Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I thought that Deputy Brophy's remarks were revealing when he said that to be "fit for government" one has to prove oneself by voting for repressive legislation and voting against civil liberties. That is unfortunately appropriate in a state founded in a counter-revolution and in bloody repression of which the political forefathers of Deputy Brophy and party of the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, were in charge. We have an uncomfortable 100 year anniversary coming up, that of the massacre of prisoners without trial. That is unfortunately the real history of this State and it shows the need for a revolutionary break with that approach under which civil liberties and democratic rights have been sacrificed again and again in the interests of the establishment.

To be clear, we are absolutely opposed to the renewal of the continuing operation of these sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Every year for 20 years this House has renewed the operations of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act. It is an annual event which, as Deputy O'Callaghan rightly said, often features effectively the same speeches being given. I have spoken on this motion before, as have Deputies Coppinger and Barry on previous occasions. Former Deputy Joe Higgins was a Member of this House when the Act was rushed through in 1998, one day after the abhorrent Omagh bomb atrocity. That was a horrific act which resulted in more deaths than any other bombing in the course of the Troubles. The establishment at the time used the disgusting attack on the people of Omagh to bring in harsh legislation which has remained on the Statute Book ever since. Joe Higgins was correct to oppose these measures when they were proposed in 1998. The Minister at the time even described it as draconian legislation.

We, and people out there, should remember that this law applies to everybody in the State, not just the tiny minority which may threaten to engage or may actually engage in acts of terrorism. The 1998 Act allows the rules of evidence to be changed and for an increase in the length of time for which a person can be detained. The State wants to keep these powers on the books and, even though the provisions are not used regularly, there is a reason it wants to retain those powers rather than to let them lapse. The 2009 Act allows for non-jury trials for certain offences related to organised crime. Let there be no doubt about it, organised crime is a blight on communities. It is particularly working-class communities and deprived communities that bear the brunt of organised crime, particularly in the area of drugs.

We support the right to trial by jury. We take that right seriously. We do not think that one can be half a civil libertarian or that one can support the right to trial by jury in some circumstances but not in others. The right to a jury trial is an essential question of civil liberties. Measures are needed to protect juries from intimidation, such as partly exist for witnesses, rather than throwing out jury trials altogether. The Special Criminal Court should be abolished in that respect. There is another particularly questionable aspect to the 2009 Act. Even if one concedes the idea of non-jury trials, the idea that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be empowered to decide how the courts will try these offences, which is the idea that the prosecution should have the power to decide whether to have a judge trial or a jury trial, is clearly repugnant to any basic idea of civil liberties.

It is unfortunately the case that when dealing with terrorism or organised criminal gangs the State primarily rests upon and puts forward the idea of repression and suppression of civil liberties. Any quick glance at history will show that throughout the years of the Troubles in the North no amount of repressive measures by the British, Northern or Southern states resulted in the ending of the conflict. Thousands were arrested and interned. Even when there were trials, they would not be what we would consider to be fair trials or to have resulted in reliable convictions. We obviously know of a number of very high profile cases of that nature.

The most effective way to overcome terrorism - we should be clear that socialists are absolutely opposed to the methods of individual terrorism - is to build a mass movement built on workers and young people on a cross-community basis. Terrorist methods inflame sectarian divisions and are absolutely counterproductive. The best opposition to that is mass opposition to a return to conflict. This provides a protection against terrorism. It is socialists and trade unionists who have continually held back sectarian conflict throughout the Troubles by bringing pressure to bear on paramilitaries on both sides while State forces have inflamed the conflict with repression.

Similarly with organised crime the main offer of the State is repression, which has not worked. Much of the organised crime is involved in the illegal drugs trade. As well as cracking down on those criminal gangs we need to see a complete change in how the drug problem is dealt with. The trade has to be taken out of the hands of these gangs that make massive profit preying off those who are vulnerable and those with addictions. Recreational drugs should be decriminalised, but that should be combined with significant investment in our communities, addiction services and so on. We will be voting against these renewals today because we are opposed to the continuation of attacks on civil liberties by the State and stand full square for people's democratic rights.

See this speech in context