LOYALTY-TRUE AND BOGUS

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 50, 28 August 1922, Page 3

LOYALTY-TRUE AND BOGUS

h- LOGICAL INTIMIDATION?

'■ DEFENCE OF DEBATING t

. SOCIETIES.

TO TUB IDITOR,

Sir,—When the' potter thumped the wet clay in the Rubaiyat, its " all obliterated tongue" is alleged to have murmured, " Gently, brother, gently, pray!" To onr Mr. Potter's fearful thumps in the direction of the old clay patch, I gay tho same, not with the same reason, however, for Mr. Potter's frantic thumps utterly fail to i impress their intended object. His attempt is just What one would expect of a House where a member sliimbeife during a dejr bate, then suddenly wakes'up and replies to arguments. !■ His letter proves one thing only, that he is a consummate master of that, great fundamental principle of modern propaganda expressed by the Bellman in the "Hunting of the Sriark " •': "What I say three times is true!" By dint of totally ignoriig our argument's, and then loudly wrangling j with a few dummy arguments dragged in by himself, he manages to feel that he Jias effectively gassed what he is pleased' to call the "immature and-irresponsible undergraduate intellect.". ' • . Let .us see how the mature and responsible Parliamentary, intellect works! The Debating Society passes a resolution that " insistence • upon external symbols of loyalty retards rather than ; assists true patriotism." Note the word v" insistence." Note also that the patriotism considered is " true ". patriotism,;' not any inferior substitute. ; Mr. Potter' fails to notice these little details, and twists the resolution into meaning that the college is, as he "puts .it, " up ! against " the British flag, the oath of allegiance, and tHe National Anthem ! Well, that is a feat of .logic Mr. Potter would never have had the hardihood to tackle had he any: experience of a debating society — ra debating society, that is, where the debates depend: on the value of the arguments, and not on the cracking of J party whips. ' '• . <Does Mr. Potter see no difference at all between necessary: symbols of loyalty and the, misuse of those symbols?. Does j he think' it altogether, above question that patriotism suffers no injury from the cheapening and vulgarising of the things that are used to express loyalty? Who can see much moral value in an oath that is reduced to a mere formality and vexatjously exacted from a body of Public servants . whose loyalty has always been above question? .And .how much respect can remain for the National Anthem when, for instance, it is used at the commencement of election meetings for the sole purpose of casting odium upon % section of the public that objects to such age as an impertinence? Would a 'member of Parliament retain his. reverence towards the' National Anthem if it were , demanded from him, under threat of denunciation for disloyalty, before he could enter' Bellamy's? It looks very much as if we 'were gradually reaching the stage where every T.om, Dick, and Ha^ry will have the right to impose some external expression of loyalty lor his,own particular satisfaction. And the war is not 80 far past that we cannot remember the ulterior motives which underlay so many ostentatious displays of " loyalism.." The symbols and ceremonies in question have a great value, is their .proper time and, place (even if it be only to tell " movie fans" when ,to put their hats on and go home); but when they are strained, they Jose in dignity, and when they are made to serve purposes other than ( patriotism, they become obnoxious. So much bogus patriotism \ has been able to pass muster by, the aid of ''external symbols " and empty professions that it is almost,a public duty to seek a revaluation of the .whole system—a' duty, however, obvions only to those who have no, stomach, for cant and no head for believing mere, external evidences to be sufficient proof of interior patriotism. To ,«ay that the Debating Society: presumes to " demand '-'• anything at all, however, is to;enlarge its present activities. For/ another example of the workings of this mature' mind, take the following from '■ Mr. Potter. Because the society passes the resolution already to, therefore it considers; all' ".external symbol*" of loyalty wrong; because the International Socialist holds such a view, therefore the Debating' Society shares in the opinions of the International Social-' is,t; and because the International Socialist '■ " 9 ut for, the disinemberme'nt of the. British Empire," therefore; the Debating Society is out for—what? The conclusion which; this punning, oblique method points to is left to the imagination—a direct appeal.to the stupidity of the 'wooden-headed. By this. simple means, any, expression of opinion whatever can be made to appear; dangerous. Who will be safe if the practice becomes general of linking up any individual opinion with all the people who hold,that opinion and with all the opinions those people hold, and so on, and so on, until the most innocent belief colours as red as the hobß of hell ? : This is simply logical,intimidation, the most stupid but most easily wielded weapon in the armoury of modern intolerance. Applied to .the Debating Society, it means that the members must strictly, limit their freedom of discussion under pain of be-' ing anathematised and misrepresented.by Mr. Potter! :: '■. .. .■'■.'. •„ .

