MEN IN DETENTION CAMPS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 16 August 1944, Page 3

MEN IN DETENTION CAMPS

I To the Editor] Sir.—l would like to ask some of the correspondents if they would favour a policy towards conscientious objectors similar to that carried out in concentration camps in Europe? I thought we were fighting against such persecutions. Who of us can judge a man’s conscience and decide that none of those in detention camps is sincere? Do people in New Zealand realise that the policy here in relation to conscientious objeetprs is much more intolerant than in England? Churchill said in the House of Commons in 1941: “The rights which have been granted in this war and the last to conscientious objectors are well known, and are a definite part of British policy. Anything in the nature of persecution, victimisation. or man-hunting is odious to the British people.”

I was not suggesting that conscientious objectors oust returned men from jobs but rather that these voluntary offers be used on urgent work which seems so distasteful and unsuitable for young girls forced into these jobs. It would be constructive work and not wasteful as in detention camps. Aren’t we cutting off our noses to spite our faces? I would make a plea that the freedom and tolerance we hold dear in our country, the things our men have been fighting for. not be lost in the battle for peace.—l am, etc.. • LET’S BE PRACTICAL.” Nelson. 14th August. [To the Editor] Sir, —There have been several letters in your columns lately regarding military defaulters and Nonscientious pbjectors. Many of these letters have shown a great misunderstanding of the subject. Firstly, it seems to be a general impression that the men in detention camps are men who would do nothing to assist their fellow men. This of course is not true. Most of them before the war were well to the fore in good works and were making a useful contribution to the life of their country in almost every avenue of service—the church, the school, sports bodies, and the work-a-day world. They did indeed refuse to help with the war even with the non-killing side, because they felt that war was , wrong. No one. surely would have them disobey their consciences. Secondly, it is inferred that only now are men in detention camps offering to do work such as mental hospital work. At the beginning of the war the Christian Pacifist Society offered its services to the Government in mental hospitals, and venereal disease hospitals. Also at the time of the Masterton earthquake the men at a nearby detention camp offered their services for rebuilding, etc., absolutely free of charge. Both of these offers were declined. These men have not changed their attitude at all. Thirdly, it is inferred that the men in detention camp cannot “take it” and are “whipping the cat” and so getting up this petition for their own release. Of course the men in the camps have had nothing to do with getting up the petition. Most of them were unaware that one was being considered. It was done by pacifists outside the detention camp.

Fourthly, it is suggested that all returned men are opposed to the release of the men in detention camps. This is incorrect. I know of at least seven returned men in one small district who signed the petition. Two of these are returned men from the present war.

And lastly. Sir, it is stated by some that these men are not genuine conscientious objectors. Of course some may hot be. But most are. I will give one instance. At the beginning of the war a young dentist was offered a captaincy in the army as a dentist. It was a pretty safe job, a well paid job, but he turned it down and appealed as a conscientious objector. His appeal was not allowed —that is, the Appeal Board said he was not genuine and sent him as a military defaulter to a detention camp. I leave it to all fair-mind-ed people to decide whether he was genuine or not.—l am. etc., 29250 HUBERT HOLDAWAY. Cpl. Ist N.Z.E.F. Lower Moutere. 13th August. [To the Editor] Sir. —The correspondent Malcolm R. Wells <Bth August) evidently assumes that the offer of the Christian Pacifists in connection with mental hospital work was made recently, but the first offer was made in the early days of the war before conscription was brought in, Since then I understand that other offers have been made but refused. In connection with the alternative service tha was offered them this was of a purely military nature which if I personally were a conscientious objector I w«uld also be unable to accept as- I \sould be acquiescing to the The corrtspondent indicates that some form )f violence unacceptable to pacifists is necessary in dealing with mental hospital patients at times. Perhaps he codd give us some details of the necessary procedure that would be objectionable to C.O.’s in dealing with such cases. Is this ther. a fit job for girls who do not desire it?—l am, etc., H. WELLS. Mahana, 12. h August. (To the Editor] Sir. —On Fiiday the 4th August your paper contaiied a letter which claimed that" conscieitious objectors in this country are fne. it also contained a long article on tie prison population by Mr Dallard, Jnder-Secretary for Justice. Mr Dalard ended by mentioning the number o' defaulters in prison, and referred to M .he sincerity with which they held thsir illusory belief.” If these men ae sincere, how did they come to be clased as defaulters’?—l am, etc., R.B.G. Lower Moufere, 13th August. •'b the Editor] Sir. —I woull like to express a few views about .hat objectionable subject “conscienious objectors.” I note that the correpondent H. Wells seems to be much it sympathy with them.