On coming to the conclusion of my remarks on this amendment I should like to say that it is interesting to gain insight into the rather unknown territory of the Minister's mind. He admitted during the debate that he would have been willing to drop section 4 in response to the pleadings of this House but that he wished to get at the subversives and therefore he thought section 4 was necessary for the carrying out of this task. In this respect, our argument was that we did not see why it should include new legislation or even the use of this new word "encourage". We said we regarded this as having dangerous consequences—the introduction of new terms which had not been tested previously. We said that one does so at one's peril when one introduces new concepts into a branch of the law which has been well tested over the years.
This can be said about the new concept introduced by way of the word "encourage". There are many working journalists who cannot foretell the implication of this word or how it will affect them in their journalistic lives in the future. The Minister was not accurate when he suggested that simply all that is involved here is a modernisation of the law. In reply to all those who criticise the inconveniences of remaining on here throughout the summer witnessing this debate, which to them has little significance, we would say that is a very foolish observation. They are playing with fire if they think these concepts can be allowed to pass into legislative form, wrong if they imagine they can be allowed pass without the Opposition opposing these sections strenuously.
That is not to say that politicians in the Opposition prefer Press criticism, that we do not mind the Press attacking us for our actions or our motives. I do not think any human being likes being attacked in any newspaper, but a careful distinction must be made between those Opposition politicians, who may often wince when they see themselves attacked, as they think wrongly—they are entitled to feel resentful and to declare their resentment; that is their right; they need not remain silent if they find an argument being used against them in the Press, they may reply—and the resentment of a Minister who may pass his prejudices into legislative form. This distinction is too wide to be equated with any Opposition sentiments.
That attempt has been made in some of our newspapers—the attempt to defend the Minister's approach has been put forward as if politicians are all the same, that their opinions are as one, that such equation exists. This attempt at a defence of the Minister's approach has been put forward. I deny that any such equation exists. The Minister introduces Bills which all of us must obey when they are passed, but for the prejudices, the mistakes and the misgivings of the Opposition the electorate will not have to suffer. No journalist in his working capacity will suffer for any objection any Opposition member may have to make. However, in respect of the man invested with the powers of Government, his opinions, his mistakes are things which we may all have to suffer from equally, whether we agree or disagree.
Therefore, if we detain the journalists attached to this House and the Members of this House over the summer months, please do not think it is for any trivial event but because we feel there is an important principle involved in this Bill, one which we think could have very dangerous consequences in the future in regard to free expression. In the long run, whoever is in Government or in Opposition, it is safest to have a free Press. We have, largely, a Press which is timid, peopled by journalists who come from areas known for their support for traditional politics. I am not blaming them for this. They come from areas in the country which know no other representatives than those of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and their thought habits had been laid down long before they arrived in Dublin to comment on politics. Fair enough, but the fact is that their ability to the extent it now exists to put forward in the future honest expressions of opinion may be seriously curtailed if this Bill goes through.
It has been discovered that when you bring in laws aimed at the curtailment of freedom of expression, when you legislate in the direction of censorship, then the victim, the person to be punished, the person whose comments you seek to curtail, will himself cooperate in this tendency, enthusiastically continuing in his own mind a spin-off from this coercive legislation. This we have seen happening in Telefís Éireann. We have seen it happening throughout the country, and the message that will go out to any working journalist when this Bill becomes law will be to watch even more so than in the past what he does in the future.
Nobody in the Opposition is seeking to alter any of the laws of defamation which at present curtail journalists in their work. There are penalties laid down for any newspaper editor who may injure the reputation of any group or person in the public esteem. These laws continue in force and we do not seek to abolish them. We do not seek to curtail their effects or implications. However, we do not see that a case has been made throughout this debate why a new concept called "encourage" should become a criminal offence. We say to all those journalists who see in this debate over these summer months no more significance than an annual replay of the old Leinster House comedy about who will chicken first in prospect of the summer holidays: there is more at stake.
Those journalists who see no more at stake than that, who just think that this is the re-enacting of the annual comedy, have not read this Bill properly nor have they looked at the implications of this section. I do not think it is sufficient to say, with the Irish Times, “Wait for the courts”. I look on this House as an important institution of liberty, the first institution of liberty, and I do not think we can wait for other bodies to vindicate the fundamental liberties of the people. This House has a duty and we in Opposition have a duty to uphold it in at least probing these measures which the Government have brought forward.
