LIBERTY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22430, 17 June 1938, Page 17

LIBERTY

«o raa editor or ra* press. Sir,—Perhaps a “still, small vbice” may struggle to be heard through the Storm which is at present raging about the subject of liberty. With an election not far distant both parties are claiming to be its defenders. What of these claims? Without democratic government there can be no liberty. Both agree on this point. Do democratic governments then ensure to us our liberty? Oh this point the Opposition party has no record to examine, even though some of its members may be criticised their acts In past administrations. But the Government has a record to review and claims to uphold. The Government may have jbeen an upholder of liberty and at the same time a destroyer. First, let us consider their positive acts. Certain political rights have been restored to the civil ■SH&nta. Certain aspects of this can be criticised, but undoubtedly a restrlctlph has been removed from the liberty of these citkens. This appears the sole positive act of the Government. On the negative side, what? One of thg first acts of the Government was to make membership of industrial unions compulsory. The element of compulsion is the crucial point and this 1® arestriction of liberty. The enforcement of compulsory membership to a religious organisation gives an exact parallel. Some industrial agreements deny the workers the right to strike, Here is a restriction which also serves to bring the law into disrepute, for if a sense W Jft'ifvanc© is sufficiently strong, men the law. Then questions of law tend to obscure the original Issues, Removal of causes of grievance, not a restriction of liberty, fs the obvious course. an attempt was made to prevent farm labourers receiving employ* on public works. It is not usual to reattict a man s selection of the type of work he wishes to choose. FS forbidden the use of bah* for meetings and liberty of association of J l be,n ß restricted. r * ber ' there are the extraOrdinSsL*?. ower , s Ministers under var ous acts. The Ministers for Finance, Industries and Commerce, and Transport have powers to make decisions find regulations under various acta. £*°i m these decisions there is no ap* it 15 a * so an at teck on our Si y^t^,eXE . c J lt,Ve ’ , No guarantee exists that all evidence has been ex«ni.ned. Liberty is not safe unless all evidence can be heard in an open court. W > be tb ° Start of COrrhere is no guarantee that these powers would be Used well. In fact, the executive cannot be trusted »e an at a iZ 0 r n t e y. foretell Where 11 will These instances do. I think, show that democratic government - will not save us. There are no automatic safeguards from attack. They also show a lack of appreciation oy the Government of the real meaning of liberty I on /K* J2 d e O P-laid devilry ?**».« i PF* °f tbe Government; rather th^ 1 tbe sincerity of these men the Fu 3 th£ y wißh «> attain blinds them to the means they employ. if then, sincere men can attack our libf r Jy. greatly, we must be, vigilant. Lack of vigilance must bring,loss of liberty, , A*F freedom of the press is essential to liberty. 'The very necessary publicity to attacks on liberty would be impossible without its aid. From time to time ‘The Press” has warned us of dangers threatening us. Freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of speech are essential if we are to have liberty. Our present state of liberty may be a very imperfect state. It has, however. Only been attained by striving and will only be retained by vigilance.—Yours, ’’ , „ „ POLEMIC. June 15, 1938.