Seanad debates

Wednesday, 26 January 2005

Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002: Second Stage.

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I too welcome the Minister to the House. The Chinese have a phrase about living in interesting times, which I have discovered is more a negative than a positive, the inference being that if one may live in interesting times, one does not live in interesting times. We do indeed live in interesting times. I was inspired by the alliterations of my esteemed friend and colleague, Senator Mansergh, to recall the famous opening words of Charles Dickens's novel, A Tale of Two Cities - "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times". In the context of this Bill and the wider issues that have focused the minds of the Government and the Minister in particular over the past few weeks, that is probably an apt comment on today's mood.

It is ironic that we are discussing an important piece of anti-terrorist legislation at a time when an organisation which we all knew never accepted the legitimacy of this State, fronted by a political organisation with a philosophy quite separate from the rest of us, is at last unmasked, as it were. On the Order of Business I said that I was not at all surprised that the IRA-Sinn Féin republican movement can make a distinction between what it defines as a crime and something being tactically wrong because that movement has always believed it is the legitimate army of this country and that Sinn Féin is the legitimate government-in-waiting of this country. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government in its entirety are to be commended on reflecting the overwhelming view of the Irish people that we espouse, support and defend democratic values in this society. Long may that be so.

All of us were somewhat protected over the past decade by a concerned political establishment, a pliant media and, sadly, by an uninformed public from the fact that we were dealing with an organisation which sees itself as taking the holy grail of republicanism from the first Dáil right through each decade and each Administration which this country has democratically elected. It is as if that organisation's members live in a parallel universe. They also have their own parallel language —"whatever you are having yourself". All of that has come into the open in the past few weeks, which is right and proper.

Like many others, I was one of the people who believed that by drawing Sinn Féin into the political process, into the mainstream political activity of this democracy, a time would come, not too far in the distance — I hoped it would come at the 2007 general election — when politicians on all sides would be able to debate real politics with Sinn Féin and that the latter would be able to debate its policies, such as they are. However, I found it very frustrating and difficult when the leaders of the republican movement appeared nightly on the six o'clock news speaking on one subject — peace, supposedly involving the equality agenda and the democratic mandate, when the events of recent weeks have shown that to be false. Until such time as the movement clarifies its situation we must take it that it does not accept the legitimacy of this State or of this Government to frame laws for the protection of citizens to define criminality and terrorism. The latter is being defined by this Bill.

The comments made and inferences drawn by the threats, implied or otherwise, of the republican leadership in defending its view that the IRA was not involved in the bank robbery in Belfast had a chilling dimension. I thought this language was long gone from Irish society, that it was consigned to the history books. I do not believe that the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation operating in a democratic society — Basque separatists were mentioned as an example — could flourish or even advance its military agenda in the current international climate. Read in detail, the legislation before us underpins that point. After the events of 11 September 2001, all is changed —"changed utterly", as W.B. Yeats said in another context. I was hoping that the "terrible beauty" had not been born but it seems that, as I said earlier, it has not left us. For the first time, the legislation before us is an example of international solidarity in the face of a real global threat to the democratic values we all hold dear.

I belong to the school of thought which has a sneaking feeling that the international political establishment can also talk up a crisis. If one tells one's people often enough and for long enough that there will be a threat — America is an example — people live in fear constantly. The entire political philosophy of the Bush Administration for the future is security focused. It is creating an environment in which the "home of the brave" and the "land of the free" is no longer the shining light which it was for other generations because people are genuinely afraid. I do not believe that they have any real need to be so afraid but the fear comes from the events of 11 September 2001, from what is going on in Iraq and from the activities of al-Qaeda. That fear pushes democratic governments into taking decisions such as this because they feel helpless in the face of terrorist activity.

How does one respond to someone who wants to plant a bomb in a shop to blow up women and children? How does one respond to what is happening in Iraq in a cohesive, militarily viable and focused way? Standing armies fight standing wars. Democracies do the best they can within the framework of the law to ensure they protect their citizens against this sort of threat but, as an American president once said, no matter how much secret service protection a person is given, if they want to get one, they will do so in the end. All one can do therefore is reflect the values one has been elected by the people to reflect in a democratic society and to frame legislation which will protect them, their homes and families in so far as is humanly possible, as well as protecting our own democratic way of life.

It is time we stopped being defensive about propagating the democratic way of life. We hear George Bush and other American leaders propagating it all the time. Why do we not speak similarly more often? In the past few months, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has increasingly put across that message and it is not something to which he came fresh.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.