CANDIDATES AND CRITICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 12933, 29 September 1902, Page 4

CANDIDATES AND CRITICS.

There is not a great deal to be said, from the point of view of the public, in favour of the “ muzzling ” amendment to the Electoral Bill, which was adopted by the House of Representatives on Saturday morning. It is proposed that the publication.' between! the issue of the writ and the day of an election of “any untrue statement defamatory of any candidate and calculated to influence the vote of any elector,” shall be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment. We liAve the very sinceresb sympathy for the Parliamentary candidate, hut he hardly deserves this special protection. He has open to him already the ordinary means of protection against defamation, and the ordinary legal remedies, and though there may he special inducements to defamation at election times the offence is: not them more reprehensible than at other times. Parliament refuses to the private individual who is defamed the: protection of the criminal conrts t and our Now; Zealand libel law is

severer in its restrictions than that of any other enlightened State. Even applied to ordinary newspaper comments, when the newspaper might be expected to take every precaution 'to ascertain the truth of its statements, the proposed provision would' be extremely vicious. It has always been 'held that a candidate for Parliamentary honours must be prepared to submit to the very fullest investigation and discussion of his political life. We might be called upon to express the opinion that “Mr John Jones, a candidate for Christchurch, is not a fit person to represent any constituency.’ The statement might easily be held 1 to be' falsa and defamatory, and its intention would certainly be to influence votes. It is a nice point whether “statements” of that type would or would not be justifiable. A great deal of what passes for criticism at election times is undoubtedly grossly defamatory, and some newspapers which adopt a personal tone in attacking an opponent seem to us to be deserving of very severe X>unishment. But this new proposal would hardly affect the offenders. Such a provision, however, would certainly render a great deal of ordinary newspaper correspondence “unfit for publication.” The newspaper would practically be required to have proof of the truth of every single statement an a letter criticising a candidate before publishing it, and though the newspaper mighty be left to protect its own interests-, those) of the public could not fail to suffer. This “ muzzling order ” looks as though it might have emanated from Mr George Fisher, and the Government ought not to have sprung it upon Parliament and the country by way of a surprise. The clause is evil and unnecessary, but if it were both and necessary Parliament would still be wrong to provide' a special protection for Parliamentary candidates which it does not extend to candidates for local bodies and to the general public. This new clause, in a word, is “ class ” legislation, of the most vicious and selfish type.