Labour Intolerance.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19467, 14 November 1928, Page 8

Labour Intolerance.

The National Executive of the Labour Party, having watched for some time the rough and disorderly conduct of its supporters at meetings addressed by political opponents, has on the eve of the poll issued a statement deprecating all interference with the right of free

speech. "Freedom of speech and ex- " pression," it says, "is the most " precious heritage of our political " life," and so on. The Labour Party can scarcely expect applause for its belated reproof of its friends for their practical application of the counsels of violence and tyranny which the Party's leaders have given to them. Having carefully taught the mob to misbehave, the leaders of the Party cannot complain that its mob does misbehave. The Labour Party, as Christchurch people know, can quote the United Party as an elder brother in this art, and they can cite some recent examples. A local Liberal paper has given its largest headlines and its most prominent place to a long report joyfully and sympathetically and zestfully recording the success attending an organised interruption of Mr Coates at his meeting in Auckland on Monday night. Neither the United Party nor the Labour Party has any real respect for freedom of speech. The United Party is, of course, not so expert as the Labour Party, and, to do it justice, is less tyrannical and intolerant, although its manners are not much better than the Labour Party's. But Labour is tyrannical, and no City knows this better than our own, which has had the advantage of possessing a daily performer in its Mayor. Clever and flexible as he is, Mr Archer has not been able to keep his essential in-

tolerance under cover. Fifty instances will occur to anybody. His damning of the ratepayers, his denunciations of respectable citizens for holding certain opinions about the Square, his denial of the right of the citizens to control their elected representatives, his refusal to admit that a man can be a Christian who does not vote for him—these are natural in an orthodox Red. He is intolerant for our own good, no doubt, but most people would sooner perish than be saved as serfs. Its rough intolerance appears in almost every movement that is made by organised Labour—from the ruffianism at political meetings to the harshness of speech of Labour Mayors—and the electors have an opportunity to-day to tell Labour that it dislikes it.