CENSORSHIP OF LITERATURE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 7 August 1926, Page 11

CENSORSHIP OF LITERATURE

CRITICISM BY MR HOLLAND REPLY BY MINISTER (By Telegraph.—Special to The Mail.) WELLINGTON, This Day. A discussion on the censorship of literature took place in tlie House last evening. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) said ■ that the Minister of Customs would he wise if he got rid of the Censorship Board which was becoming a standing joke in New /(inland. Even if he admitted that the three making up the Board tyere competent to judge what the public should read, and lie would not admit that for a moment, the principle of the thing would still be had. He ventured io say that they would find books which had been banned on t.he shelves of members of the Board. Nobody wanted to make a ease for indecent literature, but he reminded the Minister that the language in Chaucers Canterbury Tales was far from choice. Hbwever no one would dream of censoring Chaucers Canterbury Tales, which was a classic of literature. In the same way, some of Burns’s poems were indecent, but no one would dream of censoring them. He was not so concerned about indecent literature as lie was about the censorship of historical, economical and political literature.

Mr Holland referred to various books bv Frank Anstey, which had been banned. Books advocating violence were supposed to be banned, but lie could take the Minister to the General Assembly library and show him hook after book which advocated violence. The Minister of Customs (Mr Downie Stewart) said that the reason the Censorship Board existed was that the' Customs Act placed certain responsibilities on the Customs Department in regard to allowing books to enter the country. Previously the work had been done by an obscure officer of the Department and as a result of complaints made, he (the Minister) had decided on tlie setting up of a Board. The rights of tlie public, were not jeopardised by the Board in any way. Under the old system, the most hopeless confusion had resulted. When prosecutions were instituted against persons for selling indecent literature, the Magistrate had to say whether a book was indecent or not. Magistrates differed in their opinions and as a result there was confusion. As far as he could see, the present system was the most equitable to all concerned.