word "shall" in this context. Therefore, I do not see any reason for differing from the Seanad. I cannot see whether you put in "may" or "shall" that the Board will act in the slightest way differently.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 6:—
Section 6, sub-section (3). After the word "importance," in line 55, the words "and the general tenor" inserted.
This was an amendment proposed by the Labour Party in the Seanad to put in the words "and the general tenor," so that it will run: "The Board shall have regard to all or any of the following matters, that is to say, the literary, artistic, scientific or historic merit or importance and the general tenor of the book." I think that the words "general tenor" do not add very much to the meaning of the words already there. The meaning that I think you would put upon it would be, that even though the book had not the very highest literary qualifications, or was not written with the greatest literary ability, yet, if its general tenor was immoral, it would be ruled out because its general tenor was immoral. I do not think the words substantially alter what is already there.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 7:—
Section 6, sub-section (6). Line 23 deleted and the words "not dissented from by more than one and assented to by at least three members of the Board" substituted therefor.
This amendment, I think, deals in an ingenious and rather happy way with a question which has agitated persons who have criticised this Bill, whether favourably or unfavourably, there being one school of thought which wished that there should be an overwhelming majority before a book should be censored. and another school of thought which considered that a majority should be sufficient. It seems to me that there has been a happy compromise arrived at. I think the result of the Seanad amendment is this: That if only three members of the Board of five express their opinion, they must be unanimous before a book is condemned. If four express their opinion, three out of the four will be sufficient to condemn the book. If five express their opinion, it will require four out of the five to condemn the book: In other words, what this does is, it looks rather at the ones who have not condemned, rather than towards the ones who have condemned—it looks to see if there is a substantial majority, so to speak, against condemnation. I think it ought to work out very well in practice, because, of course, in fact if you had a majority of, say, four out of five appearing all through your Bill. the five might not always meet. This amendment contemplates the possibility of the whole Board not meeting and the whole Board not coming to a conclusion. There are other amendments which I shall deal with in a moment which are consequential upon this.
I suggest that the words "signed by," in line 23, should be left in. The report of this should be signed by the members.
I do not think that is necessary. If the report comes up and it is assented to by at least three members, it will be quite sufficient. There might possibly be a case in which a member, for instance, might be in bed and might still be able to carry out the work of his post. He might read the book and write a letter saying that in his opinion the book ought to be condemned. That would be a complete expression of his opinion.
If we take amendment 8 with amendment 7, if might make the point clear.
Amendment 8 reads:—
Section 6, sub-section (7). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section, as follows:—
(7) Where a report is proposed to be made by the Board under this section and either one member or two members of the Board has or have not signified any opinion (whether assenting or dissenting) in regard to such proposed report and the circumstances are such that the signification by such member or members of his opinion or their respective opinions (as the case may be) in regard to such proposed report might affect the operation of such proposed report in respect of the power of the Minister to make under this section a prohibition order in consequence thereof, a copy of such proposed report shall be sent by registered post to such member or to each of such two members (as the case may be) and a report shall not be finally made by the Board until after the expiration of seven days from such posting.
Amendment 8 is to the effect that where only three members have signified an opinion, if they are unanimous the book would be condemned. But under this sub-section they would have to communicate with the other members of the Board and wait for their reply for a week; that is, if the expression of the views of the other members of the Board could possibly affect the result. For instance, suppose four members meet, and they are unanimous, the view of the fifth, whether he assents or dissents, cannot affect the result, and, in that case, his view would not be asked. But in the other case, where there are three and, possibly, through inadvertence or other cause, it may be that one member of the Board who has not expressed his view might express a view contrary to the view expressed, it is simply drawing his attention to it and waiting for a week until, if he wishes, he can express an opinion.
I only raised that point because of what may be the evidence in court afterwards, but I suppose the Minister can deal with that by rules?
Yes. I think what will be actually the evidence in court will be if the Minister makes an order. On the report of the Board he makes an order and the document upon which proceedings will be taken will be the order made.
Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 7 and 8"—put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 9.
Section 7, sub-section (1). The word "sensational" deleted in lines 48-49.
This deals with the question as to whether a paper gives too much of its space to crime. As it left the Dáil the Bill contained the words "giving too much of its space to sensational matter relating to crime." In the Seanad they struck out the word "sensational," and I do not think it makes any substantial difference. I do not think that the Board of Censors would be very much influenced whether the word "sensational" was there or not.
