FEEEDOM OF SPEECH

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 55, 6 March 1934, Page 9

FEEEDOM OF SPEECH

QUESTION OF SEDITION

(Special to the "Evening Post.") PALJIEESTON N"., This Day. Should men who have been convicted of seditious utterances in the city be ■ granted further permission to address public open-air meetings? How far j should the City Council co-operate with I the police in ensuring the peaceful nature of any public meetings held? These questions were debated at the meeting of the Palnierston North City Council last night, when advice was received from the senior-sergeant of police that the police strongly disapproved of permission being granted certain citizens to , conduct open-air meetings in the band rotunda in the Square. . i The works committee of the council suggested that it was the work of the police to take suitable action, if necessary. On the other hand at least two councillors contended that it was the duty of the council to assist the police, while others felt it would be better to let the persons in question "blow oiT steam," as that would do no harm. Councillor W. B. Cameron suggested that if a man had been convicted of seditious utterances ho should be beyond the sympathy of the council so far as seeking subsequent permission was concerned. He moved as an amendment to the works committee's recommendation that such persons be refused permission to speak, but the council voted against him.