While the call goes out, I will continue with the extract:—
"... and to the established practice in case of war as at present and national security requires that the debate should take place in secret session."
I have used the word cheap-jack. What scholarship there is in the remark I have quoted! Someone, overworked in the censorship department, being out of bed, day and night attending to the importunities of people whose messages are being censored, someone with rare talent for research had time to look up the references. It is a far cry to the days when there was another such censor. Some niggling little mind instructed the Minister that a little effort in the way of scholarship would embellish the quotation. We come to the end of the article:—
"The only exceptions to the established practice in the case of the British Parliament are when the country is at war, as it is at present, and national safety requires that debates will take place in secret session. Those are of rare occurrence. Ordinarily, the proceedings of Parliament are conducted in public session and are so to speak public property."
The paragraph ends:—
"Any Minister of the British Government who would dare to prevent or seek to prevent debates held in public session being reported in the Press would receive short shrift."
It was suggested that that sentence should be omitted. That was the only sentence to which exception was taken in the whole article, that if any Minister in England would try to prevent a report appearing in the Press of debates that took place openly in Parliament, that Minister would received short shrift. Here is what was said: "Omit that sentence and add on this little bit of refinement:—
"During the war, however, special editions of Parliamentary debates are published for circulation abroad and quite recently it was made an offence to dispatch abroad anything appearing in Parliamentary debates or in the British Press which might affect adversely the relations of Great Britain with her Allies or with neutral States."
Who conceived the bright thought of adding that? What was the object of adding that? The editorial was an actual statement of fact—a brief, historical tracing of the right to freedom of speech, as recorded. Who thought of asking the editor to put in this note, that special editions of the Parliamentary Debates in Britain are published for circulation abroad? The editorial had nothing to do with circulation abroad. It dealt merely with freedom of publication of things spoken in England-free publication of these in the free Press of England, subject only to the simple principle, laid down earlier, that information of a military type should not get to the enemy. The Minister, through his Department, decided that that article could only be allowed through if one sentence was excised. The reason for that suggested excision was not stated to the editor of the Kilkenny People. There were four suggested additions to the article —two petulant bits of scholarship, one bit of bad temper, at the start, and, intermediately, a perfectly otiose comment on a matter that had no relation to the article as an article.
The editor made up his mind that he would not accept these suggestions. He did not convey that to the Department, but, on the day the paper went to press, he received intimation that the editorial was totally suppressed. They did not wait to get his acceptance of the suggestions. Apparently, the "Smart Alick" commentator at the end of the 'phone had made some report as to what he had done. A better view obtained, and it was considered that the best way out of the mess was to suppress the article. What is wrong with that article? May an editor in this country not trace, in that brief way, through John Milton and John Wilkes, the growth of this idea of freedom of Press reporting, and may he not apply that to this country? Is there anything wrong in saying that the only time England verges from the straight road—subject to the laws of blasphemy, obscenity, and so forth—of the fullest freedom in reporting is when the country is at war? In connection with the Parliamentary Debates, there are, of course, secret sessions, but these are very rare. Surely it is fair comment to make, and one which our neighbours would be proud to have made in their regard, that any Minister or person in high authority who would seek to have any impediment put upon the free reporting of anything discussed in Parliament would get short shrift. I want to know what was wrong with that editorial. I want to know why it was suppressed, eventually, and whether it is accepted by the Minister that those who act on his instructions can suggest to editors that they must model their editorials in certain ways, and can make certain suggestions to them as to the points they must incorporate in their articles, the alternative being to have their articles suppressed.
There was an earlier stage in which the editor of this paper had fallen foul of the censorship. At one time, he printed an editorial headed: "Swift, Socrates and Frank Aiken." He commended to the said Mr. Aiken the following passages from Swift's fourth Drapier's Letter:—
"Eleven men well armed will certainly subdue one man in his shirt.... Those who have used to cramp liberty have gone so far as to resent even the liberty of complaining, although a man upon the rack was never known to be refused the liberty of roaring as loud as he thought fit."
