OBNOXIOUS FREEDOM?

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 119, 16 November 1937, Page 8

OBNOXIOUS FREEDOM?

What the Prime Minister previously described as "all guesswork" —the report that the Government proposed introducing legislation to curb the Press—is confirmed by later reports that the Government, in spite of some difierence of opinion within the party, is determined to proceed with a Bill prohibiting unsigned reports, articles, or letters on political subjects. We have previously drawn attention to the claim of the Government, through the Hon. P. Fraser, who spoke as Acting Prime Minister, that freedom of speech and freedom of expression, "precious privileges of democracy," were "safer in the Government's hands than in those of our political opponents." What this safety amounts to and how far the precious privileges of democracy are really esteemed the public will be able to judge when acts are compared With words. The late Sir Alfred Robbins, a distinguished English journalist, wrote a few years ago that "the liberty of the Press" was one of those ideas to which a pinch of incense was offered to propitiate a really offended god, by those who in heart believed the idol to deserve overthrow. The cant should be stripped from thl3 pretended homage, for newspaper freedom is perpetually obnoxious to men in authority, and always Open to be fettered by those who love to exercise coercive powers through willing courts of law. It is surprising, nevertheless, to find the coercion proposed by a party which has posed as the great champion of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression; by a party which refuses lo impose a censorship on Communistic literature of violence and which sees in Russia onr defect—that the people do not hear all sides of an | argument. *j No good case has been made out for this discriminatory form of restriction. The Press, as any impartial judge would agree, has dealt fairly with the Labour Government in il? news columns, and in expressions of opinion has not gone nearly so far as Labour speakers and the Labour Press formerly went in criticism of non-Labour Administrations. Even members of the party have acknowledged the high standard of the New Zealand Press. The Hon. H. T. Armstrong, an outspoken Minister, said on his,return from his overseas tour: "Apart from their political views, which I naturally think are open to improvement, 1 have seen very few overseas* newspapers which are better than New Zealand's best." What then is the reason for imposing restrictions? Is it that the newspapers arc recording facts as they find them and opinions as they form them and neither the facts nor the opinions are wholly favourable to the Government? Speaking in Auckland in March the Prime Minister said; When people all over the country In their thousands show absolute approval of what we are doing, newspapers have no right to represent things otherwise. We will not stand for that without hitting back. And if I can't catch a man on the nose I'll punch him somewhere else. At that time the offence of the Press was that it permitted some views which were less than ''absolute approval" to be expressed. It did not record only the cheers and praise of the Government. Now it is to have the punch somewhere else. If the punch were a retaliation on the critics by the same method we would not complain. Labour has never been hesitant in denunciatory criticism, and the fault we "find is that a party which believes in punching does not like taking punishment. But there is much more than this in the action now proposed. It is not an answer to criticism but an attempt to suppress it. The Government is ill advised in listening to such plans. The threat must recoil upon the party making it. Even now business people are viewing the proposal with uneasiness. They see where it must lead, and of what policy of coercion and repression it is the first step. Just now it is the afonymous writer to the Press that is to be the subject of attack. But how were the policies of Hitlerism and Fascism brought into final form? Was not the greatest step seizure and control of all means by which criticism might be expressed and opposition r^de vocal—control of broadcasting, control and suppression of the Press,

the registration and licensing of journalists, the barring of critical foreign newspapers, and the expulsion of frank foreign writers? With opposition thus fettered the way was prepared for coercion of every other activity—for Hitlerism in its final form. Is it to be expected that a Government which takes a first step in coercion will stop at that?