The Gazette 1967/71

Bill is not being introduced because of the failure of the existing law to provide adequate remedies to property owners for forcible entry and forcible occupation. These are already unlawful. The Bill is being introduced because the present machinery of the law, the court procedure, does not allow squatters to be removed by civil — i.e., private — proceedings speedily enough for those concerned. The criminal law is being invoked against the homeless to remedy the inefficiency of civil pro ceedings. Since property developers and speculators operate normally on borrowed money on which they are now paying high interest rates, the delays of civil court proceedings are expensive for them. It is primarily buildings which are to be redevelop ed which are likely to be occupied by protesters and squatters (occupation of aircraft and "fish- ins" raise rather different issues). The Bill is, there, largely in the interests of property de velopers and speculators, not in the interests of the ordinary householder. A well-known example of the use of the crim inal law to supplement the inadequacies, from the viewpoint of the property owner, of the civil law is the legislation against poaching. This makes trespass in pursuit of game a criminal offence. This was appropriate because, wild game not being legally owned by a landowner, a trespasser was not depriving the landowner of his property by poaching. Yet the Gardai have apparently been directed not to prosecute for poaching. The new Bill will, therefore, deal more severely with the homeless and with those protesting on their behalf and with students who protest against the de- sruction of our architectural heritage, than the law now deals with those who poach, often on a commercial basis. of course,, different from poachers in that they are making a protest against the failure of the author ities and of house builders to provide homes in adequate numbers at reasonable prices. Neither David Goldberg nor Mairin de Burca in her bitter letter (July 18th) refer to the new Bill as a restric tion on the constitutionally-guaranteed right of Free speech Homeless squatters and protesters are,

free speech, which involves the right to protest against injustice. While the new Bill is probably constitutionally valid, and little is gained by quoting apparently- conflicting constitutional provisions, it is much less attractive if it is viewed as a method of muzzling social and conservationist protest against injustice and destruction, disguised as protection of the right of private property. In a democracy the right of free speech and freedom to protest are far more fundamental to the liberty of everyone than the protection of the rights of owners of unoccupied property. Con stitutional rights are personal rights, and freedom of speech and the right to a home are surely more personal and more important than rights to de velop property. Mr. Goldberg is wrong in referring to dissent; what is involved is protest against in justice. His tone implies, I hope wrongly, that he regrets the protest more than he regrets the in justices, that he believes private property is an inherent part of democracy and that he believes private property rights should override the other rights involved. The Bill seeks to prevent a form of protest which has shown itself to be effective in the sense that it has gained time and publicity for the protesters' cause, and which has drawn attention to the failure of the authorities in certain respects. It cannot be said too strongly or too often that these are legit imate aims of any protests in a democracy. Right to profit The question of poaching is analogous in an other respect. The squatting which has occurred does not seem to have caused any serious damage to the property occupied. In the case of Hume Street, repairs were carried out. Where vacant buildings are occupied without damage, the civil law, with considerable common sense, gives no right to compensation, since there has been no loss. The property right defended by the Bill is, therefore, the right to develop one's property and to make a profit, not to protect oneself from loss. But the right to develop property is restricted by law in many ways, e.g. by planning regulations and the rights of others to easements of light and air, while the right not to have one's property damaged is much less qualified. 213