A delightful letter came from the Department afterwards and there was a postscript to that letter as follows:—
"The Minister directs me to add, with reference to the leader in last Saturday's issue of your paper, that if you feel the necessity of obeying the laws with respect to censorship which the representatives of the Irish people deem necessary for national security is a torture beyond your endurance, you may roar as loudly as you please, but it remains unlawful to broadcast your roars in your paper."
For the mind that conceived that postscript and for the slavish hand that penned it, there is, of course, occupation. There are countries where there are concentration camps, where men of bullying, sadistic nature are chosen as guardians, where they can squash everything by brutality and where there is no necessity to argue or listen to complaints. If that is the mood the Minister is in with regard to censorship, he is losing his time here. He is not using such talents as the Lord has given him in the best possible way for himself or for another country.
Other principles were asserted by the Minister in respect of censorship during the year. I have referred already to the editorial printed, eventually, in the Independent on the 17th February, 1942, which referred to the cost of bureaucracy. That editorial, after counting up the number of civil servants employed at one time and comparing it with the more swollen number employed at a later stage, said, or rather wanted to say:—
"For every 107 in the population men, women and children, a civil servant is maintained."
Then, this sentence followed in the original editorial:—
"The inclusion of teachers, Civic Guards and Army would result in a ratio that would provide a State keeper for almost every family."
That sentence was obliterated. The excuse given was that it would prevent recruiting for the Army. It would not prevent recruiting for the Civic Guards or teachers but it would have prevented recruiting for the Army.
I had occasion to raise here another matter about which there was correspondence between the Minister's Department and those in charge of the Independent. It had reference to the censorship of a review of a book written by Professor Binchy: Church and State in Fascist Italy. When I raised the matter here, the Minister made the facile comment that, eventually, leave was given to publish the review. The statement the Minister made was that, in fact, the review had been, eventually, released but the Independent did not publish it. What does that sentence mean to anybody who understands English? It means simply that, in the end, they passed the review for publication but, for some reason, the Independent would not publish it. What are the facts? The facts are that it was suggested that the review might be published if certain things were excised. The writer of the review replied stating that these things could not be excised and this is what the Censor wrote:—
"I note that you find the suggested changes unsatisfactory.... In making certain alterations in the proof copy of the review, all I had in mind was to indicate one way in which our objections might be met, leaving it to the reviewer to submit an alternative or to rewrite the review should he think fit to do so. It appears, however, from what you say, that no such accommodation is possible, since the reviewer feels that he cannot make his point unless he is allowed to refer to the author's ‘dislike of Fascism', to his search for a weapon to use against Fascism...."
The Censor's letter finished:—
"This, unfortunately, is just precisely what I feel it would not be in the national interest to allow him to do and, accordingly, it looks as if we had reached a deadlock."
There is correspondence behind the scenes which results in the Censor saying to the Independent:“You can publish the review if you omit certain things.” They say they will not omit certain things. The Censor says, “I thought you would not,” and the Minister's gloss on that was that the review was, eventually, released but the Independent would not publish it. That is a falsehood—how near it goes to being a lie the Minister is the judge. When the editor of the Independent wanted to answer the Minister's statement with regard to that false comment on the whole circumstances, the editorial was suppressed. The Ceann Comhairle has made reference in this House to the principle we have that people are not attacked unless they have an opportunity to reply. That code does not operate with the Censor. The Censor did not want to reply. All he wanted to do was to expose a falsehood. The Minister could ride away with his statement, false as it was, because the reply was not permitted publication.
I have referred already to the editorial which the Independent wanted to publish on the nation's food supply in December of last year. They had a paragraph at the end of the editorial—it was a three-paragraph editorial with the heading, “The Nation's Food Supply”:
"Although the farmers are compelled to till one-fourth of their arable land, it is not made compulsory on them to cultivate 650,000 acres of wheat. Inducement may, however, be more effective than compulsion, and this leads to the question of price. The guaranteed price of 1942 wheat, first fixed at 41/- per barrel was later raised to 45/- by the Government. The farmers maintain that 45/- is not an economic price, and Deputies representing all Parties in the Dáil have urged the Government to increase the figure; and they promise that, if this is done, the requisite quantity of wheat will be produced. The production of food being a matter of vital importance, a scheme of national insurance, the farmers, who acted so splendidly this year, are entitled to whatever may, on a full examination of all the relevant factors, be considered a reasonably remunerative and economic price for wheat, especially in view of the fact that imports, even if procurable, could not be obtained except at an immoderately high cost."
