THE GAGGING BILL.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12365, 2 December 1905, Page 11

THE GAGGING BILL.

Tho Bill i-o which tho Government clung «'ith the greatest persistence in the dying hours of tho 6«moii is what is known os the 'Gagging Bill." We refer to the amendment in tho criminal code making defanmtorj' bpeech on the public platform a criminal offence, iwnishflblo with hard labour. Thero wo* no demand for such a measure, no evidence that New Zealand'srs aro so ' much given to lying, evil-speaking and slendering that Mich n diastic alteration I j n the law was Ufcrwary. The fact that j jt was introduced on tho rv? of tho campaign for a genera! election is, to say the least of it, riguiticant. The folJowifig is iviiat the Hill provided os originally introduced: — (1) A defamatory libel is matror pul>lished, without legal justification or excu.'.e, .either de.-.ijyietl to insult any person or likHy ro injuiT , hus V reputation l>y expasing him to ' hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or likely to injure hiir. in hin profession "or trade, whether such matter lx» expressed in spoken words or v.ords written or printe<l, or legibly marked on any substance or by any object signifying Mich matter otherwise than by word*, and whether expressed directly or by insinuation or irony. S) Every ponwi who publishes any defamatory libel is liable to one year's | imprisonment with hard labour, or, if ho known eucli defamatory libel j to be fals-Oj to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The effect of this provision ifl clear, it moans that any speaker who in the lieat of debate ii«d words which exposed another person—say a Minister of the Crown—to ridicule, would be liable to n year's hard labour, if he were not able to prove tho absolute truth of what ho said. Tho fact that lie believed at tho time hie statement to be true would make no difference If, * on the other hand, he made his defamatory fctateDient knowing it to bo untrue he caa bo sentenced to two years' hard labour. This is a more severe penalty than under tho law of England can be inflicted for a written libel of the worst and most premeditated kind. Under the Jingli.sh law spoken '".tion is not a crimin.il offence at all. > Such a proposal was an outrage upon evory British conception of constitutional liberty, and it deservedly gave rise in Parliament to a 'Y-.touewall" of thirty hours' duration—the most 'determined and persistent btoncwall in tho political history of Now Zealand. Tho Premier had to give way to nome extent. Tno operative part of the Act as paused reads as follows;— (1) Every poison who without legal 'justification or excuse sj>eaks anywords which aro likely to injure tho reputation of any other person, by exposing such last-mentioned pen on : ' to hatred or contempt, or to injure him in his profession or tradv, is guilty of "criminal defamation," ■ -which is hereby declared t:o bo on offence. Provided tliat tho spoak- ' ' ing of such words shall not constitute, or be doomed to constitute, an off en c-o spoken within tho hearing of nr;t than tweutv peiv>n->, «'. a lnr-tjting to w'hidi the puljlic are invited lo attend or have access. Provided, ' further, that no procee<!i 11.3s in respac-t of an offence- agaiiust this Act shall bo com-nwnce-d after the expiration of two months after the commir-sion of the offonec , . ; (2) 'ihe provisions of sections 4 .5, R, ond ? of tie Criminal Codo AmemV ment Act, 1901, shall, mutatis mutandis, extend and nnnly to all caaxJ of oriniind defamation. Provkl«l that, before making .my order section 5 of that Act in rospt:<.-t of any offwieo of criminal defamiaticm, the judge or magistrate making such 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 rranner quite imknmvn to tho English Itm. Every man who expresses himself fit all freely about members of the Ministry.or othea-3, will be nidro or less at the mercy of any Government spy or common informer, who may give a garbled version of his words. Ho may evcji be convicted and suit to gaol upon c. correct report of his remarks, if, in tno excitement of political controversy, ho Jets fall any unguarded expressions ' of a defamatory cliaractor wliioh ho Lj ] 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 ' tho man who has the courage to make j nk charges before an oudienco of not loss , than twenty persons. The Government 1 made no attempt to deal with the * private slanaorer. A man may wantonly j and wickedly take away the character tof.e virtuous girl, by circulating his ( sunders in a surreptitious fashion, and ] the criminal law will not touch him. < This is an undoubted defect in the | j criminal code, which the Premier made { no attempt to remedy. To Mr Sed- 1 don and hi* colleagues the character of : n politician must bo protected at ail i hiwards. Women, it is apparently con- ■' f-wered, can take caro of themselves. Tier© ie another fact which the cleo*an ought to know. Tlio newspaper Press pf this colony is fettered by tho ( ni<Bt antiquated law of libel in the British Empire. Mr Seddon has been repeatedly asked to givo rho New Zealand Press tho same liberty of reporting pubh'c meetings which is enjoyed by the British Press, and he has steadily opposed all efforts in that direction. It is well, wo think, that tho public of KW ZeaJand .sliould Iks thoroughly acquainted with these facts.