THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1936. PUBLIC ORDER.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 283, 13 November 1936, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1936. PUBLIC ORDER.

The Public Order Bill now before the Home Parliament, and expected to pass before the end of the year, is the immediate outcome not of any Communistic or Socialistic disturbances, but of the stupid so-called Fascist movement led by Sir Oswald Mosley. At the same time, of course, it has to be recognised that this movement would not have been set on foot but for the growth of Communistic activities in the Old Country. The one evil, very naturally perhaps, induced the other as a counterpoise, with the result that faction clashes were occurring that were becoming all too frequent and attaining proportions that called for severe repression. So liberal, however, almost to the point of laxity, is the statute law of Great Britain as regards the expression of political opinion, whether by speech or action, that it has become manifest that it is insufficient to enable the situation that has thus arisen to be effectively dealt with in the interests of public order.

Sir Oswald Mosley’s type of Fascism is, of course, far removed from that which Signor Mussolini has imposed on the Italian people and Herr Hitler upon the German, and which General Franco is bent on imposing upon the Spanish. Still, it is of quite sufficiently distinctive character to challenge more or less forceful opposition on the part of those against whom it was obviously aimed. It was, too, rendered all the more provocative by the adoption of something in the shape of a “uniform” that smacked a good deal too much of the Continental Fascist movemehts and of an organisation that was approaching the military order. In short, it was indicative of an assumption of repressive functions which had previously been regarded as belonging peculiarly and solely to properly legalised authority. It is under thoroughly justifying conditions such as these that Parliament is moved to strengthen the hands of those responsible for the preservation of public order. Taking the population as a whole there is no very great number of either Sed Communists or Black Fascists in the United Kingdom, but in some of the big cities there are quite enough of each to constitute a public nuisance and a threat to the'peaceloving majority of the community. And, of course, there is always danger of factional movements ot either kind gaining further adherents as definite hostility develops. The measure that has been laid before Parliament for its acceptance takes no very drastic form and is aimed mainly at the assembly and marghing iu public

places of those wearing uniforms indicative of membership in some special political organisation or associated for the purpose of promoting some particular political object, with, a special reference to anything savouring of a display of force. There is nothing in this that can be said to conflict with the most democratic principles which recognise the right of the majority or their representatives to have the ruling of their country. It is, in faet, the need for safeguarding these very principles that calls for measures such as that which the British Parliament is now being asked to place upon the Statute Book. It is really in much the same interest that we have the British Prime Minister io-day explaining his reasons for not receiving the Jarrow hungermarchers in Parliament House. TEeir cause and conduct are reported to have been of an ur« exceptionable nature, but at the same time theft reception as desired would have created a precedent that would Eave opened the door to demonstrations in which the force of numbers would be the chief characteristic.