Mr. Potter will be overjoyed to learn' that Mr. Haigh arid myself, so far from declaring for the adoption of Socialism, were actually the leaders for the college in opposition to Mr.' Fraser and his seconder. . It was hardly worth Mr. Potter's while to. look up the newspaper report/ of this debate (7th August), or he would not have made the mistake of accusing us of -sentiments suitable for soap-boxes. As it is, he drags in the soap-boxes merely to tumble over titem himself! The society did not succeed in carrying the negative of the resolution on that occasion, for the simple reason that it wag outclassed^ I am not going to explain the fact away. There is no need to; the' debate's: the .•thing,, and, as I have already pointed out, the show of hands at the finish . merely' a device ,to .'■ stimulate • the debaters and lend a sporting interest to the proceedings. Further, to give Mr. Fraser. such a lurid character as, Mr. Potter does is to ask us to fly in the face of our own experience of him. ,In debating with us he has invariably stuck closely to : the point at issue, and handled it in a gentlemanly and reasonable manner, so that we are not disposed to accept any second-hand evidence designed -to discredit him. Similavly as to Mr. Brindle, whose .culture' is, a matter for1 admira-' tib'n. . In ■ any ; case,' .Mr, Fraser ' holds the honoured position of member of Parliament; and Mr. Potter himself debates with him. Are better credentials necessary ? ■ ' ■ ' . j ■ : '

In view of the manner in which Mr. Potter's mature intellect works, I am not surprised thai- lie considers it extraordinary that the Debating Society should " debate questions of social and political controversy, and always by large 'majorities take the extremist view." For exatn-ple, the last meeting actually declared itself in favour of Prohibition ! That either disposes of Mr. Potter's sweeping " always " or else places the tea party in quite a new light; As a matter of fact, the'expression '*ex^ tremist " must be taken, in a Pickwickian sense, as meaning the side Mr. Potter

would automatically, as a matter of pure habit, refuse to take. And', as a further matter oi, fact, the negativing of a motion does'not mean that its extreme is approved, of; it ssimply means that the affirmative has not been sustained by Sufficient strength of argument. For instance, to oppose Socialism is not to defend Capitalism. The latter is as extreme as the former. A middle' stand is not only possible,., but extremely reasonable. ' ,'■'■'•

Mr. Potter's concern over the " abolition of Parliament" debate is too much of a joke to be taken seriously. One of these'days, however, he may awake to find Parliament abolished by Order in Council, which appears :to be a much greater thing. 'Varsity students then will have no cause to blaspheme its sacred slumbers. ' At the present moment it seems fearfully funny and tremendously typical of the unreality of Mr. Potter's whole .case to see him trying to raise the scare that Parliament stands in danger from Victoria Colleg* Very few people speak with reverence of Parliament, but Mr. Potter must not forget that the Debating Society is.composed largely of law students (not teachers !), whose profession not only requires them to discuss all sorts of ticklish questions, but also gives: them a personal interest in the mountains of paper which Parliament constructs each session.

I wonder how far back Mr. Potter went to reach tho astonishing conclusion that " antipathy to existing; society is chronic with the Debating Society "'. He instances only three debates, remember, and quite passes over the fact tnat they are purely academic. If he goes far enough'back, he will find years in which the society just barely kept going, for the'simple reason that its members were giving practical proof of their patriotism a long way away from Molesworth street. I will not venture to say how the society would respond to another call of the kind, for hp-loyalty is of negative value in the 'Varsity. Instead,: byway of finish to this wearisome business, let me say with the poet that—', ; , -The right to be a cussed fool "/■■■■ Is .safe from all devices, human.

We will not deny Mr. Potter his right, if it serves his purposes. But we will deny him any right to interfere with our society on no firmer ground than that provided by a megs of intemperate nonsense..—l am, etc., _, •

P. J. G. SMITH. Victoria University College, i ' 26th August.