FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 70, 24 March 1938, Page 10

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

REPLY TO COMPLAINT

GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE

CONDUCT OF MEETINGS

Pointing out that the Govern.men .lad far more to lose than its politica opponents from any refusal of , fre speech.or any stupid interference^witl Opposition meetings, the Minister ii Charge of the Police Department Cthn Kon, P. Fraser), in a statement issuei last night, had some comment to maki on remarks made by Mr. S. G. Holland M.P., during a speech at Cave a iev days ago, concerning the attitude o. the police towards the maintenance o: order at political meetings. Mr. Frasei said that democracy could only endure where there was freedom of speed and freedom of opinion. He said that Mr. Holland was re ported on Monday to have used the ' following words in reference to the police generally, and with, particulai reference to those on duty at meeting: addressed by him at Dunedin anc Timaru: "What are the police doing: They-have their instructions and they are. not allowed to remove a man from a meeting unless they have written instructions from the speaker beforehand. They came to me in Dunedin and asked me what I wanted them to do, r told them they knew their duty and should do it, and they replied that they had to have written instructions. I asked them if I hit the chairman on the nose would they wait until he recovered, and put it in writing before they could interfere?" Ii .Mr. Holland were correctly reported, said Mr. Fraser, his statement amounted to a grave reflection on the police as a whole, and on those who were. on duty at the meetings he addressed in Dunedin and Timaru in particular',, and, in addition, his remarks were as. uninformed as they were baseless. The Minister continued:— "If Mr. Holland meant to convey to \his audience and the public of New Zealand that instructions;.in regard to the maintaining of order at political meetings' have been issued to the police by the present-Government or by myself as ;Minister. in Charge of Police, then at the best he was circulating- a gross inaccuracy, and at the worst he was .guilty of -misrepresentation indulged .in for political purposes. "It is-quite true that the police have their instructions in regard to the maintaining of order at public meetings,- but these instructions were issued on October 17, 1928, by the then Commissioner of Police, acting under a- Reform Minister in Charge of Police m a Reform Government. They have been in force without alteration- under the United and National Governments, and are in operation without alteration or variation today. ' '". ''' . "The police carry out these instructions, which are based upon the law embodied in sections 3 and 6 of the Police Offences Act, 1927, without fear favour, or partiality, and they will continue to do so. The -efficiency with which the police "can carry out their duties in respect to a political meeting depends upon and is conditioned by the amount of authority vested in them by the promoters of the meeting. REMOVAL OF PERSONS. "The hall in which a meeting is held, if hired or otherwise used by the permission of the owner, is completely under the control of the hirer or..user so that he or his agent may remove or exclude any person at will. Persons who are requested to leave by either of them and refuse become trespassers, and ori a second request followed by refusal commit an offence. The police, if authorised by the proper person, may eject such trespassers. "The members of the police were definitely instructed by the Commissioner of Police on October 17, 1928, when a Reform Government was in office, and presumably with the knowledge and consent of the then Minister of Police, that: 'It is very desirable to obtain such written, authority before the meeting.' "The object in getting authority from the chairman of a meeting to eject persons disturbing the meeting is to protect the police in the execution of their duty. There should always be cooperation between the chairman of the meeting and the officer of police in charge of constables doing duty at these meetings. If is not for a sergeant or constable to say a certain individual is disturbing • the meeting— that is the duty of the chairman—he and he alone is the man to say if the .meeting is disturbed—he is in charge of it. A case is on record where the police on their own initiative prosecuted two men for disturbing a meeting; the chairman, after the matter cooled down, came to Court and said in his -opinion the meeting was not disturbed and the charges were dismissed, the Court holding that it had no alternative but to dismiss the informations on the chairman's evidence. "It is not advisable for a constable to put a person out of a political meeting without a direction fronv the chairman; The constable might speak to a hostile.interjector and warn him, but to eject' him by force without a request from the chairman may involve the constable in an action for assault. "If Mr. Holland argued with the police officer who interviewed him at the Dunedin meeting in the manner he described at Cave, then the exhibition of lack of elementary' knowledge concerning public meetings was pitiable in a member of Parliament. "But things were obviously not quite so bad at the Dunedin meeting as Mr. Holland made out to his listeners at Cave. Indeed, it would appear that the secretary'of the Otago and Southland Division of the National Party, Mr. Falconer,-who, I understand, was the organiser of the meeting, .knew his business much better than the visiting member of Parliament, for while Mr. Holland, according to himself, was arguing futilely on false premises, with little or no knowledge of the legal position, the former was sighing the requisite authority enabling the police to take necessary action in case of possible disturbance. That authorisation was contained in a letter to the superintendent of police, Dunedin, dated February 24, and reads: 'In response to your request, I have to advise that you have ths authority of this organisation to summarily eject any person or persons wilfully disturbing tonight's meeting in the Concert Chamber, Town Hall; but it is our desire that a reasonable amount of latitude be allowed.' APPRECIATION EXPRESSED. "In addition, and in spite of Mr. Holland's remarks on Saturday, the police who were on duty at his meeting in .Dunedin carried out their duties to the satistietion of both the chairman and the organiser of the meeting. The former, after the meeting, expressed his appreciation of the services rendered by the police, while the latter sent a letter of unqualified i approval of the police control of the : meeting to the superintendent of police < at Dunedin. The letter, which is : signed by Mr. A. S. Falconer as secre- ; tary of the Otago and Southland branch , of the New Zealand National Party, i reads: : • i

