CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19940, 8 May 1928, Page 12

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir, —Permit me once again to make a statement with reference to the conscientious objector. The thing will never be settled until it is "settled right. The only guide in the matter is thd law. I have more than once raised the question of what the alternative service embraces. It is distinctly stated in tho Act. to be "non-military," but will anyone de< v that attending military camps and parades and drilling in the ranks shoulder to shoulder with those who are being trained as soldiers, either with or without arms, or, in fact, participating in anything that is controlled by the military, is "military" ? It is urged that the boys need physical exercise. Granted, but are the military ranks the only place they can get it ? Then, it is also just as distinctly stated in the Act that the alternative service is to be prescribed by the Gov-ernor-in-Council. The military authorities admit that the Governor-in-Ccuncil has not so far prescribed any such alternative service. That being so, upon what grounds do the military officers demand any equivalent? By virtue, of what law is it done? Is it lawful to demand and enforce a service that has not been regularly prescribed, a service, too, which is not only the very embodiment of militarism but, as such, is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Act? All that genuine conscientious objectors desire is that they shall be exempted from "military training and service," as the Act provides; and if the Governor-in-Council will prescribe the non-military equivalent—something apart from military activities—that is all they ask, and it will be found that the "genuine" objector will cheerfully "do his bit," so long as his religious convictions are respected and not interfered with. F. L. Sharp, Secretary, Religious Liberty Assn.