THE R.S.A. AND DEFENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 22773, 7 October 1937, Page 19

THE R.S.A. AND DEFENCE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr W. Dickinson says _ 1 “ seem to infer ” that he, Mr Dickinson, ‘‘ is opposed to defence, which is contrary to fact.” By way of proving this your correspondent says he is “ well aware of the discussion that took place at. the national conference of the New Zealand Labour Party .

. . and he knows that the Hon. Mark Briggs was cheered to the echo when he expressed spiritedly his views, which were definitely pacifist.” Then after he set out to prove that the Government is also strictly pacifist he says he stated in his letter that “ the Government was alive to the question of defence in so far as it had estimated to spend £585,000 more on defence than the previous Government.” Such paradoxical statements are enough to make the R.S.A. executive critical. The only satisfactory explanation I can find for that sort of talk is found in the policy speech of the Leader of the Australian Labour Party, who_ states: “ All Governments—all countries, and whatever their policy or label—profess to support international peace. All claim to be non-aggressive. All claim to be armed purely for defensive purposes. Not one admits a desire for war, but all are ready for participation in war. The Australian Labour Party exists primarily for the social uplift and .to promote the welfare of the great mass of the people, but, like every other party, it is confronted with the universal fact of preparation for war. It cannot ignore it. It does not now, nor has it ever in the past, attempted to ignore the facts of the world situation.” I submit that Mr Savage and even the Hon. Mark Briggs would subscribe to that statement, as they will to the fact that the Labour Party in Australia has identified itself with the following from that great commoner, W. E. Gladstone‘‘No community which is not primarily charged with the ordinary business of its own defence is really or can be in the full sense of the word a free community. The privilege of freedom and the burden of freedom are absolutely associated together. To bear the burden is as necessary as to enjoy the privilege, in order to form that character which is the great ornament of all freedom itself.”

Your correspondent seems to think that I, who since 1918 have been a member of the R.S.A., should tell him my name. It is enough for him to know that of all the letters I have received from officers and non-commissioned officers expressing goodwill there is none that I appreciate more than a complimentary letter from the present officer commanding the New Zealand forces whom I served under in France until such time as he left us to command an artillery company. While these officers I served under were pleased with mv wartime service they, I am sure, will appreciate my becoming modesty in not signing my name when ivriting as a member of the R.S.A. The R.S.A. has a right to criticise. Any nation that denies freedom to criticise, whether in public meetings, in Press correspondence. or organisations, is not demoand anyone who tries to stifle free discussion does not know the first principle of democracy, even if he (s an elected councillor.—l am, etc.. 4/153. October G.