THE GAGGING BILL.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12351, 15 November 1905, Page 7

THE GAGGING BILL.

Tbe Bill to which the Government clung with tho greatest persistence in the dying hours of the session is what is known as the "Gagging BUI." Wβ refer to the amendment hi the criminal code making defamatory speech on the publio platform a oriminal offence, punishable with hard labour. There was no demand for such a measure, no evidence that Now Zeaianders are so much given to lying, evil-speaking and slandering that' such a drastio alteration in the law was necessary. The fact that it was introduced on -the ove of the campaign for a general election is, to say the least of it, significant. The following is what the Bill provided, as originally introduced:— (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without legal justification or excuse, either designed to ineuh> any person or likely, to injure his reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or likely to injure him in his profession or trade, whether such matter be expressed in spoken words or words written or printed, or legibly marked on any substance or by any, object signifying such matter otherwise than by words, and wliether oxpressed directly or by insinuation or irony. • •.•■• (3) Every person who publishes any defamatory libel is liable to one year's imprisonment with hard labour, or, if he knows such defamatory libel to bo false, to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The effect of this provision is clear. It moans that any speaker who in the heat of debate used words which exposed another person—say a Minister of the Crown—to ridicule, would bo liable to a years hard labour, if he were not able to prove the absolute truth of what he said. The faot that he believed at the time hie statement to be true would make no difference. If, on the other hand, he made his defamatory statement knowing it to be untrue he can bo sentenced to two years' hard labour. This is a more severe penalty than under the- law of England can bo inflicted for a written libel of the worst and most premeditated kind. Under the English law spoken defamation is not a criminal offence at all. Such a proposal was on outrage upon every British conception of constitutional liberty, end it deservedly gave rise in Parliament to a "stonewall" of thirty hours' duration—the most determined and persistent stonewall in the political history of New Zealand. The Premier had to give way to some extent. The operative part of the Act ac passed reads os follows:— (1) Every person who without kgal justification, or excuse speaks any ■words which are likely to injure the reputation of any other person, by exposing euch last-mentioned person to hatred or contempt, or to injure liirn in hie profession or trade, ia guilty of "criminal defamation," which is hereby declared to be on offence. Provided that the speaking of euch words shall not constitute, or be deemed to constitute, an offence unless spoken within the hearing of not less then twenty persons, at a meeting to which the public are invited to attend or hare acoesß. Provided, further, that no proceedings in respect of an of - fence against this Act shall be commenced the exprrafcion of two months after the commission of the offence. (2) The provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1901, shall, , mutatis mutandis, extend and apply to ell cases of criminal defamation. Provided' that, ibefore) making any order under section 5 of that Act in respect of any offence of orimi-. nal defamation, the judge or magistrate making euch order shall be satisfied that there is reasonable ground for a prosecution. Even in its modified state the Act interferes with freedom of speech in a •manner quite unknown to the English law. Every man who expresses himself at all freely about members of the Ministry or others, will be more or leas at the mercy of any Government epy or common informer, who may .give a garbled version of his words. He may even be convicted and sent to gaol upon. & correct report of liie remarks, if, in the excitement of political controversy, he lets fall any unguarded expressions ■of a defamatory character which he is not able to justify. It is only necessary to add, as showing the probable motive with which this Act was framed, that it only touches the man who hae the courage to make his charges before an audience of not km than twenty persons. The Government made no attempt to deal with the private slanderer. A man may wantonly and wickedly take away the character of a virtuous girl, by circulating his slanders in a surreptitious fashion, ana the criminal law will not touch him. This is an undoubted defect in the criminal code, which the Premier made no attempt to remedy. To Mr Seddon and his colleagues the character of a politician must be protected at all ha&arde. Women, it is apparently considered, can take care of themselves. There is another fact which the electors ought to know. The newspaper Press of this colony is fettered by the most antiquated law of libel in the British Empire. Mr Seddon has been repeatedly asked to give the New Zealand Press the same liberty of reporting public meetings which is enjoyed by the British Press, and he has steadily opposed all efforts in that direction. It is well, we think, that the public of New Zealand should be thoroughly acquainted with these facts, and accordingly we intend to bring them under their notice from time , to time during \hf> election campaign.