asked the Minister for Justice whether his attention has been directed to Article 40 of the Constitution, Section 6, paragraphs 1º (ii and iii) and paragraph 2º and whether he is aware that the British Legion were prohibited from holding a parade through streets remote from heavy traffic by order made by the Gárda authorities, and whether he will investigate and report to Dáil Eireann on this interference with law-abiding citizens' fundamental rights.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Legion Parade.
asked the Minister for Justice if the ban on the ex-servicemen's parade from Smithfield to the Memorial Park on Sunday, 11th November, was made with his knowledge; if he will state why longer notice of the ban was not given to the Legion headquarters, and if he is prepared to make a statement on the circumstances leading up to this action.
Mr. Boland
I am taking questions Nos. 24 and 25 together. As regards No. 24, I would remind Deputy Dillon that Section 6 of Article 40 of the Constitution, to which he refers, states specifically that the rights thereby guaranteed are exercisable "subject to public order". I am satisfied that the limitations imposed on the exercise of these rights in the present instance were imposed in the interests of public order.
In reply to Deputy Dockrell, I was aware of, and approved of, the action of the Gárda authorities. The suggestion that unduly short notice was given to the promoters is not well founded. The first intimation that a parade from Smithfield to the Memorial Park was contemplated reached the Gárda authorities on 25th October: their reply, from which it was clear that the parade would not be allowed, was sent on that day week, viz 1st November. On the whole I think that the Gárda authorities have dealt with the matter in a very reasonable way. The facilities granted for the remembrance ceremonies were better than they have been for a number of years.
Will the Minister please state what are his grounds for anticipating a breach of public order such as is envisaged in Section 6 of Article 40 of the Constitution in connection with the application of the British Legion for permission to march with furled flags from Smithfield to the Garden of Remembrance?
Mr. Boland
In these matters I am advised by the Gárda authorities. They advised me that there was danger of a disturbance of the peace; they had every reason to believe that there was such a danger and on that ground they would not allow this procession to be held.
Who did they fear was going to disturb the peace?
Mr. Boland
I do not know that, but the Gárda have sources of information that the general public have not got. They advised me that they had every reason to fear there might be a breach of the peace, especially following the disturbance that took place outside Trinity College earlier this year. The Gárda authorities had reason to fear that there might be a serious disturbance, and consequently, it was decided not to allow the procession to be held.
I addressed this question originally to the Taoiseach, in view of the fact that constitutional rights were involved. It was transferred to the Minister for Justice and, therefore, I am constrained to address this supplementary question to him. Section 6 (2) of Article 40 provides:—
"Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination."
Mr. Boland
There has been no such discrimination.
Therefore, if the Minister had no reason to apprehend that the persons who desired to proceed from Smithfield, a quite and remote part of the city, to the Garden of Remembrance, a journey which would not bring them through traffic-ridden streets—persons who desired no more than to commemorate their dead——
The Deputy must ask a supplementary question and not make a speech.
If the Minister knew these men desired no more than to commemorate their dead and to renew their devotion to principles enshrined by Thomas Kettle——
The Deputy is now making a speech, not asking a supplementary question.
Why did the Minister anticipate that these men contemplated a breach of the peace and, if he did not anticipate that these men contemplated or desired a breach of the peace, why must their constitutional right peacefully to assemble be taken from them because the Minister is advised by the Gárda that somebody else contemplated a breach of the peace? If there were a Fianna Fáil march contemplated and some other people contemplated a breach of the peace——
The Minister may not be asked hypothetical questions.
But if he believes that the marchers meant no breach of the peace, why should he withhold from them their constitutional right, because he thought somebody else did? In the event of a Fianna Fáil march——
The Deputy is again asking hypothetical questions and such questions may not be asked of the Minister.
If the Minister did not think these men would violate the peace, why did he suspend their consititutional right?
Mr. Boland
I never said these men contemplated a breach of the peace. The Deputy need not read that into my reply. I said the Guards had reason to fear a breach of the peace if that march took place. The Deputy need not read anything else into my remarks and Fianna Fáil or any other organisation does not come into it.
If the threat of a breach of the peace came from persons other than those who proposed to march, why did you withhold from those who proposed to march their constitutional right? Why did you not prevent——?
The Deputy is repeating his question.
Will the Minister answer me?
I have no control over that.
But you are allowing the Minister to evade my question.
Mr. Boland
I am not evading the Deputy's question.
You are.
Next question.
Because others threatened a breach of the peace those people who desired to march peacefully were prohibited from doing so.
Had the Gárda any information that Deputy Dillon might take part in this procession and cause a disturbance?
I desire to give notice, by leave of the Chair, that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Notice has already been given in respect of a previous question.
That is a matter which you can settle at your convenience. I desire to give notice, if and when you can give me the opportunity to do so, that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment; let it be either to-day or to-morrow—at your convenience.