LETTER CENSORSHIP

Evening Star, Issue 23492, 5 February 1940, Page 12

LETTER CENSORSHIP

NO BAN ON POLITICAL VIEWS [Per United Press Association.} February 4. The Deputy Prime Minister, Hon. Peter Fraser, stated to-night that, after reading a complaint regarding the censorship of private letters posted in New Zealand for overseas, he had made an immediate inquiry from the Controller of Censorship, who said, inter alia: “ Political opinions for or against the Government are of no interest to the censorship. I desire to say that the censorship is being conducted, as far as is practicable, in accordance with the British Government’s rules, and that the Government has not directed mo at any stage to have reference to political affairs eliminated from cable messages or letters.” Mr Fraser stated definitely that no instruction had been given by the Government about the censorship pf expressions of political opinions in letters, nor could he imagine circumstances in which any such action could be justified. In fact, such extreme and unwarranted interference would be an intolerable perversion of the intention of the censorship, and, if it had occurred, it was entirely opposed to the wishes and directions of the Government. [The complaint, as under, appeared in Saturday’s ‘ Dominion,’ an extract from a letter by a New Zealander in England to his mother here: — “ Both your letter and dad’s last week had been opened by the censor. Dad’s was untouched, but from yours both the top and bottom of - the last page had been removed. I lost about a page of it altogether—half on each side. I was furious when I saw it, because I knew why it had been done—annoyed naturally at losing part of the but much concerned at the reason for it. The last sentence left in was to the effect that Mr Peter Fraser might be the best member of the New Zealand Cabinet, but in the light of his actions that wasn’t saying much from your point of view. After the break was, ‘ enough of the sad state of affairs here.’ It is perfectly clear what was the gist of what went in between. The censors, no doubt, act on official instructions. Had a letter a few days earlier from a lady from which her commentary on the social security scheme was cut out. The censorship was imposed as we know for the safety of the State (which might bo endangered by the giving of information of military significance). To suggest that the security of the State is the same thing as the reputation of the party controlling the Government (which is to be maintained by the prevention of criticism) is unpleasantly significant—and the action of the Government can suggest nothing else—/although they may be too muddled to know what their action signifies). To apply such a connection is to accept one of the central principles of Nazism (or Fascism). In such a position 1 don’t think anyone who believes in democratic government can support the Labour Party till they show by their actions a respect for freedom. This petty interference with private letters is. of course, due to Now Zealand’s being ruled by half-educated men, I realise that as far as British censors are concerned I can say all this in perfect freedom, but if it gets into the hands of the New Zealand censors. . . . As far as I am concerned, nothing you have said could show me as clearly as this interference with mail that there is something radically wrong in New Zealand. I am sorry to have to dose this letter with this homily written under the recognition that there is more wrong in New Zealand than I had admitted before.”]