The Bowater Appointment

Manawatu Times, Volume 67, Issue 276, 21 November 1942, Page 4

The Bowater Appointment

(To the Editor.) Sir, —-I notice that there has been a meeting of the Rehabilitation Committee and that Mr. Bowater was present. I wonder if he felt comfortable when ho took his chair? It is interesting to read that the chairman of the Committee is also a member of the National Council, which body, I understand was responsible for the appointments to the District Committee. It is therefore time that we asked the chairman what his attitude is, being a local man he must have made some inquiries regarding the fitness of those nominated for the Committee. To put it bluntly, somebody is either sympathetic to Bowater’s attitude or else tney have neglected a very important duty to the public. Purely it is high timo that a public statement was made as to who was responsible for this insult to the general public and the boys overseas in particular. Naturally the R.S.A. is taking strong exception to this appointment, but it is up to all citizens, and especially parents, wives and sweethearts of those boys doing their duty to their country overseas, to follow on with some original opposition to this insulting imposition and help the R.S.A. get a real man appointed to the Committee.—l am, etc., • ANOTHER DIGGER—AWAKE NEW ZEALAND.” (To tho Editor.) Sir, —I wish most heartily to endorse ihe sentiments expressed by your correspondent “Brogress or Fensu. ” While sucu oigoreu intolerance, as nas been expressed by certain other correspondents, shows its taco in our midst, we have little hope of establishing a truly free and democratic social order, where every man has a right to think his own thoughts and express them, and to live as his conscience dictates. Mr. Bowater’s views on the question oi war in no way affect his ability to give good service on the Rehabilitation Committee, and provided that he has suitable capabilities and experience and is willing to give such service, he will no doubt make a good contribution to such work. Breadtn of outlook is as necessary here as in all else and a committee representative of different points of view will be better able to serve all types of returned men.—l am, etc., “TOLERANCE.”

[Excessively broadminded and dangerously tolerant people like “Tolerance” appear to have overlooked one aspect of the Bowater controversy. Tne gentleman in question holds the view that the salvation of his country from the horrors of slavery under a cruel oriental despotism is not worth any personal sacrifice. What sort of a mentality does such a view suggest? On our Rehabilitation Committees we want men of balanced judgment. While we may respect the type of sincerity that goes with certain forms of conscientious objection, is there anyone who will say that Mr. Bowater’s particular kind of objection to fighting tor his country shows sound judgment or clear thinking? If it does, then 160,000 of the flower of New Zealand manhood aro fools. The glorious Red Army’s millions of heroes aro just so many sheep sent to the slaughter by tyrunts. The martyrs of Poland and Norway, oi Czechoslovakia and Greece are morons. This, in essence, is the opinion of Mr. Bowater. Now, Mr. Bowater may be sincere in holding such views. But sincerity is not enough. Guy Fawkes was sincere. No doubt, in his own dark and distorted mentality, even Hitler is sincere. We hold the view, along with 999 out of every thousand New Zealanders, that any man who does not think, his country worth fighting for, has a mental kink that saould disfranchise him from holding an office, the discharge of whoso functions requires a sane outlook and balanced judgment. This is an aspect of the Bowater controversy that must be seriously considered.—Ed. M.D.T.J