CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26122, 26 May 1950, Page 8

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

COMMITTEE HEARS ORGANISATIONS CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS ON APPEALS (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 25. “In conformity with the suggestion made in the submissions of the Methodist Church to-day, we think it proper to say for the information of persons coming., before us claiming conscientious objection to military training that the onus will be on them to satisfy the committee as to the nature of their objection and their sincerity in that objection.” said the chairman of the Conscientious Objection Committee (Judge Archer), when the committee continued hearing the views of religious and other organisations on compulsory military training to-day. To establish the sincerity of their view, it would be proper for objectors to call witnesses to speak for them as to the time they had held those views and the manner in which they had indicated their sincerity in the past, and their conduct, which might throw light on their sincerity, Judge Archer said. In particular, the evidence of ministers of religion or leaders of religious bodies would be welcomed in cases where objection was on religious grounds. “But I do not wish to imply that religious views 'are the only grounds for an appeal against service/’ he Views of Methodist Church “It has never been the practice of the Methodist Church in New Zealand to determine for its members what their attitude should be on social questions or matters of public interest; therefore, the Methodist Church does not recommend to its members either participation in, or objection to, military service,” said the Rev. J. D. Grocott, before the Conscientious Objections Committee to-day. Mr Grocott quoted the following resolution from the Methodist Church conference of 1949: “This conference pledges its support to all Methodists who, on the grounds of conscience, are led to appeal against military training, but considers that such bona fide objectors should be willing to render some form of alternative service.” Mr Grocott said that his Church asked that the committee consider only the sincerity of an* appellant and not the validity of the belief he might hold. Further, because of the immaturity of judgment to be expected in the age group concerned, it was possible on one hand that an original objector might later decide to register for training and on the other hand a youth might register and later quite sincerely believe that he should not serve. The statement was presented on behalf of the chairman of the Wellington District Methodist Synod (the Rev. W. A. Burley). “My organisation believes there are valid reasons, other than those of religious conscience, for opposing peacetime conscription,” said Mr J. Ferguson, chairman of the Wellington District council of the Peace and AntiConscription Federation. He said the federation's case rested on a number of major premises, including: (1) that peace-time conscription if justifiable at all could only be so on the grounds of defence or offence; (2) “we can safely assume that New Zealand, in keeping with the Western world, will never be the aggressor, and hence conscription must be for defence; (3) there must therefore be an enemy, or enemies. This enemy is said to be the Soviet Union and other Communist countries. We cast serious doubt on this belief; (4) even if we have an enemy, we claim, and shall produce evidence to prove, that conscription will not help either to prevent or win a war.” Judge Archer asked Mr Ferguson how far the holding of the views he had expressed could be related to conscientious objection to military training< Tne witness said: “A person with those views could conscientiously object to conscription on the grounds of reason outside of religious objection.” Judge Archer said the committee would look for in an appellant an appreciation of right and wrong to a much more profound degree than had been set out in the federation’s statement; the sincerity of conscientiousness in objection to training would need to be proved by an appellant.