THE PRIVILEGES OF SPEECH

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3152, 2 August 1917, Page 8

THE PRIVILEGES OF SPEECH

Sir,—The recent questions ashed by- an M.P. in tho House a few days ago about sons of citizens here and m- Dunedin seem to me to have most grossly abused the privilege of members. Apparently the grossest statements can be made inthe House by M.V.'s, and those abused have no legal redress. As Parliament ;a the highest law-making establishment, it surely can control the speeches made by members about those outside of Parliament. The M.P.'s about, whom gross statements may bo made in the House have the remedy in their own hands, or they can use a horsewhip. A lesson or two given by the abused or their relatives would have a good effect. Another phase of the same question arises where charges, are made by ono employee against another m civic matters The law of defamation requires that tho very words used by tho person making the charge must be mentioned in leal proceedings for defamation or tho proceedings fail, however gross or unwarranted tiio charges may be, as tno civic, or other authority before whom the chargo is made, can plead privilege. This law I agree with up to a certain point, but beyond that the privilege should not go, especially where the person is charged with an offence which Incomes known not only to, say, the Town Clerk, but also to all in the othce. Tho'person making such a emirge, without ascertaining from the person charged, tho truth or otherwise, is a most nnserablo aud contemptible coward. Unfortunately there are such in this community. The same thing applies to ft conspiracy where two persons conspire to make a charge against another, -thank Boodness, thero aro but few of. such miserablo cowards. It is high time, howover, the law was amended.—l am, etc., PKIVILEGE ABDSBD.