BAN ON BOOKS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 81, 2 October 1929, Page 12

BAN ON BOOKS

OBJECTIONS IN HOUSE

THE CENSORSHIP BOARD

NECESSITY QUESTIONED

Objection was raiied by. members of the Labour Party when the Customs Department estimates were under disc^.' sion in the House of Bepresentatives last night against the principle of i' board being constituted, at an annual cost of £100, to pass judgment on lit^ erature coming into the Dominion through the Customs. . ;

gard to the censorship of literature and questioned whether it was really necessary. Personally he said he had neyer_ D een able to regard the Censorship Board very seriously, and he did J£»t the members of the board treated themselves seriously. He asked whether the cost was justified. Mr. We. Barnard (Labour, Napier) asked what guided the members of the • n at their decision..Personally he did not like the idea of a censorship of literature, and he hoped the practice, which had grown up dur™g the war, would not be made too The Eev. Clyde Can- (Labour, Timaru) deprecated the possible suppression of truth by the members of the board, merely because their personal susceptibilities were offended l>v matter appearing in some of the books that vcame before them. ■ AN ECONOMY. Mr. Fraser suggested that economy' might be practised by abolishing the expenditure involved in the work of the board. He was not aware of any real good the board had done. If really obscene books were "sold, a more economical method would be to fine thosa who sold them, and to abolish the board. Mr. E. A. Wright (Beform, Wellington Suburbs) said if that were done the police would have to act as censor Mr. Barnard: "No, the Magistrate." Mr. Wright: "Somebody has got to act as censor." - Mr. Carr: "Educate the people and make them their own censor." Mr. Wright said it would not be fair to put the onus on the booksellers. Mr. Fraser: "Are we paying £100 a year to protect the booksellers?" Mr. Wright: "We are paying it to ! protect the young people in the com-• community." Mr. Fraser: "Oh rubbish." MINISTER AS ARBITER. , The Minister of Customs (the Hon. W. B. Taverner) expressed surprise that Mr. Fraser, who was a man of great discrimination, had taken exception'to the work of the board, which, he thought, performed its duties in' a proper and right manner. If for any; reason the members of the board were unable to agree, or if there was any doubt as to procedure, the book or document concerned was submitted to him as Minister. (Laughter.) ■■ If any - one would say indecent literature should come into the country without restriction, that man did not know what he was talking about. Mr. Barnard: "We have the laws of the country."

Mr. Tavern or agreed, but askedwhether any responsible person -would suggest there should be free and unrestricted entry for anything that was printed anywhere, and that all literature should be sold and the vendor prosecuted if he' was caught. There was no civilised country in "the world that he knew of which did not adopt some form of censorship. The provisions of the Act related firstly to indecent documents, and secondly to documents which incited and encouraged violence, lawlessness, etc., or expressed seditious views. Ho submitted that that was a fairly wide definition. No one having the welfare of tho country at heart would suggest that tho restrictions should be removed. If members would call on him privately he would show them some of the documents and newspapers that were .ruled upon. • : - Mr. G. E. Sykes (Reform, Masterton): "A fair offer." .

Mr. Taverner said if members perused some of the books they would agree it was a good job for every one. that restrictions were imposed. The restrictions were not so tight as to ba oppressive.

Mr. Fraser suggested that the 'Minister should be the censor instead of: a board. . . . '■

The Hon. W. Downio Stewart (Keform, Dunediu West) said the board, was empowered to prevent certain classes of literature from coming into New Zealand. The board did not act as a general censor of literature, but merely took action when cases were referred to them for decision,. If anybody objected -to the decision of the board, he could take the book to a Magistrate, whose decision was final. The rights of the public were being respected in every way. '..':.■ A MATTER OF DICTATION., The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said Mr. Stewart had confined himself to indecent .literature, but no one was advocating the 'dissemination of that. What was objected to was the banning of historical and political works. He did not want anybody to dictate to him. as to tho'class of literature which he should read. If they were going to ban such books, then there were hundreds of books on the shelves of the ParliamentaryLibrary which should also be banned.'

Mr. Stewart said that Mr. Holland had drawn attention to various-books which had been removed from the.censorship by the board. The only restrict tion was that books must not be import* ed which advocated violence.-The Board acted as an adviser to the Customs Department, and did not exercise a cen» sorship. If anyone was dissatisfied with the decisions of the board'it-could take the matter to Court. : :

Mr. Holland said that books dealing! with a political party in Eussia wera banned. He objected to .that, 'even'if. he did not agree with the'views es> pressed. * Knowledge was the greatest thing, that could come into their lives*' and they should not be denied'access to what they wanted to read. .-■'.' ' '

Mr. Taverner said that certain works by Trotsky, Lenin, and other Euesian wirters were not banned, so it could not be said the country was mot getting up-to-date literature. (Laughter.) Ha believed the restrictions were administered in a light and proper manner.