THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23284, 1 March 1939, Page 15

THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION

Sir, —Three letters lie upon my desk awaiting an answer. They are signed respectively "Citizen." J. Callaghan, and C. C. Chalmers. Tackling them in that order, I have the following brief comments to make. "Citizen" asks whether the Freedom Association would approve of the same freedom for the Federation of Labour, for Communists, and so on, in the matter of broadcasting as the association is asking for itself. Certainly. What other answer would be expected? Quality should be the deciding factor, and if* the representative of any organisation will undertake to give serious thought to his utterances and to conform to the accepted standards of fair comment and decency in public discussion. then he should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion through a national system of broadcasting. Let the listening public, and not the ruling political party, be his censors. Mr. Callaghan . congratulates the Prime Minister upon his "effective reply" to my criticism of Government policy. Will Mr. Callaghan be good enough to write another letter to the Herald quoting the exact sentence or sentences in the Prime Minister's statement which he, Mr. Callaghan, regards as an "effective reply", and as being worthy of his unstinted congratulations. Mr. C. C. Chalmers has been sitting on my letter for some days and after much labour has brought forth a large and particularly hungry mouse. I imagine* that 1 am expected to welcome it with a ration of cheese. I do not contend for a moment that the refusal to allow me to broadcast amounts to tlie establishment by the Government of a dictatorship over the air. I have said before and I repeat that the dictatorial powers referred to were conferred upon the Government by the Broadcasting Act introduced by the Government itself in 1936; the banning of my broadcasts is only evidence of the practical use of such dictatorial powers.

I do deny that the Freedom Association was brought into being solely by Nationalists; some of its founders were of that party, but many were not, and they had good reason for being very critical of that party. As I have so often said, they gave a promise of temporary support to the Nationalists because they believed in reasonable individual freedom and were opposed to the Socialistic policy of the Labour Government.- and because they had in fact no other practicable alternative. Mr. Chalmers suggests that my talks were to be restricted to a criticism of ■the present Government, but my letter to the Director of Broadcasting stated clearly enough that they were to be "historical" in character and based upon the contents of the Statute Books! Criticism of the Labour Government, though necessary and pointed, would have been no more than incidental to the general theme of my argument. Mr. Chalmers asks why I should want to refer to the case of the importers when the regulations complained of can be made legal merely by passing a new Act in Parliament. Let Mr. Chalmers ponder the following point very carefully; I am concerned with the "injustice," rather than with the "illegality" of these regulations. ll' they are illegal then it is true that Parliament can, if it will, make them legal. But if they are unjust, and that is what I believe them to be, then Parliament cannot, by a mere validating Act, render that "just" which, in itself, is "unjust." In going off the air, as it were, may 1 close with the hope that the Chalmers "mouse" has no more little brothers or sisters. B. M. Algik,