FREEDOM OF OPINION

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 12, 14 July 1945, Page 6

FREEDOM OF OPINION

Sir, —In a recent debate Mr. A. E. Armstrong (Government, Napier) said that the Government's proposal to take control of the Bank of New Zealand had given business interests, as represented by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand, "an opportunity to throw misleading, cowardly, and filthy propaganda throughout our Tory newspapers from the North Cape to the Bluff." This is most interesting, considering a large proportion of the propaganda and editorial comment to which he refers takes the form of revivals of past speeches on this issue made by prominent Government members. . . Presumably Mr. Armstrong is in agreement with freedom of speech and of the Press, or is his party's cacoethes so strong that their shibboleth "Socialisation of the means of production, distribution, 'and exchange" is to be extended to include the suppression of news and comment unfavourable to the Government? There will, of course, be some unkind enough to point out that if "control" of news and opinion in the Press was no more effective than the control and Socialisation of the means of producing coal and catching fish—in which cases there have been few distribution or exchange problems—then there would be little to worry about. However, the principle is still important. It would seem to the writer that the Government went to extraordinary lengths in denying the veracity of statements expressed by a resident of this country in a letter to the London "Daily Mail." Whilst not agreeing with the principle of writing such a letter to an overseas newspaper, or with their action in printing it, the upheaval which it caused serves well to illustrate the Government's extreme sensitiveness to criticism. Another of Mr. Armstrong's extraordinary assertions was to the effect that Messrs. Holland and Doidge had been called home "by the financial people in Britain in order to get their instructions." Although this is a calumny, unworthy of the most partisan oratory, so far the British Government does not seem to have found it necessary to set the cables humming with frenzied refutations.

Whilst it is true newspapers throughout New Zealand are printing articles and advertisements' critical of Government policy "on various issues, they have also freely published letters and reports of speeches in full by persons with opposite viewpoints. Is it to be interpreted from the Government's acute sensitiveness to criticism that control over ■ the "production of opinion" is to be part of the gradual advance towards the "new order"? It would be well to bear in mind that millions have dedicated their lives in the present conflict that freedom of action, of speech, and of the Press may live. It is for us to ensure their sacrifice was not in vain.—l am, etc., " ■'■ ■ VERITAS.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. T.M.—Parts of letter indecipherable. "Heart Attack." —The matter is being brought to the notice of the authorities. "Kahuri." —We think the point is Indicated in the original correspondence. J.M.—Thank you for item.