," 'I am instructed to write you expressing the appreciation of my chairman and committee of the excellent

control exercised over the meeting addressed by Mr. S. G. Holland in the Concert Chamber last evening. Such responsibilities are always difficult, but the admirable restraint and unostentatious action of the members of your detachment on the occasion of this meeting met with the unqualified approval of all associated with the org-anising of the function. May I ask that these sentiments be conveyed to those members of the force who were on, duty.' "It is quite clear from these facts that the members of the Police Force present at Mr. Holland's meeting in Dunedin not only did their duty, but did it well and to the complete satisfaction of the chairman ■ and the organiser of the meeting. POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP. "In face of this, Mr. Holland's reference to the matter at Cave on Saturday is inexplicable on grounds of fact and is only understandable as a unique example of political partisanship indulged in with the deliberate object of prejudicing the Government. The sooner Mr. Holland, and others actively- interested in politics, understand that it is unfair that the good name of the officers and men of the Police Force should be attacked or abused for party purposes, the better for all concerned. If any direct and definite charge of dereliction of duty is made against any member or members of the force it will be investigated immediately. "The Police Force have a duty to perform in keeping order at political meetings. They are carrying out that duty and will continue to carry it out. As I have not yet received an official report on Mr. Holland's Timaru meeting I cannot express any opinion regarding the attitude of the police on duty there, but I see no reason to believe that they would act any differently from the police at Dunedin. Mr. Holland's references to the Government and members of Cabinet are really beneath serious notice.

"The Government stands today, as it always has stood, for free speech and fair play, for political opponent as well as for political friend. The law for controlling public meetings will be enforced by the police in the future as it has been in the past and is being enforced now when the course I have indicated above is observed in accordance with the law by the promoters of meetings.

"The Government has far more to lose than its political opponents from any refusal of free speech or any stupid interference with Opposition meetings," concluded Mr. Fraser. "Its worst enemies, and the worst enemies of democracy, are those, no matter what political label they bear, who attend political meetings and refuse the, speaker of any party or shade"of opinion a fair hearing. Democracy can only endure where there is freedom of speech and freedom of opinion.

"As the national trustee of freedom of speech and freedom of opinion elected by the people under our democratic Constitution, the Government must and will continue to safeguard that fundamental principle of democracy. In my opinion, the law as it stands at present is ample to do this if the necessary co-operation is given to the police by the promoters of meetings, but should it be shown that the law requires strengthening this will be done. However, as it was considered sufficient under Reform, United; and National Governments, I have no doubt but that it will prove adequate now. The Commissioner of Police and his officers and men have the full support of the Government in enforcing the law." . '''■" , -.. I