Question put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
10.—Section 7, sub-section (3). The words "assented to and signed by at least seven members of the Board" deleted in lines 58-9 and the words "not dissented from by more than one and assented to by at least three members of the Board" substituted therefor.
11.—Section 7, sub-section (3). The word "sensational" deleted in line 2.
12. Section 7, sub-section (4). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section, as follows:—
"(4) Where a report is proposed to be made by the Board under this section and either one member or two members of the Board has or have not signified any opinion (whether assenting or dissenting) in regard to such proposed report and the circumstances are such that the signification by such member or members of his opinion or their respective opinions (as the case may be) in regard to such proposed report might affect the operation of such proposed report in respect of the power of the Minister to make under this section a prohibition order in consequence thereof, a copy of such proposed report shall be sent by registered post to such member or to each of such two members (as the case may be) and a report shall not be finally made by the Board until after the expiration of seven days from such posting."
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 13:—
Section 11, sub-section (5). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section, as follows:—
"(5) It shall be the duty of every Customs official examining the baggage of incoming travellers to exhibit on demand a list of all books which are at the time being the subject of a prohibition order."
I do not think there can be any reasonable objection to this amendment. A Customs officer carrying out his work at the place of landing, in order that he may know what books are on the list and what are not, must have a copy of the list with him. It would be impossible for him to carry the names of the books in his head. If he has that list with him I do not see any harm, if a passenger asks him, in letting him see the list. He says that a certain book is on the list and the person interested says: "Let me verify, it myself," and I do not see any objection to letting the person verify, for himself, whether the book is on the list or not.
What would happen in this case? I understand that there would be only a few minutes to read down a long list. Unless one was aware of what was on the list he certainly could not ascertain whether a certain book was on the list or not.
He would point to the particular name. It would be an alphabetical list, I presume.
He will not say to the passenger, "Here is the list; have you any books that are on this list?" That is not what is meant?
No; he will not exhibit the list unless it is demanded.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 14:—
Section 16, sub-section (3). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section, as follows:—
(3) A book or periodical publication containing an advertisement relating to a book or periodical publication which advocates or might reasonably be supposed to advocate within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section one or more of the matters mentioned in that sub-section shall not, by reason only of its containing such advertisement, be deemed itself to advocate any of such matters, provided such advertisement is inserted for reward and is not and could not reasonably be supposed to be itself an advocacy of any such matter.
This is an amendment to Section 16, and that section makes it a punishable offence to print or sell, etc., any book, periodical or publication advocating, or which might reasonably be supposed to advocate, the unnatural prevention of conception. These books which deal with the unnatural prevention of conception, as the House is well aware, are dealt with in two parts of the Bill. Under Section 6, an Order can be made by the Board of Censors prohibiting their sale. Once they are dealt with under Section 6 there is hardly need for them to come under Section 16 at all. What Section 16 does is that it enables a prosecution to be brought in respect of this particular class of book, whether it appears on the Register of prohibited publications or whether it does not. Now this amendment is to the effect that if there is a mere advertisement in a book or in a periodical which deals with these matters, provided that the advertisement is not in itself an advocacy of these matters, a prosecution will not lie under this section. Of course, a book with an advertisement of that nature or a newspaper with an advertisement of that nature in it can be put upon the Register of prohibited publications if the Censors think it right. The Censors are not affected in the least bit by this amendment. This amendment is that if there is a mere advertisement, such as a list of books or an advertisement in another book or periodical, a prosecution would not lie under this section. That appears to me to be really very good sense, because the mere name of a book appearing in a publisher's circular in a newspaper or at the end. as we often see, of a book would not in itself do any harm. On the other hand, if it went beyond the question of being a mere announcement, if it were an advertisement that was also an advocacy of this practice, then it would be highly censurable. Suppose a book dealt with birth control and the advertisement mentioned the name of the book that would be perfectly harmless. But if it went on further and said this is one of the greatest books that has ever been written on this most important subject and ought to be read by everybody—something of that kind—that becomes an advocacy of birth control, and would not be safeguarded from prosecution by the wording of this amendment. Also you will notice it will have to be advertisement for reward. If people are gratuitously circulating advertisements of this kind they are doing it because they think they are advocating these practices. I think this cannot do any harm and, on the other hand, if there were a provision such as Deputy Little proposes it might keep out some of what are really desirable papers from this country, for instance, some of the big leading magazines, a big weekly. One of the best-known weeklies might have in its advertisement columns simply a catalogue of books, some of which dealt with birth control. Those advertisements would not do any harm, and it would do a certain amount of intellectual harm to the country if some high-class weekly or monthly magazine was kept out of the country. It must also be borne in mind that the names of those books may be seen, still if you do not get a puff of them you will not know their contents very well, and even if you did I hope we will be able to prevent the sale of them if someone is looking to buy them under the provisions of this Bill. On the whole, I would ask the Dáil to accept that amendment.