Is there a word astray in that? Is that not sober comment? What is the Dáil here for, if it is not to allow members of all Parties to urge the Government to increase the price offered as an inducement to farmers to grow the necessary foodstuffs for the community? The Independent writes that article and speaks of the fact that Deputies of all Parties have so urged, and they go on to say that the farmers are entitled to whatever may, on a full examination of all the relevant factors, be considered a reasonably remunerative and economic price for wheat. They are told they may not publish that. Why? Is one not allowed to argue with this Government? Even when Deputies of all Parties have united in this House in arguing with the Government, it is not possible for that editorial to be produced. That is a startling fact.
Deputies in all Parties join in urging the Government to raise the figure they are paying and make an appeal to the Government. Is it not possible to ask, in the end of that cautiously-worded article, that farmers should get whatever may, on a full examination of the relative factors, be considered a reasonably remunerative and economic price? Are the Government afraid of such an examination? Were the Government serious in their attempts to get increased food production in the country? Why could they not have taken the opportunity of that article and entered on a reasonable calculation or have shown that the figure on which the price was based was a reasonable calculation? Again it is just a question of the concentration camp: beat that article out of the Independent, do not let them publish it, and if they complain about it their complaints are not to get to the public. We know, from old times, when the Government made statements with regard to this country being beleaguered, that a Deputy of this Party —and no panic-stricken Deputy, either —wrote a letter to the papers, putting certain things on record, and asking if it was a fact that certain people, more likely to be in possession of accurate information than Ministers, gave it as their view that one of the belligerents was helping to get food into the country rather than beleaguering the country. That expression of opinion— a letter from a Deputy in this House —was ruled out.
Ministerial pronouncements with regard to beleaguering are, apparently, not subject to censorship. I should not say that all Ministerial pronouncements are not subject to censorship, as, in September or October, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was then Mr. MacEntee, warned the people at an L.S.F. meeting that, when this war is over, this country might find itself without a friend. That escaped the eye of the Censor at the beginning, as it got into the evening papers, but it was ruthlessly suppressed from the next morning's editions. A Minister, with a full sense of responsibility, goes to a meeting of all Parties—an L.S.F. meeting—in a particular part of this country and warns them, with regard to the progress we are making in certain directions, that when this war is over we may find ourselves without a friend. He had some purpose in saying that: what it was I do not know, but there was something in it that appealed to his sense of proportion and reason. That was a proper comment for him to make, and the papers naturally expected—when a Minister who, under the Censor's regulations, is an authorised person himself to pass things for publication, had so spoken publicly at a meeting—that they might publish the comment, but it only got into the evening editions. The Minister felt that his colleague was guilty of an indiscretion, and that that particular comment of his should not get any wider circulation than amongst those who happened to read that particular evening newspaper. So the Minister was censored by his colleague.
Two principles have been stated by the Minister's Department in connection with the use of censorship. One is that stated here, in answer to a question by Deputy Mulcahy, in respect of a notice issued by an executive committee in his constituency regarding bread. The Minister suppressed that on the ground that it was likely to cause a panic situation with regard to bread. The matter could be raised here in the Dáil and apparently there was no panic, but again what was said in the Dáil could not be published because panic might ensue. Out of that welter of inconsistencies, is it possible to get a policy? The only one I see is the flat-footed statement of the Minister, that Deputies will not be allowed to make statements with regard to what is happening under the people's eyes, the forming of bread queues in the city. They are not going to be allowed to publish a statement or resolution in the papers asking for an inquiry into that matter and the steps taken with regard to it.
