RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 106, 31 October 1941, Page 4

RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE

SERVICE APPEALS

R.S.A. DISCUSSION

FAIR PLAY ATTITUDE

"I sincerely hope that you will not pass this motion. I think that if you do pass it, the very high reputation the R.S.A. has for fair play to every section of the community will suffer," declared the Dominion president of the New Zealand Returned Services Association (the Hon. W. Perry, M.L.C.) yesterday afternoon, when the Dominion council of the organisation had before it a recommendation of a sub-committee set up to consider remits dealing with conscientious objectors and other matters affecting the fighting forces. This was as follows:—"That it be a recommendation to the Dominion council that the N.Z.R.S.A. do not recognise the objector to military service on conscientious grounds and that suitable service should be found for such persons within the Armed Forces." After a long debate, during which sharply con-, flicting views were expressed, the motion was rejected by an overwhelming majority. "I am astounded at any body of returned men bringing forward" stfeft a remit," said Mr. W. E. Leadley (Wellington). "It is waving the big stick with a vengeance." Voices: Quite rightly, too. One of the things they were fighting for was freedom of speech, action, thought, and conscience, said Mr. Leadley, yet the remit declared that no man had the right to think that war was wrong. He had no time for the conscientious objector,, but he recognised that there were genuine cases. "We have to be careful to see that in our enthusiasm for winning the ■< war we do not destroy those very principles for which we are fighting," he added. Mr. M. W. Cummins (Wellington) said that they were fighting for their very existence, and any individual who did not think so should be convinced of the true position. If the war were lost, the conscientious objector would not be allowed to have even a conscience. There were hundreds of jobs for such men in the Armed Forces while others went overseas to do their duty. "POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY." Dr. A. W. Owen-Johnston (Invercargill) criticised the granting of the right of conscience to th.c individual in such a time of crisis as a matter of political expediency, which was totally wrong. The country was being organised on an' all-out basis, and everything should be directed to the one purpose, the winning of the war. How many were appealing today on conscientious grounds in England, wher-e civilians were in the front line as much as the soldiers? Why should a small minority be allowed to interfere with the war effort? "I think that the man who considers the protection of his conscience more precious than the protection of his country is not worth considering at all; nor is the man who refuses to serve the organised society in which he lives worth any consideration," Dr. Owen-Johnston added. "Personally, I think the conscientious objector is mentally defective, but we have to recognise his right of appeal," said Major-General Sir Andrew Russell. The thing to consider was how conscientious objectors could be used in helping to win the war. It was all very well to impose the prescribed penalties on such men, but the proposed step was going too far altogether, and it would be a great pity if it were approved. Another delegate said that he and other returned men of the last war had conscientiously objected to taking life, but they had seen their duty and gone overseas. - Mr. H. McCormick (Wellington) said that the paramount question was certainly the winning of the war, but to devote themselves to that to the exclusion of thinking of the post-war period would only produce the same situation twenty years hence. Conscientious objectors should not get ! away with doing nothing for the war effort, but if a man were genuine in his views—and that could be determined fairly accurately by the appeal boards—those views should be respected. There were plenty of non-combatant jobs in the Army, said Mr. N. H. Colquhoun (Oamaru). He had yet to Ibe convinced that there was such a person as a genuine conscientious objector. "A CONSCIENCE RACKET." "If these appeals run into thousands, I suggest that it will be not conscientious' objection but a conscience racket," said Mr. A. P. Postlewaite (Auckland). Mr. C. O. Bell (Wellington) said that after long experience of such cases it was his considered opinion that there were conscientious objectors who were definitely genuine. Their right of appeal was recognised throughout British countries, and to pass the motion before the meeting would be a serious retrograde step for the association. Mr. Perry said that they were proud of the British Empire and its institutions, the best of which had been founded upon respect for the light of conscience. In the last-war and this the tribunals set up for the purpose had found that there were some men who were genuine in their views. There were those who held the belief that to kill in war was breaking the Laws of Christ. There was a clergyman in Wellington, a Christian Pacifist, who had served four years in the last war, and. said Mr. Perry, he was satisfied that that man would rather be crucified than bear arms again. Surely he was entitled to have freedom of his conscience. THE REAL JOB. There could not be complete equality of sacrifice, Mr. Perry continued. Some people were afraid that the conscientious objector was not making the sacrifice that he should, but over recent months the whole question in New Zealand had claimed a degree of publicity far out of proportion to its real importance. The thing was to get on with the real job—that of winning' the war as quickly as possible. He hoped the R.S.A. would not give the impression that it also had been caught up in the hysteria over conscientious objectors, but would show the public that it could keep its head. (Applause.) "If this remit is passed I, as one of the executive, will have no part in implementing it," said Mr. C. W. Batten (Wellington). The recommendation was then put to the meeting and overwhelmingly rejected. _ _ On the motion of Mr. W. E. Earnshaw (Dunedin), it was decided to urge that where men refused or failed to report when called up for combatant or non-combatant service their names should be promptly gazetted as defaulters and the penalties prescribed rigidly enforced- and that, in addition, they

should be deprived of their civil rights for ten years.

The increase in the number of appeals on conscientious grounds and. the cumbersome and slow method of dealing with those objectors after decision by the appeal boards were viewed with alarm. It was recommended that those whose appeals were allowed should be directed to appear before the one-man tribunals for the fixing of alternative service, that where genuine appellants were willing to give non-combatant service such service should be immediately entered upon, and that where appeals were dismissed the decision of the appeal boards should stand and the necessary action be taken by the military authority.

It was also urged that the hearing of appeals before the one-man tribunals be open to the Press and the findings published, and that all persons' refusing to affirm their loyalty to the Crown be debarred from employment by the Government and local bodies, and all employees at present in such services refusing to affirm their loyalty be dispensed with immediately. The latter remit, it was emphasised, was not intended as a reflection upon civil servants and local body employees generally.