FREE SPEECH AND FAIR PLAY

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 152, 24 March 1938, Page 15

FREE SPEECH AND FAIR PLAY

Policy Of Government HON. P. FRASER REPLIES TO MR. S. G. HOLLAND Remarks concerning the attitude of the police to the maintenance of order at political meetings which were made by Mr. S. G. Holland, M.P., during a speech he delivered at a National Party gathering at Cave on Saturday were replied to in a statement issued last evening by the Minister in Charge of the Police Department, Hon. P. Fraser. Democracy, said the Minister, could only endure where there was freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. The Government had far more to lose, than its political opponents from any refusal of free speech or any stupid interference with Opposition meetings. Mr. Fraser said Mr. Holland was reported in Monday’s Press to have used •the following words in reference to the police generally and with particular reference to those on duty at meetings addressed by him at Dunedin and Timaru : “What are the police doing? They have their instructions and they are not allowed to remove a man from a meeting unless they have written instructions from the speaker beforehand. They came to me in Dunedin and asked me what I wanted them to do. I told them they knew their duty and should do it, and they replied that they had to have written instructions I asked them if I hit the chairman on the nose would they wait until he recovered and put it in writing before they could interfere?” If Mr. Holland were correctly reported, said Mr. Fraser, his statement amounted to a grave reflection on the police as a whole and on those who were on duty at the meetings he addressed in Dunedin and Timaru in particular, and, in addition, his remarxs were as uninformed as they were baseless. The Minister continued : — “If Mr. Holland meant to convey to his audience and the public of New Zealand that instructions in regard to the maintaining of order at political meetings have been issued to the police by the present Government .or by myself as Minister in Charge of Police, then at the best he was circulating a gross inaccuracy and at the worst he was guilty of misrepresentation indulged in for political purposes. Instructions Ten Years Old.

“It is quite true that the police have their instructions in regard to the maintaining of order at public meetings, but these instructions were issued on October 17, 1928, by the then Commissioner of Police, acting under a Reform Minister in Charge of Police in a Reform Government. They have been in force without alteration under the United and National Governments and are in operation without alteration or variation to-day.

“The police carry out these instructions, which are based upon the law embodied in sections 3 and 6 of the Police Offences Act, 1927, without fear, favour or partiality, and they will continue to do so. The efficiency with which the police can carry out their duties in respect to a political meeting depends upon and is conditioned by the amount of authority vested in them by the promoters of the meeting. “The hall in which a meeting is held, if hired or otherwise used by the permission of the owner, is completely under the control of the hirer or user so that he or his agent may remove or exclude any person at will. Persons who are requested to leave by either of them and refuse become trespassers, and on a second request followed by refusal commit an offence. The police, if authorised by the proper person, may eject such trespassers. Written Authority Needed.

“The members of the police were definitely instructed by the Commissioner of Police on October 17, 1928, when a Reform Government was in office, and presumably with the knowledge and consent of the then Mnlster of Police, that: ‘lt is very desirable to obtain such written authority before the meeting.’ “The object in getting authority from the chairman of a meeting to eject persons disturbing the meeting is to protect the police in the execution of their duty. There should always be co-op-eration between the chairman of the meeting and the officer of police in charge of constables ’doing duty at these meetings. It ii; not -for a sergeant or constable to say a certain individual is disturbing the meeting—that is the duty of the chairman—he and he alone is the man to say if the meeting is disturbed —he is in charge of it. A case is on record where the police on their own initiative prosecuted two men for disturbing a meeting; the chairman, after the matter cooled down, came to court and said in his opinion the meeting was not disturbed and the charges were dismissed, the court holding that it had no alternative but to dismiss the informations on the chairman’s evidence.

