STREET MEETINGS
Sir,—The suggestion in your subleader that the City Council shirked its responsibility by its decision not to revise the by-law, surely calls for comment. In the first place, revision of a by-law cannot be brought about by a simple resolution, and carried into effect the next day; the procedure necessary means several meetings, and the advertising of the revision to enable objections to bo made. The simple fact to be faced, is whether the by-law is wrong in its conception, and its objective to servo the definite purpose of the right of free speech and public assembly. The discussion on Thursday last was conspicuous for the fact that the said right was never questioned, nor was it suggested that the right be curtailed. There can be no question of the importance of this aspect of the debate as establishing a fundamental British principle of our times, even in these difficult days. That being established, what is the next move in the event of infringment of the by-law? Such infringmont can come chiefly through obstruction of the traffic, or the use of seditious utterance. Mr. Brown's amendment to the Mayor's motion of 110 action was designed to call the Government's attention to tlio matter, the reason assigned to bo the use of certain language, and tlio arrests and happenings in Quay Street particularly. Hut all tlio evidence was against tlio amendment, particularly by one of the highest iegal authorities in tho city, that, beyond some hard criticism, there was nothing used of a seditious nature. Being present at tho meeting, I can fully subscribe to that report. Obviously, tho City Council lias a real responsibility when the maintenance of law and order are jeopardised, but I am freely of tho opinion that tho council is not the authority to act once it has established tho right that it lias to freo speech. Tho police, by their very presenco and action at the recent disturbance in Quay Street, showed clearly that they knew their duty, and that duty was tactfully carried out; incidentally, it is significant that in their evidence at the Court hearing, they could not use anything against the accused 111011 of a seditious nature. To carry out, therefore, the implication suggested in your subleader, means, I am satisfied, the revoking of tho by-laws. 1«17 Grafton Road. H. P. BunxoN. :
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19400207.2.151.6
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23574, 7 February 1940, Page 15
Word Count
392STREET MEETINGS New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23574, 7 February 1940, Page 15
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the New Zealand Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries and NZME.