We are not a country known for great honesty in putting forward political opinions. We know that the path to promotion does not lie in the direction of expressing our true opinions and there are many people in Telefís Éireann who know that to their cost. They will know it even more if this section is passed into law. The Bill seeks to limit even more the right of journalists to write freely. The Minister has given us no satisfactory explanation as to why the section is necessary. He says it is to get at subversives. Other Deputies in recent weeks have referred to the Government's reluctance to get at known subversives, both in their own organisation and outside, under the present laws of the land, but they now wish, under this new section, to terrorise, to intimidate, to ensure that a very small number of people in our media, in our newspapers and television, will get a strong warning to desist even from the position of honest reporting which that small group up to now have carried on.
This really will be the result of this section being passed. Would it not be a very foolish Opposition which would depart complacently for their summer holidays allowing any Government to bring such a measure in here without putting them to the pin of their collar by going into the Division Lobby in division after division? Allowing this section to go through would remove any possibility of this House having any serious effect on the future of public policy. The people in the media may say that the reason they cannot be compared for courage, for the free use of their critical faculties, with their counterparts in other countries is that the politicians have given them the one Executive for 40 years. I do not deny that a great deal of the fault lies with the politicians in a situation which has given us a Government selected from one party for so long. The working journalist may say: "If that is the kind of State in which we live, then one of the laws of expression is that you do not offend that Executive too much."
I have noticed, as I am sure other Members have noticed, that while Press commentators can be pretty rigorous in their examination of the motives of the Opposition, they show a great deal of charity towards the mistakes of the Executive. I should have thought it would have been the other way around, but that might just be Opposition prejudice. They have shown a great deal of ardour in their exploration of the motives of the Opposition in, for example, keeping this House going into the summer months. I would hope for the same ardour, the same degree of honesty, in probing into the mistakes of the Executive, mistakes which are far more disastrous for all of us than any shortcomings of the Opposition.
I am not saying that any alternative Government composed exclusively of Opposition people would be any better in its approach to, for example, an institution like Telefís Éireann. I am not saying that it is possible for any Executive to avoid being involved in a certain amount of strain with the television station. Such a temptation would always lie in the path of politicians in power, and politicians who have been in power for so long as the people opposite may have a greater tendency to fall than people who go in there once every 20 years. However, I would hope that the new people in that situation could resist for a longer period. I would certainly make this prediction that on the day that any alternative Government attempted to pass legislation that would approximate to the dangers involved in this clause of section 4, that is the day that Government would fall. I think I know the minds of the parties involved and the principles they advocate well enough to know they would not stand idly by while some Executive attempted to put through this clause.
Deputy O'Malley, Minister for Justice, is the person shepherding this Bill through, but I clearly see in it the hand of the Taoiseach. He does not like the Press. He has never liked the Press. He has told each member of his Cabinet and those who matter in his party to keep their mouths shut when approached by the Press. This legislation is the logical follow-up to the attitude of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach, of course, will have his alibi when the proper time comes, just as he had in relation to the "7 Days" Inquiry, when he let it be known to the people in Telefís Éireann that he was not behind the inquiry, that it was a rough diamond like Deputy Michéal Ó Moráin, the then Minister for Justice, who was responsible for the inquiry. I am saying to the Minister for Justice: "Make sure you have your alibi when the Taoiseach calls you to his office." The Taoiseach always has an alibi and somebody else gets fired. We have seen this quality of the Taoiseach, to be able to survive in the most extraordinary situation. While the Taoiseach may have the Minister for Justice putting through a Bill which in the opinion of many people in the Opposition is an unpopular measure, at some stage he may need to dispense with the Minister for Justice. Is the Minister for Justice quite sure that the Taoiseach is not saying to certain groups throughout the country that he is not responsible for this Bill, that it is the idea of somebody else or some other group of wicked people, that he is just there as the presiding chairman and that these other wicked people are putting through these intemperate Bills? That is what he said to the people in Telefís Éireann about the "7 Days" Inquiry.