“It is not advisable for a constable to put a person out of a political meeting without a direction from the chairman. The constable might speak to a hostile interjector and warn him, but to eject him by force without a request from the chairman may involve the constable in an action for assault. “If Mr. Holland argued with the police officer who interviewed him at the Dunedin meeting in the manner he described at Cave, then the exhibition of lack of elementary knowledge concerning public meetings was pitiable in a member of Parliament. Application By Organiser. “But things were obviously not quite so bad at the Dunedin meeting as Mr. Holland made out to his listeners at Cave. Indeed, it would appear that the secretary of the Otago and Southland Division of the National Party, Mr. Falconer, who, I understand, watt the organiser of the meeting, knew his business much better than the visiting member of Parliament, for while Mr Holland, according to himself, was arguing futilely on false premises, with little or no knowledge of the legal position, the former- was signing the requisite authority enabling the police to take necessary action in case of possible disturbance. That authorisation was contained in a letter to the superintendent of police, Dunedin, dated February 24, and reads: ‘ln response to your request, I have to advise that you have the authority of this organisation to summarily eject any person or persons wilfully disturbing to-night’s meeting in the Concert Chamber, Town Hall; but it is our desire that a reasonable amount of latitude be allowed.’ “In addition, and in spite of Mr. Holland’s remarks on Saturday, the police who were on duty at. his meeting in Dunedin carried out their duties to the satisfaction of .both the chairman and the organiser of the meeting. The former, after the meeting, expressed his appreciation of the services rendered by the police, while the latter sent a letter of unqualified approval of the police control of the meeting to the superintendent of police at Dunedin. The letter, which is signed by Mr. A. S. Fal-

coner as secretary of the Otago and Southland branch of the New Zealand National Party, reads: “ ‘I am instructed to write you expressing the appreciation of my chairman and committee of the excellent control exercised over the meeting addressed by Mr. S. G. Holland in the Concert Chamber last evening. Such responsibilities are always difficult, but the admirable restraint and unostentatious a’ction of the members of your detachment on the occasion of this meeting met with the unqualified ap proval of all associated with the organising of the function. May I ask that these sentiments be conveyed to those members of the force who were on duty.’ Duty Well Done. “It is quite clear from these facts that the members of the police force present at Mr. Holland’s meeting in Dunedin not only did their duty, but did it well and to the complete satisfaction of the chairman and the organiser of the meeting. “In face of this, Mr. Holland’s reference to the matter at Cave on Saturday is inexplicable on grounds of fact and is only understandable as a unique example of political partisanship indulged in with the deliberate object of prejudicing the Government. The sooner Mr. Holland, and others actively interested in politics, understand that it is unfair that the good name of the officers and men of the police force should be attacked or abused for party purposes, the better for all concerned. If any direct and definite charge of dereliction of duty is made against any member or members of the force it will be investigated immediately. “The police force have a duty to perform in keeping order at political meetings. They are carrying out that duty and will continue to carry it out. As I have not yet received an official report on Mr. Holland’s Timaru meeting I cannot express any opinion regarding the attitude of the police on duty there, but I see no reason to believe that they would act any differently from the police at Dunedin. Mr. Holland’s references to the Government and members of Cabinet are really beneath serious notice. Law Will Be Enforced. “The Government stands to : day, as it always has stood, for free speech and fair play, for political opponent as well as for political friend. The law for controlling public _ meetings will be enforced by the police in tlie future as it has been in the past and is being enforced now when the course I have indicated above is observed in accordance with the law by the promoters of meetings. “The Government has far more to lose than its political opponents from any refusal of free speech or any stupid interference with Opposition meetings,’’ concluded Mr. Fraser. “Its worst enemies, and the worst enemies of democracy, are those, no matter what political label they bear, who attend political meetings and refuse the speaker of any party or shade of opinion a fair hearing. Democracy can only endure where there is freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. “As the national trustee of’freedom of speech and freedom of opinion elected by the people under our democratic constitution, the Government must and will continue to safeguard that fundamental principle of democracy. In my opinion, the law as it stands at present is ample to do this if the necessary co-operation is given to the police by the promoters of meetings, but should it be shown that tlie law requires strengthening this will be done. However, as it was considered sufficient under Reform, United and National Governments, I have no doubt but that it will prove adequate now. Tlie Commissioner of Police and his officers and men have the full support of the Government in enforcing the law.”