INTERRUPTIONS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22336, 25 February 1938, Page 10

INTERRUPTIONS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS

*0 THE EDITOR OF THK PRESS. Sir,—A statement taken from your sub-leader: “It is as well to remind members of the Labour Party who thus endeavour to prevent their opponents receiving a fair hearing that one of-the party’s most cherished, and rightly cherished, privileges, which it enjoys in common with all classes in British communities, is the right of free speech.” Quite frankly. I deem this statement to be a gratuitous insult to the members of the New Zealand Labour Party, of whom the writer is one. I can reliably inform you that during all the years I have been a member and a regular attendant at Labour Party meetings, large and small, no authority, or suggestion even, has ever been given to any member or to any person not a member, to offer obstruction as suggested by your sub-leader to any opponents of our party or Government, or to deny anyone at all the right of free speech. You surely are aware that there are many electors, not members of Labour Parties, who support Labour candidates. as there are many who support anti-Labour candidates. These attend political meetings and heckle candidates, as has probably happened in this case of Mr Endean, M.P. but your leader ungenerously casts the blame upon “members of the Labour Party.” Yes, the cherished possession of every Labour man is freedom of speech, action, and association, and we strenuously insist that every human being shall have the same freedom. I trust that you will take steps to remove the offence you have offered to members of a great democratic party who are absolutely blameless of such tactics as your leader indicates. A statement taken from the letter of “Liberty” is this: “The hall was packed beyond capacity with expectant listeners, but immediately the speaker began his address the organised Labour Communists at the back of the hall began heckling and attempted to prevent the address from being heard.” Will “Liberty” please inform me upon what authority he describes the hecklers as “organised Labour Communists”? If he had any worth-while knowledge of political parties, he could speedily discover that therfe are no Communists on the membership of the New Zealand Labour Party. Before concluding, I should like to remark that I have not noticed in your columns, or over the pen-name of “Liberty,” any condemnation of the disgraceful hostility displayed by a North Island audience to the Hon. W. Nash, Minister for Finance, when taking part in a debate upon guaranteed v. compensated prices recently. Let us be equitable in such matters and more progress can then be made everywhere. —Yours, etc., J. HILL. Claverley, February 23, 1938.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I have been amused by the reports I have read in “Tne Press” on the heckling at Mr Endean’s meeting on Monday night. According to today’s editorial, the interruptions are the work of an organised band r.f hooligans. This delightful explanation will, I am sure, appeal to all National supporters, since in this particular case it ignores the fact that the majority of the audience were close residents and not larrikins, as we have been led to believe. As an elector of the district, although a Labour supporter, no doubt I may state my impressions. To begin with, despite considerable heckling, I could detect no signs of" any organised attempt to silence the speaker. Most of the noise arose from verbal dissensions from Mr Endean’s extremely elastic statements. Unless a speaker is prepared to be accurate, he must expect trouble. Further, it is not so long since the police were wont to remove interjectors from conservative meetings: so no doubt the unaccustomed freedom helped to produce rather more noise than usual.

All things being considered, from the speaker’s inability to outline a plat-, form—criticism is not policy—to . his lack of skill in answering questions, one cannot be surprised by the attitude of the audience. Until the National Party speakers can offer a definite policy, and not a lot of guff about conditions, self-evidently incorrect, they must expect as much as their politics deserve—derision.—Yours, etc., TALK SENSE. February 23, 1938.

ro TUB BDtTOB 0? TUB PEEB«. Sir,—Mr Endean’s speech was remarkable for three things—its evasions and half-truths, its entire lack of constructive thought, and the bullying tone adopted by the speaker. It was this unfortuante combination which caused the heckling of which you and vour correspondent “Liberty” complain. It is nonsense to talk of ‘ concerted hooliganism.” The meeting was antagonised in the first ...minute, and the stream of interjections , which followed was due not only, to this, but to the speaker’s persistent refusal to state the whole of the truth in ' the points raised.. The wretched showing the speaker made at question time was not represented in your report. It would have given your readers food for thought and yourself better claim to be considered unbiased and fair.—Yours, etc., NAKED TRUTH. February 24. 1938.