I will read the section with the amendment which I propose in:
"A book or periodical publication containing an advertisement relating to a book or periodical publication which advocates or might reasonably be supposed to advocate within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section one or more of the matters mentioned in that sub-section, shall not by reason only of its containing such advertisement, be deemed itself to advocate any of such matters unless a majority of the Board of Censors shall have certified that such advertisement is likely in their judgment to lead to a breach of this section provided such advertisements"—and so on.
While we recognise that there is something to be said for an amendment such as is here coming from the Seanad, at the same time there is a loophole for a type of book coming in which could do considerable damage, for instance, books by certain extremely well-known writers. The very fact that the names of the book and the author are given has exactly the same effect as the words which the Minister took as an example of offending, namely, an important book by an extremely important author. The mere advertisement of such books with such a name and the name of the author would do considerable damage. Put yourselves in the position of, say, the State Solicitor in the country who has been shown a list in some very well-known papers. He looks at it and has to consider whether he will incur the legal expenses of bringing this before the District Justice when perhaps the thing will be turned down. He has actually himself to exercise his judgment in the matter. In order to relieve him of the necessity of exercising his judgment I suggest the proper thing is that he should be able to write a letter to the Board of Censors and ask: "Do you consider this to come under the section or not?" And he gets a simple reply, yes or no. If it comes under the section then he is before the wind, he can go into court and his case is made. If not he does not bring the action at all, and time and money are saved by his not having to take such proceedings. As to the injury done to any reputable journal, the stronger your Act is and the clearer it is the fairer you are going to be to the reputable journals, because they will take very good care that any such advertisement which would offend in any way would not appear, at any rate, in their Irish editions. I do not think they would have any grievance. It assists the completion of that amendment if you accept our amendment.
I cannot agree with the Deputy that his amendment would have the effect he thinks it would. I think his amendment would really allow more advertisements to come in than the amendment which has come down from the Seanad. His amendment, so to speak, is a laxer amendment, not so strict as the Seanad amendment. It should be borne in mind, as far as Censors are concerned, that if they are called to express their views then they express their views in one particular way. They send them on and there is an order made. Those books are dealt with and can be prosecuted altogether apart from Section 16. They are not dealt with under Section 16. I do not see the difficulties which will come if it is reported to a Guard and he purchases a newspaper or book which contains one of these advertisements because, of course, it is the Guards who will have to administer this particular section, not the rest of the Act. If they see something which is objectionable they will simply bring the person into court, but I do not see the advantage of their going up first to the Board of Censors to get an expression of opinion, because if the case is a difficult case, if there is any necessity for the Guards not prosecuting, they will simply send the book up to the Board of Censors and have an expression of opinion upon it. I think the effect of Deputy Little's amendment would be this. A newspaper, for instance, is seen with an advertisement which is an advocacy of these things. It might have a big circulation. It is advisable that they should be prosecuted there and then. There should not be the delay of going before the Board of Censors, and Section 16, I apprehend, will only be put in force in cases where it is advisable that there should be no delay in making the prosecution.
The Minister spoke of a list of names of books. There is nothing in this section which confines its operations to a mere list, and I, for one, reading the section would not feel like the Minister for Justice that if, for instance, an advertisement ran like this, "So-and-so's latest book, be sure and get it," or something of the sort, that it might be an inducement to get this book which was advocating these practices and would not itself be held to be an advocacy of them. The example the Minister gave is the one that had occurred to me previously when we were discussing this amongst ourselves. There may be an indirect advocacy which this section would not cover, that is by suggesting to the public to get this particular type of book. It is to try and meet that difficulty that this amendment was put down.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he considers that a Civic Guard is a proper and a better person than the Board of Censors to interpret and carry into effect this amendment.
The Deputy does not seem to have read the section. The Civic Guard does not interpret anything. He simply institutes proceedings before a District Justice. The District Justice will finally decide whether it is in advocacy or not in advocacy. It has to be decided in court. The question as to whether a book is in advocacy or not is a matter for the District Justice. I think that answers Deputy de Valera's point, because if the advertisement is in advocacy, either directly or indirectly, a prosecution could take place, I think, more readily than it could under Deputy Little's amendment. Suppose you get some well-known writer. There is one well-known writer. Suppose you take Dr. Stopes. Everybody knows the name. "Latest book by Dr. Stopes Everybody should get this work." Surely that is advocacy, and that advertisement in court would be held to be advocacy.
