RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.

Grey River Argus, 15 February 1929, Page 5

RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.

COUNCILLORS’ DEBATE Narrow Majority. FOR PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON RUSSIA. Besides lengthy discussions upon such old favourite themes as the erection of signs, etc,, etc., the attention of Borough Councillors was Engaged for quite a considerable period last evening upon what proved to be an even mpre contentious matter, namely whether it was advisable to allow a certain resident of Nelson Creek tG address the citizens of Greymouth upon the subject of Soviet Russia.

The Mayor, Mr J. W. GX'enslade, mentioned cnat they discussed the matter in committee and had been Unable to agree. The application to deliver the address was made by Mr R. Griffin, ot Nelson Creek, who has recently returned from a visit to Russia. Cr. J. McGinley moved that the application bo refused. Cr S. B. White seconded. Cr J O’Brien said that the motion seemed be against the right of tree speech. did not know Mr Griffin, but if he said anything ridiculous, then the people uc was addressing would deal with him. He (Mr Griffin) had a perfect right to sp ’ak. He presumed that his language would be couched in the usual tone. He thought it would be a great mistake if the! Council were to refuse him the right to sj!?ak at all- They did not know what h" was going to talk about and he did not think it right for them to refuse him, permission. He pointed out that there were three dictatorships in Europe now—namely m Italy, Sprin and Russia. Two weru opposed to Russia, and surely a man had a right to express his views on behalf of the one. Personally he did noit hdTd with either one of the dictatorships. Cr R. J. Williams: Or even in tb» Labour Party!

Cr O’Brien: I don’t hold with any kind of dictatorship. The one safety valve we had, he said, was free speecn and if they refused the application tßjy would have no right to free /speech, and any individual who desired to do fief would be deprived of the right of hearing about Italy, Spain or Russia, and the various philosophies of those countries. Candidly he did not think either of them wLre suitable to them.

In reply tq Cr White, the Mayor stated that the usual procedure was for an outline of the subject to be d*alt with to be given in such cases.

Cr F. A. Kitchingham moved that no action be taken in the matter. This was the course taken by the Council, he said, when the Prohibition Party and Liquor Party applied for permission to give addresses at street corners and it had been followed on other occasions. He had always taken the same stand in that respect. He contended that no objection should be raised so long as a man kept within the four corners of the law. (Hear hear). The law provided sufficient means to reach men who caused obstruction to traffic or advocated violence or sedition. It was not fair for him to censor a speech he knew nothing about. It might be one of the blood curdling sort oy as mild as fresh milk. They should not display any partisanship, no matter whether they disapproved of the subject} of the address or not.

Cr O’Brien said he had great pleasure in seconding the amendment. He jocularly remarked that it was one of the most reasonable things he had heard Cr Kitchingham say. Candidly, he thought his (Cr Kitchingham’s) speech might have been delivered by any statesman in the cause of free speech in any part of the world. Cr Kent said he had nothing further to say other thas wnat he had said in commircee, when he had supported Cr Kitchingham. He was glad they had discussed it in qpen Ceun•ik

Cr G. Perotti said he was particularly pLased to hear reference made to Mussolini. He favoured the amendment. The mian had a perfect right to speech. They did not know what was in his speech. Cr D. M. Robprtson: Mr Mayor, does the Cquncil intend to charge Mr Griffin for the fine advertisement he is getting! The Mayor supported the motion stating that he had previously givtn his casting vote allowing a demonstration by the unemployed at the Band Rotunda to discuss their rights and wrongs in getting a livelihoodThis case, in his opinion, was a horse of another colour. It was said that they should allow the man to apt ak ns they were not in a position to adjudicate as to/ what he had to say. It was questionable whether the man was more intelligent than they were, or whether he knew anything more about Soviet Russia than they did. Cr O’Brien: He has visited Russia. The Mayor, continuing, referred to the atrocities and anti-religious movements in Russia and said that he considered such teachings Only tended to undermine the Empiib, as ar least it was not in its interests, and they shofuld not be engendered or fostered among the community. When they talked of liberty of speech, it was a different idea to what they had in Russia. If that was liberty in Russia then God help them. He could not support what he considered was insidious propaganda. Cr O’Brien, remarked that the polie's would take charge if it was necessary. Cr McGinley: We don’t want tjie police) to have to take charge; it

might cause trouble. Cr O’Brien: There might be words of wisdom to listen to. The ande-ndment was then put to the vote and earned, the Mayor and Crs McGinley, White an? Williams dir renting.