CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 41, 16 February 1918, Page 4

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

MR. HOLLAND'S REPLY TO THE

PRIME MINISTER

Mr. H. E. Holland furnishes the following 6tatement:— . ■ .

I had hoped that the Prime Minister would make some .endeavour to offer an explanation of the fact 6 furnished by me in my last statement. But he has not done so. It is unfortunate that Mr. Maseey is completely. silent on the matter of conscientious objectors being subjected to two or three sentences for the one offence, although he at first denied that more than one sentence could be inflicted. He is ateo ominously silent about the cruelties which were inflicted on the conscientious objectors on the" transport and in Sling. Camp. He now flies off at another tangent, and argues that "these men are not conscientious objectors, but soldiers of the Expeditionary Force, 1' etc. I have known some of the men—particularly Messrs. Ballantyne and Briggs—for a number of years, ■and they are not only conscientious objectors themselves, but both of them belong to families that have long years j held pronounced views_ on militarism. Mr. Massey seems to think that the possession of a conscientious principle is a matter to be determined by Act of Parliament or War Regulation. For the first three centuries of the Christian era "the Christians generally held' similar views to those held by the Christian conscientious objectors of, to-day; and the rulers of ; that period took much the same view that Mr. Massey and his Government take to-day. Then the conscience men (and women) were flung to the lions or nailed to the cross.. -Mr. Massey makes a law which refuses to the Catholic, the Anglican, the Presbyterian, the Methodiet, the Salvationist, or the Socialist, the right to hold 9 conscientious objection to military service;, and, haying made his law, he then pronounces its victims "conscienceless." I can .appreciate the difficulty > which he must necessarily experience in the.more, thoughtful of his own supporters to see it that way. But can Mr. Massey. explain the apparent contradiction of two of his statements? In the first denial he said: "There were five ot these men who stated they were conscientious and religious objectors. These latter were not compelled- to wear uniform, and were not sent to France.": .1 furnished facts in my last statement which completely disposed of this assertion. In his second statement Mr. Massey tells us: ■'■'These men are not conscientious objectors," and he terms them "these.so-called religious, conscientious, and Socialist objectors." Will he then tell us how it came, that, as he first alleged, five of them were treated ac conscientious' objectors if none of them were conscientious objectors? Will ho also explain the. discrepancy, between his first statement, which was clearly to the effect that, only some of them' were compelled to. dress in uniform, and for the sole reason that their civilian outfits were condemned by the medical officer because they "would not observe ordinary cleanliness," and Sir James Allen's statement which is in effect that "no promise was ever made . . . that 'the men would not be forced to wear uniforms"—thft implication being, of course, that it'was all along intanded to compel them to wear uniform. In,my speech no reference was made to any promise about a uniform, but only about persecution. However, it is for the Ministers to tell us whose statement is correct. I notice Sir James Allen says: "The I Defence Department knew as much about ! these men as it knew about any other soldier that was embarked and reached the other end." He.adds that it is impossible to keep a record, here of every man's movements. If this is so, it >is weighty proof of the need for great departmental changes. Fourteen men and boys with conscientious, objections are forcibly carried from New Zealand ; they are subjected to treatment born of the spirit of Diocletian; some of them are taken in irons to France; three of them •—one of them a boy of between 21 and 22~-are forced 'to the firing line: their mothers are.almost frahtio with anxiety and grief, and for months the Department tells them it can give them no information as to the fate of their boys. Why was it left to; some of the mothers to learn from private sources— as they have learnt this week—that their boys have been court-martialled' and sentenced to five years' hard labour. The three sent to the firing line were Messrs. Ballantyne, Little, and Baxter —and • these are the tne® whohave been sentenced. Mr. Ballantyne is in a military prison in France, and the others are also in prison, either in France or England. I submit that the Prime Minister's sneer about "the broken-hearted mothers" will not satisfy the men and women of 'New Zealand, who, whatever their political attitude or their views oh militarism, love justice. One of the things they will want to know is why these men and boys are not brought back to New Zealand. It'seems to me that there is no language in which could be adequately expressed the regret and resentment which every fair-minded person must have felt on reading the letter (alleged to^ have come from the parent of an objector) put into print by' the- Prime. Minister with the only possible object of 'besmirching the parents of the fourteen deported objectors. I would urge that the -people have a right to expect from the Prime/ Minister a higher conception of -what he owes to his office—a higher regard for the dignity of his position— than to permit the anger of an ill-advis-ed moment to induce him to offer for publication such an alleged communication, and to offer it without the name of the alleged author. The parents of such of the conscientious objectors as I am personally acquainted with are as highly respectable, and as deeply respected by those who know them, as any member of Mr. Massey's Cabinet, ■and would neither be guilty of penning such a- letter as the one referred to, nor of putting it into print if it happened to fall into their hands..