The Press SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1554. Civil Liberties

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27404, 17 July 1954, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1554. Civil Liberties

It has been said that the English, though singularly indifferent to abstract arguments about the rights of man, have succeeded very well in establishing and maintaining most of them. Many movements, many institutions, and many individuals have contributed something to this happy result, which has been a byproduct—almost an accidental one—of the process of social evolution rather than an objective consciously striven for. It is, of course, no less to be cherished because of that; and, if it is necessary to assign credit for the result, not many would dispute that the chief credit should go to the institution of Parliament and to the conception of an independent judiciary standing between the State and the individual and maintaining a just but delicate balance between the rights of the State and the rights of the individual. One thing at least is certain: these freedoms were not won by any organisation constituted for the specific purpose of winning them. Many will doubt now the need for an ad hoc body to preserve them, which seems to be the wellmeant intention of the newlyformed Canterbury Council of Civil Liberties. Their doubts will -be deepened by the suggestion, \ conveyed in the statement of the council’s objectives, that the freedoms of belief, of speech, of the exchange of ideas, of association and assembly are not, in fact, enjoyed in New Zealand now but may be won in the indefinite future only by victory over the powerful (but unnamed and undefined) enemies of freedom. And if the council really intends to suggest that in this country there is not freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, and no universal right to a fair and public trial, it will stand in some danger of antagonising the great majority of the public who believe in these freedoms and rights no less passionately than the members of the council but believe they have the substance of them and not merely the shadow. All freedom is relative and no freedom can be absolute; but in this country, as in most British countries, the freedom of the individual to think and speak and act as he pleases, so long as he does not break the law or harm other people, is jealously guarded by Parliament, the judiciary, the press, the university, the learned societies (which have special reason to value freedom of thought), and by innumerable public and semi-public bodies. Nor can the people generally be said to be careless of their rights and liberties and docile in submitting to infractions of them. The people themselves must decide, in the long run, what is freedom and what is an infraction of their freedom. Undoubtedly there is a growing tendency for the democratic welfare state to order increasingly the lives of its citizens. To some this is “ regimentation ” only slightly less abhorrent than the' complete subjection of the individual to the State in totalitarian countries. To others this is a new and fuller “ freedom ”. Somehow, a balance has to be struck and expression given to the corporate will of the people by their representatives in Parliament There are and there always have been dangers of our freedoms being whittled away, sometimes by the deliberate intent of selfish interests, more often by the short-sightedness or even absentmindedness of legislators. It is good that these dangers should be brought to the notice of the public and discussed; but they should not be exaggerated. Nor should any organisation which sets itself up as a watch-dog of civil liberties make the mistake of disparaging the freedom enjoyed in this country or of under-estimating the will and the ability of the people to preserve it.