Mr Shand’s Attack

Press, Volume C, Issue 29587, 9 August 1961, Page 6

Mr Shand’s Attack

Sir, —If my letter which you suppressed was “grossly libellous," then the letter by V, H. Hunter was by inference equally so. This was the letter I attacked. In any case, if Mr Shand were to make the same statement' outside the precincts of the House as he djd in it, this also would be grossly libellous. Why, therefore, should a reputable paper seek to defend him? In your footnote you ignore my quite legitimate assertion that National Party supporters’ letters contain insults which are tolerated by you. Apparently you also overlook the fact that the introduction of a Labour weekly will give its readers “the other side” in its “untrammelled” columns, something they get at present only in condensed' and convenient form.—Yours, etc.,/ TOM BRYCE. August 8, 1961. [lf Mr Bryce cannot see the difference between one correspondent’s saying that a person is not of a certain t reprehensible type to be found “in our - midst” and another correspondent’s saying flatly that he is exactly that kind of person, all we can do is urge Mr Bryce to take legal advice on any letters he sends to his Labour weekly Surely even Mr Bryce must, know that the whole question of the propriety of Mr Shand’s remarks turns on the question whether they would be actionable if said outside Parliament in circumstances in which they would not be privileged. That, of course, could be tested only in the courts. As no privilege attaches to anything printed in this column, we have not i allowed correspondents i to repeat Mr Shand’s assertions.' Only a person completely blinded by prejudice would regard either our handling of this correspondence or our leading article on the subject as a “defence” of Mr Shand.—Ed., “The Press.’’! I I Sir, —The law that permits (a member of Parliament to . attack an outsider, to any extent, with immunity, is an 1 evil one and should be re--1 pealed. A difficult task, I admit, which will take some organising to the extent at I getting a written pledge from •candidates at election time. It is time that such an i archaic law was wiped out —Yours, etc., HIRAM HUNTER. August 7, 1961. I Sir,—Being one of the disi tributors of the Rosenberg {pamphlet I find an increased j demand by the public for this | booklet and am of the belief that, as a result of Mr (Shand’s attack upon him, Mr Rosenberg is the best known economist among the people of New Zealand today.— Yours, etc.. JOHN FORSTER. 1 August 7, 1961. iC’Best known” is not, of course, synonymous with “most favourably known.’’ Ed., “The Press.’’!