EARTHQUAKE’S PART

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20628, 2 December 1941, Page 2

EARTHQUAKE’S PART

OPINIONS OF OBJECTOR EVIDENCE BEFORE BOARD Basing his appeal on grounds of conscientious objection, an employee of the Napier Harbour Board, Keith Bruce Thompson, stated to the No. 4A Armed Forces Appeal Board in Napier that he had adopted his present opinions immediately following, and as a result of the 1931 earthquake. His appeal was dismissed. “The dictates of my conscience have been against all type of military service,” said appellant. The 1931 earthquake had turned his heart toward serving the living and the true God, he said. He was prepared to render any service he could under civil control, and where he would not be required to sign away his rights of freedom of conscience. War was no good to any nation. The chairman, Mr. H. B. Lusk: Don’t think we do not agree with that. Appellant added that the Red Cross was just as much a piece of the military machine as a soldier. Mr. Lusk: Would you rather, see a man wounded by the sword, die, than assist him?

Appellant: If I made that man fit I would be encouraging him to go back to the war.

Mr. Lusk: So you would rather see him die? —I have a heart, sir.

Questioned further, appellant said that he had been with the Boy Scout movement for 12 years, but he had not found Christianity there. The Crown representative, Mr. J. S. Wauchop: What is religion? Appellant: Faith in God. Do you consider you are leading a Christian life if you had that faith and shut yourself up in a cave?—lf circumstances of the world forced me, yes.

Have you paid your national security tax?—Yes, it is compulsory. Can’t you see that by paying that you are part of the organisation? Why don’t you be a man and refuse to pay that if you won’t have anything to do with the military machine? —I was going to write to the Income Tax Department and ask them if they would allow me to refuse to pay it due to my conscientious objection. Would the department allow me not tc pay it? Mr. Lusk: I can answer that for you. They will not. Appellant said he had not been to theatres since the earthquake, did not drink or smoke, and had never been on a racecourse in his life.

Mr. Wauchop: You are a bit in the cave already. I will ask you a question that has been asked so often. Would you protect your mother if she was being attacked, and if you had a gun in your hand?—l would never have a gun in my hand. Well, if it was a club? —That would be a bit brutal, too. Well, if you had a wand, what then? —I could not take life. I love my mother, and I would do anything for her. If I killed I would be answerable to God.

Would not God forgive the killing if you protected a woman who was being outraged?—No. Evidence regarding appellant’s opinions was given by Robert John Thompson, his brother.