I would like to read correspondence which I read on another occasion in this House. One of the Minister's officials put himself on record that:—
"At a time when the unity of our own people was more than ever called for, it would be contrary to the public interest to allow a fresh controversy to break out in the Press regarding either the Civil War or the Blueshirt movement."
The Censor added this second paragraph:
"Naturally the weight to be given to the last-mentioned consideration— which could be urged in support of the suppressions of all political controversy—must depend a good deal on the circumstances of each particular case."
The Taoiseach said in September, 1939, that policy would be a free subject for discussion, but even that promised freedom might be entirely taken away if, in the mind of the Censor, controversy might break out and that controversy might have some effect on the unity of our people. The Censor writes that, adding hurriedly that he knows that this consideration could be urged in support of the suppression of all political controversy. As soon as I got word of that, I raised the matter here, to get from the Minister at least some limitation upon the adoption of that as a standard. I asked that we be told what reservations or limitations there were going to be with regard to it. We failed to get any. The Minister stands over that, and stands over it although his official wrote in a letter to the Independent that he knows that the argument could be used in support of the suppression of all political controversy.
I said at the beginning that we had travelled a long way from September, 1939. That was November, 1941, and the Censor there adopts as a standard that argument which he himself says could be used to suppress all political controversy, although, in September, 1939, the Taoiseach said, with regard to policy, that "there is no doubt whatever it would be quite free, except in so far as there might be a question of national interest in regard to our relations with other States." Now, we have got to domestic matters, and we adopt, and the Minister backs the adoption of, a standard which may lead to the suppression of all political controversy.
These are the standards I object to. I object to the Minister taking power to order editors to interpolate matter into editorials which they have written. I object to the Minister taking power to suppress reasoned, argumentative editorials on the ground that something has been recorded here in the Dáil and the editorial asks for some advance on it. I object to a standard being adopted like that used in reply to Deputy Mulcahy that something might cause a panic amongst a certain part of the population. Finally, I object to the adoption of the standard that things are to be tested by the repercussions which, in the Censor's mind, might take place on national unity, even though we recognise that the adoption of that standard can be used to suppress every item of political controversy. It is the adoption of that standard which has led the Government to its present position.
The Minister views journalists in the way the Minister for Supplies views traders, or in the way the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of turf production views bog workers whom he has driven to England. It is that particular mentality which is responsible for what everybody recognises has come upon the Government in the last six months—the spirit of arrogance, the feeling that, if they are criticised, they are insulted and the idea that they are superior, and so superior that they cannot consult expert people on special matters. Of course, that spirit is naturally going to be bred when Ministers are living together in a close huddle, hearing nothing from the outside world because the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures spends most of his time preventing criticism of the Government from creeping into the Press.
Somewhere in the month of April this year, a Reuter message came from Australia phrased in this way:—
"The appointment of a Press Advisory Committee of five, to assist the Government in ensuring that censorship is imposed for security and not political reasons, was announced to-day by Mr. Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia. It will be representative of newspaper proprietors and the Australian Journalists' Association."
That was suppressed as an item of news. How is that going to hurt the belligerents? What effect can that have on the war situation? What standard operated to rule out as an item of news that, in order to ensure that censorship in Australia is imposed for security and not political reasons, there was to be an advisory committee of journalists? But that was refused publication here. Quite obviously, it had to be. It was a bad example, and even the phrasing of the reason given for the setting up of that committee —"to ensure that censorship is imposed for security and not political reasons"—cut too near to the bone here, so, as an item of news, it had to disappear. It appeared in the North of Ireland papers and in the English papers, but it was suppressed here. Why? Is it not permissible—I do not think the journalists here would have it; the journalists in England would not agree to any such suggestion—to advocate that such a committee should be set up? Is it not permissible to argue as a reason for setting up such a committee that it is necessary here in order to clear the air and to make sure whether censorship is used for security or political reasons?
