SLANDER

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1756, 1 November 1905, Page 68

SLANDER

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT. BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. In the Legislative Council on the 24th ult. the Hon. Mr Pitt moved the second reading of the Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill, which was the cause of the recent stonewall in the Lower House. In explaining the provisions of • the measure, he said there were certain safeguards which would make it perfectly safe for the Council to pass the bill. It might be asked why it was desired to alter the law in New Zealand, and make it different to that existing in England. Well, attempts had been made to bring the English law to the same position as the present bill sought to do, but the attempts had failed. The English- libel law, however, was different from ours, and he hoped the day was not far distant when our law of libel would be the same as in England. Under the bill before the Council a man need have no fear if he spoke the truth of another, but if he- uttered slander, then he should suffer as would one who wrote a libel. There was no fear under the bill of an innocent man being punished, but it was a scandalous shame that anyone should escape punishment because he gave publicity to a slander with the tongue rather than with the pen. The Hon Mr Rigg considered that the bill should not be allowed to pass. In his opinion, a general law was being made to fit special cases. That was always a mistake. In this case the bill went in the direction of staling public criticism. The persons who would suffer under the bill would not be those whom one would like to see punished, but the young and inexperienced. The bill had not been asked for, and the Government was making a mistake in passing such a bill to meet the special case of some persons who had for the past few months been criticising our public men. The Hon Mr Wig ram agreed with a contention that had been put forward that a public man should take fair, and even harsh criticism, but he was entirely opposed to the contention that a public man should put up with foul slander. If we accepted that doctrine it would mean that many highly intelligent and highly-strung citizens would not accept public office. At the same time he objected to such an important bill being brought down at the end of the session, and being forced through. The Hon Mr Jones believed the hill had been drawn up to meet a special case, but he believed that that special case had been the cause of drawing attention to the need of such legislation. The l.ne must be drawn somewhere, and where certain individuals were becoming frenzied and inflamed with political hatred, it was time to call a halt. He sympathised entirely with a measure that was to deal with, and put a stop to. license run mad. - Replying, the Hoh Mr Pitt said the sufferers by the bill would be the men of straw who were put up by evillydisposed persons to slander their fellowmen. The second reading was carried by 20 votes to 4.