Does the Minister think that the Board of Censors would decide that that was advocacy?
That is not a question of the Board of Censors.
Any court?
Any court would think that would be advocacy of the practices.
Is not the court more tied by the limits of the Act? The court has to do with the enforcement of the law and to decide whether a crime has been committed. The Board of Censors would examine it from their experience as to what exactly was the tendency of the particular thing and as to whether in their experience there was a line indicated which should be stopped. Therefore, the wording of my amendment gives a wider scope of judgment than is given in the other amendment.
The Board of Censors come in under Section 8 and not under Section 16.
I put it to the Minister that this section, as it stands, deals with the advocacy in the advertisement. It is quite clear. We all understand that if the advertisement directly advocates any of these practices it falls under the section and can be dealt with. Suppose it does not. I have used the words indirect advocacy. I do not know whether they would be accepted by a court. I am simply indicating that an advertisement could be so drawn up that it would not in itself be an advocacy, but that it would be a suggestion to get the book, as all advertisements are. I think the court would say it is simply an advertisement for a book; it advertises a book, but there is no suggestion that the matter of the book is of a particular type. It is simply, like all advertisements, an inducement to the reader to buy that particular book. I think unless some provision is made, such as that suggested by Deputy Little, by which an advertisement—to use the words we have been using—which indirectly advocates that, without apparently contravening the letter of the law, is, in effect, an advocacy, and that the Censorship Board should be called upon to say whether this particular advertisement is in effect an advocacy or not.
The Censorship Board can be called in under Section 8.
Section 6.
Section 6 or Section 8. It depends on whether it is a book or a periodical.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he is quite certain about the drafting of this amendment. The first sentence of it certainly puzzled me when I read it first. The relative "which," occurring in the second line, might be construed to go with book or periodical publication or with advertisement. The whole sense of the amendment is turned upside down if it goes with advertisement. I do not know what the rule is, but to the ordinary reader the thing sounds ambiguous—"a book or periodical publication containing an advertisement relating to a book or periodical publication which advocates or might reasonably be supposed to advocate." You go on to say that that book or periodical shall not be deemed to advocate any of such matters provided such advertisement is inserted for reward and is not and could not reasonably be supposed to be itself an advocacy. You could read the amendment in such a way that it could be supposed to be an advocacy. I do not know whether that is so legally, but to a layman it appears so.
Surely the "which" goes with its nearest antecedent. I think that is the general rule of construction.
As far as Deputy Little's amendment is concerned, I suggest to Deputy Little that it really does not add anything at all to the power of the Censors in the Bill. It would be just as easy to get the Board of Censors to ban a book altogether as to give its certificate. The insertion of the words that he proposes does not really mean anything. The power of the Censors will be just the same whether his words are there or not.
I think it simplifies the machinery. I think it is absurd to put it up to a Guard to consider coming into court when he might be scouted out of court by a District Justice. I think it is a bad thing to ask a Civic Guard to deal with a matter like that at all. Obviously, he should refer the book to the Censors.
That would apply not merely to the advertisement but to the whole section.
Would Deputy Little's suggestion delay the operation of the Guards if not prevent the prosecution? The Guards take a lot of chances. A zealous Guard would take the risk of not hitting the mark once or twice. I think Deputy Little's amendment will make a Guard too careful. He would not like to write to an august body like the Censorship Board and get a note back saying "you are a fool." He would sooner face his District Justice.
I think he would rather get a note back saying that he was a fool than to be told it in court.
I would like to say that, to my mind, this amendment provides a definite loophole which otherwise these publications may not have for the publication of advertisements of the character which has been described. There are certain books published, novels and so on, which have these advertisements. In my opinion, if this amendment is carried such books will be allowed a circulation, or at least have more freedom to circulate than they had before this amendment was introduced. Apart from the question of administration, I think that those papers which are publishing these advertisements will ban them if they feel that their Irish circulation is going to be threatened. Any weakening on that point will mean giving them the thin end of the wedge, and once a loophole is provided for them in any way to get in these advertisements, further breaches will be made in the which the Minister is putting up.
