asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures whether the Censor has deleted paragraphs from pre-election speeches; and whether it is the intention to censor speeches made by candidates during a general election campaign.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Press Censorship.
Since the beginning of the emergency, all matter prejudicial to the public safety and the preservation of the State, whether contained in reports of speeches or otherwise, has been censored. It is proposed to continue this practice for the duration of the emergency.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, what is the use of pretending that we are to have a free election in this country if nobody, except a member of the present Government, is to be allowed to speak his mind? No matter what Party is in power in this country, the rights of the most isolated individual in this Dáil are just as important as those of a member of the largest Party in the Dáil. What I am asking is: What is the use of having an election if individual candidates are to have their speeches censored, or not be allowed to put their views before the public?
I have not said any such thing.
If it is true that the censorship will be used to censor speeches made by candidates during a general election campaign, then what is the use of having an election, and calling it a free election?
I have said that since the beginning of the emergency all matter prejudicial to the public safety and the preservation of the State, whether contained in reports of speeches or otherwise, has been censored, and that it is proposed to continue that practice for the duration of the emergency. Is the Deputy trying to make the case that subversive influences — the action of fifth columnists, if you like — should be allowed to disrupt the State?
All I am asking is this: if I go before the electors of County Monaghan, to tell the people what I stand for, as opposed to what Deputy Ward or Deputy Rice stands for, will I be allowed to put my ideas before the electors of County Monaghan without having my speeches censored? My views might seem to be damn funny to Deputy Ward, but I say that this is a matter that affects everybody in this House, and there is no use in saying that this will be a fair or a free election if the speeches of individual candidates are to be censored.
That is more a speech than a question.
Am I, Sir, to be allowed to speak to the people of County Monaghan in the election, or am I to be silenced by the Minister's Department, while Deputy Rice or Deputy Ward will be allowed to put their views before the people of that constituency? If that is to be the case, then what is the use of saying that this will be a free election? I am quite sure that I will win in County Monaghan, but whether I win or not, I am standing for a free election.
I quite realise the importance of the matter involved in this question and answer, but so far as the policy of the censorship is concerned, that policy has been, since the beginning of the emergency — and I hope it will continue to be so to the end of the emergency — to allow absolute freedom of discussion within the limits that the public safety must be preserved. We have done that from the beginning of the emergency, and I hope that it will be continued to the end of the emergency.
Does not the Minister know well that, in that connection, a statement made by a colleague of his, referred to in question No. 1, to-day, was untrue?
What is the use of saying that there is unanimity on the question of neutrality, and telling us that the election will be absolutely free, when somebody who does not believe in neutrality will not be allowed to give his opinions on the matter to his constituents?
I deny absolutely that Deputy Dillon or any other Deputy has not the right to go to his constituents and say: "I want you to go into the war." If the Deputy wants the people of Monaghan to follow him in the policy of abandoning neutrality, and go into the war, let him do it if he can; but this Dáil, as the Deputy himself has admitted — and, indeed, proclaimed — with the sole exception of himself, decided that our country is going to remain out of the war. That has been decided a thousand and one times. You cannot throw up the policy of neutrality, decided upon by the Oireachtas, like a balloon into the air, and allow it to take care of itself. That policy has been sustained and defended here in this country. Since the beginning of the war, thousands of young men were asked to spend their young lives in defence of our neutrality, and the people of our country have made sacrifices to maintain it.
And their sovereign right to abandon neutrality, if they want to?
Yes, but in this case of a world crisis, and of danger to our country, I am determined not to allow a few members of our community to use a propaganda campaign that might be a danger to the safety of the State.
In other words, the principle of neutrality will not be allowed to be discussed during the coming election?
The members of the Dáil made up their minds on that question. They were grown-up people, and they made up their minds on the policy of neutrality.
They never did.
They decided on a certain policy, and if they wish to depart from that policy, it is up to them to do so.
But is it the policy of the Censorship Department to tell the people of this country that, in their sovereign capacity, they have not the right to agree or disagree with the policy of neutrality? If that is so, then I know where I stand, but I say that to describe such an election as a free election is a fraud and a farce.
Mr. Byrne
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he is aware that references are not allowed in the newspapers to applications for increases in soldiers' wives' allowances; that Ministers' replies on the subject are prevented from being made known through the newspapers to the numerous interested parties; and that a letter dated 1st January, 1943, from the Department of Defence stating that it was not proposed to grant any further increase in wives' allowances was held up by the Censor; and, if so, if he will state why.
As it was feared that soldiers' grievances, or alleged grievances, might be used for the purpose of carrying on a campaign to discourage recruiting, it was decided to stop all correspondence on such subjects. The correspondence referred to by the Deputy was stopped in consequence of this rule.
Mr. Byrne
My question was not concerned with the grievances, or alleged grievances of soldiers, but with the grievances of the wives and children of these soldiers, and the fact that in view of the increased cost of living these people are not able to meet their expenses, and all I want to know is why references are not allowed in the newspapers to applications for increases in the allowances to soldiers' wives. Why is it that such references are not allowed to be published in the newspapers? If they are not allowed to be published in the newspapers, what other means of expressing their grievances is there except through putting a question in this House? I say that it is an abuse of censorship to prevent the publication of such complaints.
Will the Minister say whether, when this question arose, he consulted any other Government Department, or there was any other Government Departmental interference?
I consulted nobody on the matter.
Will he say whether there was any interference in this respect, or whether he felt any fear in the matter?
Are we to understand that the questions and answers given here to-day will not be printed in the newspapers?
I said that, with relation to correspondence appearing in the newspapers, a lot of it was unsigned. The motives behind much of that correspondence might be humanitarian; they might also be subversive. We made it a rule that all correspondence relating to soldiers' grievances or alleged grievances would be ruled out. The correspondence to which Deputy Byrne refers fell within that category and, accordingly, was cut.
Will the Minister say whether he sent for Deputy Byrne before this and explained to him the difficulty that was in his mind?
I wish to ask again whether the newspapers will be prohibited from publishing the questions and answers that were given here to-day.
I answered the question.
Question No. 19.
Mr. Aiken proceeded to reply to Question No. 19.
On a point of order, Sir.
The question is No. 19, addressed to the Minister for Education.
Is this a free assembly?