Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I thank the Minister for his detailed reply outlining why he cannot accept the Bill. The debate itself is important because we are talking here about a quango and the censorship board is unnecessary for many reasons, as outlined earlier by Deputy Niall Collins. If we repeal the Act and remove the Censorship of Publications Board it would send out a strong message. It would represent a retrospective message of apology to many of the literary geniuses whose work was censored by the board in previous times. Ireland has a long, strong and proud literary tradition and the fact that a vestige of a previous time in our history is still on our Statute Book is shameful. The Censorship of Publications Board inhibited many of our finest literary artists and prevented them from flourishing on this island and I would welcome its dissolution.

Deputy Niall Collins has already outlined why the board is obsolete. The very fact that there have been so few referrals to the board in recent times proves that it is obsolete. Only one book has been referred to the board in recent times, a book called Laura, written by the current Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. I do not know whether it was referred because of the obscenity of the content or because of its author. I must get to the bottom of that. We await the adjudication of this fine board when it eventually has the required number of people to meet.

In general, I am against prohibition and censorship. As a mature society, we should trust our citizens to be able to decide what is right and wrong and what is good for society. Equally, we cannot impinge on the individual's right to access material which he or she believes is of interest. In the context of the Internet, Google, Amazon, and numerous other software companies and internet providers, many of which are located in this State, the censorship board is shown to be totally backward. It is completely obsolete in the context of modern technology and what people can access on their iPhone, iPad or laptop. For all of those reasons, the legislation should be removed from the Statute Book.

Having listened to the debate so far, there seems to be broad support for the principle of this Bill. The technical issues to which the Minister referred should be ironed out and we should move swiftly to abolish the board and the appeals board. Obviously, the appeal that is currently before the board must be assessed and adjudicated on first. I am hopeful, even though I never read it, that this book will be allowed to be on the shelves forever and a day, as a testament to the great literary giant that is Deputy Shatter. I look forward to reading Laura when it is approved by the board.

Deputy Colreavy referred to the broader question of censorship and spoke about section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. He said that censorship goes against democracy but violence and mayhem also go against democracy. Censorship in the form of section 31 was introduced because this State was under attack and was being undermined by a paramilitary organisation which had no political mandate at the time. The political representatives of that organisation in the Republic received no mandate whatsoever to represent people in this House. They were also roundly rejected by the electorate in Northern Ireland for many years until such time as there was an opening up of a process of dialogue to encourage those who saw murder and mayhem as a means to a political end to put down the gun and take up discussion. That is why the lifting of the section 31 ban happened. I was actually in the Houses of the Oireachtas when that decision was made by the Fianna Fáil - Labour Party Government, announced by Deputy Michael D. Higgins, now President Higgins, as the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. That was a very important moment because it sent out a strong message that the Government was willing to listen to people. Equally, those who had previously been censored then presented themselves on the airwaves and sent out messages that they were willing to listen to the vast majority of the people on this island with regard to laying the gun down once and for all and accepting the democratic principles the rest of us espouse and to which we adhere.

I do not believe that one can compare section 31 and Laurain the same breath. We should keep to the specifics of the Bill as tabled by Deputy Niall Collins, namely, the censorship of publications in the context of their literary aspect. The purpose, intention and consequences of section 31 were very different from those of the censorship applied by the board in question.

I welcome the overall discussion, which is a broader discussion because it makes clear that when one has any form of censorship on the Statute Book it causes an undercurrent of feeling that someone is watching what one is doing in the context of one’s artistic work and that there is someone other than the public who can approve or disapprove of it. That in itself is something I would not like to see. There are many reasons such a provision is obsolete in the context of modern technology and the transfer of information through the Internet and globalisation.

Another point to bear in mind is that we are a multicultural society now. We are part of a larger gathering of people, not only in the context of being a member of the European Union but because we are now seen as a destination by many and as a place they would like to reside and contribute. As the inflow of people over the years beds down, literary works will come from communities and individuals of whom we would not previously have had any understanding. It is important that they be allowed to flourish, grow and identify themselves through their literary work. I do not say who would be banned by the Censorship of Publications Board but the fact that it exists in the background is reason enough to get rid of it.

Another area of legislative change in the area of censorship is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which makes it an offence, inter alia, to publish or distribute written material or to show or play a recording if the written material or recording is threatening, abusive or insulting or is intended to be likely to stir up hatred. Thus, legislation is already in place to ensure that material that is intended to stir up hatred does not circulate in this country. The other key Acts are the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act of 1998 and the Child Trafficking and Pornography (Amendment) Act 2004, which ensure there is no distribution of child pornographic material in the State. These pieces of legislation are highly important. They could not be considered as censorship in any way. They are about protecting vulnerable people and ensuring we do not allow the transfer of information that is disgusting and exploitative in the context of child pornography and also disgusting and dangerous in the context of incitement to hatred. Those two legislative provisions will remain on the Statute Book and all resources should be put in place to ensure the situation is monitored and any breaches are prosecuted through the courts.

On a lighter note, what the Censorship of Publications Board should have been looking at in recent years is manifestos, because they were certainly very threatening, far-fetched and insulting to our intelligence. Perhaps they should have been banned, as the material distributed was utterly unbelievable-----

See this speech in context