DEFINITION OF UNIFORMS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21966, 15 December 1936, Page 13

DEFINITION OF UNIFORMS

QUANDARY IN HOUSE OF

COMMONS

PUZZLING QUESTIONS FOR

MINISTERS

(from our owa correspondent.)

LONDON, November 21. Some difficulty has been met in getting the Public Order Bill, which includes a provision for the banning of political uniforms, through the British Parliament. This difficulty lias not been one of opposition to the bill, but rather of defining a political uniform. In a debate which threatened at times to verge upon the ridiculous, it was even asked whether a tie could be a

uniform. x Mr R. H. Turlon. a Conservative lawyer, wanted “uniform” to read “military or quasi-military uniform. ’

! Mr Pickthorn (Conservative, Cambridge University) hoped he would never see the word “quasi-military” in any act of Parliament. “But where are we to stop?” he asked. “Suppose 5000 people meet in Hyde Park, and, say. at 3 o’clock on a given signal they all produce badges twice the size of a five-shilling piece and fix them in their lapels, or produce a piece of green chalk and chalk round their hats. Is that not an invitation to the various sections in the crowd to get together?”

Sir William Davison understood the word “uniform” to be used in ns widest sense to include even uniform characteristics like everybody wearing the same badge or the same hat for political purposes. “I cannot.” said the Attorney-Gen-eral (Sir Donald Somerveiß. “think that any court would hold that a tie is a uniform. But I can imagine that a red blouse worn with a political association might be held to be a political uniform.” That set the House of Commons oil on a long discussion. What was a uniform? Lapel buttons, thought Mr Kenneth Pickthorn. might be a uniform, or a black hat with green markings. Intention rather than appearance should be the guide. Mr McLaren, a Scotsman who represents an English constituency tSoc., Burslem). predicted that Scotsmen, tired of the Tory stupidity of England, would start a great Scottish Home Rule movement which would involve wearing the kilt. “I could imagine Mr Ramsay MacDonald attending one of these meetings,” said Mr McLaren, “and because of the patriotism of which he is capable being apprehended because he is going beyond the limit of the bill.”

Sir John Simon. Home Secretary, rejected the idea that the kilt could be a political uniform, saying: "It is impossible to regard a national uniform as signifying merely association with a political object,” A serious difficulty a’so arose over the pronunciation of “blouses." Mr Turton called them “blewses,” or “blooses.” “You mean ‘blouses'?” cried ether members.

“You,” said Mr Turton, “like to pronounce the word one way and I prefer to pronounce it another way. If you want to make that an offence, you had better bring in another bill.”

The Home Secretary moved his amendments to meet objections to the clause banning quasi-military organisations. The first ensures that persons controlling quasi-military organisations shall not be convicted because of activities carried out without their consent. The second puts the onus of proof that persons charged were members of quasi-military organisations on the prosecution.

Sir John Simon is not looking forward to his duties as controller of political uniforms. When someone said that the Home Secretary would have to decide on what special occasions political uniforms might be worn, he said: “It won’t be anv fun for me.”