Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1925. AN UNDESIRABLE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVI, Issue 10415, 5 June 1925, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1925. AN UNDESIRABLE.

The attitude taken. up by Mr Holland in defence of the I.W.W. propagandist, Lyons, an order for whose deportation has been issued, affords a striking example of misconception of the principles of law and order. The labour leader made to Sir Francis Bell "the strongest possible protest against the deportation of Lyons," and has pointed out that "if anyone breaks the laws of New Zealand he can be dealt with by ordinary legal processes," suggesting that Lyons has the right to trial. Such would have been the case had Lyons been a resident of this country, but he is not, and therefore comes under a special Act designed to meet such cases as his. This measure is the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Act of 1919, under which the AttorneyGeneral, if satisfied that a newcomer is disaffected or disloyal, or of such a character that his presence in New Zealand would be injurious to the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion, is empowered, in the first place to prohibit him from landing, or, after he has landed, to order him to leave New Zealand. A time limit of 28 days is allowed, but in the meantime the AttorneyGeneral may, if it thinks it in the public interest, order the un- . desirable's arrest and forcible placing on board a vessel about to leave. Lyons clearly comes under the scope of the Act, for he belongs to the 1.W.W., an international organisation which ignores or repudiates all national distinctions. His avowed mission to this country is to upset the law. He has begun by defying it as it applies to his own movements, and now advocacy that it be stretched in his favour savors too much of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. There is no occasion or justification to bring the offender to justice in the sense of placing him on trial. He is not a citizen of New Zealand, he has entered the country without right and in defiance of its laws, and the Government not only has the power but is in duty bound to order him to depart. As Sir Francis Bell stated in 1921, when Mr Holland protested against the_ imprisonment of a distributor of seditious pamphlets: "It is neither unlawful nor seditious to advocate the wildest forms of socialism or communism. What is unlawful and seditious is to advocate murder and violence as legitimate methods for the attainment of political ends. . . The Government of New Zealand does not now interfere and does not propose to interfere with liberty of speech or action, but it does intend to prevent violence and lawlessness and its officers will, in accordance with the duty imposed upon them by law, endeavour to bring to justice persons who refuse to comply with that condition." The matter at issue in the present instance is not freedom of thought or action, but of freedom of the people from the menace that arises from unfettered advocacy of direct action doctrines and methods, subversive of the peace and wellbeing of the community