That again is the childish outlook of the Minister. It is a dangerous thing to have running through the Irish newspapers, because somebody might decide that it was a proper scheme to have here, and where would the Minister be, if his censors had to argue and reason with people who are in the business, with people who have been used to freedom, with people who probably have the national interests more at heart than the Minister, because they are not prejudiced by any political consideration, with people who have a fair record in journalism, or who are ready to have their record laid open for examination, with a view to seeing if on any occasion they prejudiced the national interest. The Minister will not treat these people as human beings at all, and certainly not as adults. He is going to lecture them and make suggestions about the incorporation of pieces of propaganda for himself in their newspapers, and, if all goes to the worst, he can always squash, and so the mentality of the guardians of the concentration camp grows worse.
Earlier I quoted from an editorial in The Times that the British conceived, according to themselves, censorship in terms of simple principles, the purpose of it being to prevent military information reaching the enemy and not to silence critics. I read a little further from it, but there is one part I did not read which is appropriate here. It says:
"The immunity from criticism which the hostile dictators enjoy is sometimes cited as an advantage to them in waging war."
So far as the Press of this country are concerned, the Minister is a dictator over them, and that is why I think the comment appropriate. The editorial continues:
"That is a very short view. To the extent that the dictator imposes ignorance upon his subjects, he himself remains ignorant of something vital to his strategy, the real state of their minds; and public confidence founded upon ignorance must be brittle. Sooner or later policy immune from criticism always lands itself in the fatal blunder— fatal because it cannot be retrieved. The power to retrieve blunders depends upon criticism which gives the whole community a responsible share in the remedial action."
Further, the editorial says:
"In the long run, and not such a long run either, deeds rather than words count in the maintenance of popular resolution and confidence. Too much importance can be given to wild and abusive strictures and there can be too much brooding over ‘morale'."
Any time we have questioned the Minister about things we have been told that it will lead to sapping confidence in the Government. The Minister must have realised by this that whatever little confidence is left in the Government bases itself upon facts and not upon the Press, because everybody is convinced by this time that the Minister will let into the Press as little matter harmful to himself as possible. The Minister must know that it is policy that counts and policy is illustrated by activities, and that he is not going to do himself, his Party or the Government to which he belongs, any lasting good by simply preventing the appearance in a newspaper of what people are saying in the back streets, the public houses, the clubs and everywhere that men congregate. There is the tale of the foolish doctor who broke a thermometer rather than let it indicate to him the particular sign of a disease. That is what the Minister is doing. The Minister will fail, or, at least, he will find that the results he is looking for will not be achieved by the methods he has adopted.
I have spoken already about the result of all this, the mood that is bred in Government and that has broken out in their speeches recently. The best example of that was given here the other day. We had a debate on supplies, lasting four days. It ranged over a wide variety of details. The Minister who was under criticism could have rehabilitated himself by doing just one thing: by taking out of the long range of commodities on which this country depends one single commodity and telling us in detail what his Department had done in respect of that one example and asking to be judged upon it; it would have been an easy weapon in his hand if he had effectively used powers in respect of a single commodity useful to the people. The Minister opened his speech in reply. Instead of doing what I have suggested, by referring to criticism, and all criticism is wiped out—the Minister whom I am now addressing would like to wipe it out in the newspapers, but the Minister for Supplies wipes it all out in the Dáil with this phrase: "Criticism actuated by malice." Anybody who criticises the Minister is actuated by nothing but the spirit of malice in making that criticism. And then the Minister gave us four categories of these maliciously minded people. He said:
"Vested interests have been vocal in their criticism of the Department —traders who think that the distribution of supplies should be controlled in their interests and not in the interests of the consumers who deal with them, manufacturers who want to get, at the expense of their competitors, an undue share of the limited supplies of material available, agitators"—
Presumably, he means this Dáil
—"who get, or hope to get, a livelihood from the propagation of discontent, and the remnant of the old ascendancy who are always ready to sneer at the efforts of an Irish Government."
After four days of a debate, with cases, in connection with details running up and down the whole card, being made against the Minister, all he could say in the end was that it was not worth bothering about, that it was all a case of malice, and he proceeded to exemplify the different classes of people actuated by that malice, such as the people of the old ascendancy gang, and so forth.