If I thought that the interpretation which the Minister has put upon it was a reasonable interpretation I would not oppose it. If I thought, for instance, that an advertisement such as he has outlined would be dealt with as he has suggested I would be satisfied, but I do not think it would. I think it would be held that an advertisement of that kind was not in itself an advocacy of the matter at all, and it ought to be a simple matter after all to get words that would cover the point the Minister has spoken of. It is not covered here, I hold.
As the section stands it means that a book that advocates certain unnatural prevention of conception shall be punisable under this section. I would like the Deputies to get out of their heads that that section has anything to do with the Censors. For instance, the Censors might condemn a book which might not be condemned by a magistrate, and the other way around, in theory; I do not suppose it would work out in practice, but it might in theory. Here is what will happen under this section: it will be decided as to whether an advertisement of a book does advocate and help on a particular practice. If it is a mere advertisement of a book no court would hold that the mere stating in an advertisement that there was such a book would be advocating that practice. Where you could not, in a particular case, draw the line, it would be very hard to say. I think it would be rather a pity if certain papers were kept out of this country because they simply had a list of books without in any way stating what the contents of these books were. I think it would be a great pity that in such cases papers of that kind should be kept out of the country. I think everybody would agree with me in that. But the Board of Censors are left untrammelled.
The Minister has said, in reply to Deputy de Valera, that in his opinion this particular example which he has given will not tend to advocate such a practice. He says that it will not be deemed to advocate such a practice.
It would.
If that is so what is the necessity for this amendment at all? I want to ask the Minister to explain to us what is the exact meaning of the words "be deemed to advocate"?
The meaning of the amendment is that unless the advertisement in itself can be construed as an advocacy, the fact that the book has been advertised is not to be construed as an advocacy of this practice.
Surely the example of the advertisement that the Minister has given us is not an advocacy of the practice. The fact that the reader is advised to buy such and such a book is not an advocacy of the practice. From the example that the Minister has given that would not be an advocacy, and therefore would be allowed in. That was very much the type of one that the amendment wanted to stop.
I would suggest, if the Minister cannot see eye to eye with us, it is really better to drop this amendment altogether, because it leaves a loophole.
I doubt if sufficient stress has been paid to the words "might reasonably be supposed to advocate within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section."
If there is an advertisement in a book or paper which suggests to the reader to get a certain book recently published; that it is an important book, and so on, would that be held to be "reasonably supposed to advocate" the practice advocated in the book?
There is nothing said there "which can reasonably be supposed to advocate..." the matters mentioned in that sub-section.
Suppose you have a book which advocates this practice, that book will come under the operation of other sections of the Bill, and an advertisement which incites people to buy that book will have very little effect, even supposing it does pass through the network of this particular section. What harm will it do? Supposing it is an incitement to buy a book which cannot be bought?
That is some sort of an argument, I admit.
The words "what is likely in their judgment to lead to a breach of the section" would make it very much clearer.
Surely the only words there are words "which could not reasonably be supposed to advocate" the practice. It would be unreasonable to leave the publisher of such a book liable to prosecution.
If I were put in the position of a person giving a legal opinion on the name of a book or the author, I would have to say, strictly interpreting the Act, that I could not reasonably suppose that was an advocacy, but I could say it was likely to lead to a breach of this section.
A breach of the section is merely the same thing. Surely the book you want to get at is the book which encourages the practice. Not merely is it the sale of the book you want to prohibit but you want to prohibit the advocacy of the practice.
You want to prohibit the sale of the book and the advertising of it.
took the Chair.
Amendment to amendment No. 14:—
To insert after the word "matters" where that word secondly occurs and before the proviso the following words: "unless a majority of the Board of Censors shall have certified that such advertisement is likely in their judgment to lead to a breach of this section."—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14."
Our objection still remains. Any ordinary reading of this opens the way for advertisements so long as advertisements are written in the direction indicated.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 15":
Section 16, sub-section (4). After the word "publish" in line 49 the word "import" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 16":
Section 16. A new sub-section added at the end of the section, as follows:—
"(5) The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may by order under this section make regulations for the purpose of preventing the sending or delivery by post (otherwise than under and in accordance with a permit in writing granted under this Act) of any book or periodical publication the distribution of which is prohibited by this section."
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 17":
Section 20. The following words added at the end of the section:—
"Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such regulation is laid before it annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation."
Under this amendment the rules and regulations have to be laid on the Tables of both Houses.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Agreement with Seanad amendments reported.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the report of the Committee"—put and agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.