LIBERTY OR LICENSE?

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10884, 26 April 1921, Page 7

LIBERTY OR LICENSE?

INCITEMENT TO CRIME MB. H. HOLLAND'S PROTEST TO ACTING-PREMIER. SIR FRANCIS BELL’S REPLY. GOVERNMENT’S INTENTIONS. The following correspondence with, regard to the censorship of boohs, pamphlets, and other literature, and the sentence of imprisonment recently imposed on a member of the "Wellington Socialist Party for selling “The ■Communist Programme,’’ etc., has passed between Mr H. E. Holland, M.P. (chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party), and Sir Francie Bell (Acting-Prime Minister and AttorneyGeneral). Mr Holland protests against the censorship and the sentence, while the Minister clearly states the position taken up by the Government on the matter—that ‘ ‘Peace, order, and good ' government require that violence to attain political ends shall be as unlawful as it is to secure private advantage, that there shall be no distinction between that class of crime and any other crime’’; and*that “The law of England. has from time immemorial treated a person who incites to any crime as equally guilty with the criminal who effects the crime” : Mr Holland's letter to the AttorneyGeneral was as under: “Hear Sir,—l have just learned that Brieux’s great drama, ‘Damaged Goods,’ is being held up by the New Zealand authorities, and refused circulation within the Dominion. Brieux’s work is of the widest scientific and social value, and has been long since staged throughout this country. “I also desire to draw your attention to the sentence of three months’ bard labour imposed yesterday on _ a member of the Wo 11 ington Socialist Party for having allegedly sold copies of ‘The Communist Programme’ and" other pamphlets at a recent meeting. It is not necessary to agree with all that a book contains when one insists that there can be no intellectual progress unless men are permitted to read—and thus to know—every viewpoint. I have read ‘The Communist ’Programme,’ and the other pamphlets, and while I do not endorse the attitude of some of the writers with respect to tactics, I say most emphatically that the first-named pamphlet does contain a most valuable presentation of the case for constructive industrialism . This portion of the pamphlet does not appear to have been mentioned during the hearing of the case; and I do not think the prosecution 19 to "Be complimented on its method of stripping away the context from certain passages, and - using the mutilated passages as evidence. MR HOLLAND AND THE SOLDIERS. ‘'While urging the release of the imprisoned man, Mr Johnstone, there is one aspect of this censorship of literature which I wish to raise, and concerning which I should esteem it a very great favour if you would let me have a definite statement. I personally know some scores of returned soldiers —most of them are my constituents — who are in possession of ‘The Communist Programme,’ and also ‘Red Europe’ (another book banned by your Government), and who do not hesitate to circulate both works. These returned soldiers claim that they went to. ; Europe to fight for , mental freedom, quite as much as for political freei dom. They know, aB yon and I know, that there can be neither political nor industrial freedom unless there is the most unrestricted liberty in every department of human thought, and the widest possible access to every avenue of knowledge. Along with the working men generally, these soldier constituents of mine strongly resent "the repressive legislation and administration which makes criminals of men whoso only offence is that they seek to know how men of other lands are thinking; and on their behalf I ask if the Government proposes to prose-, cute and imprison them if they continue to read and ' circulate the books I have mentioned—in other words, if they persist in upholding the principles of! liberty for which your Government told them they . were going to fight. They desire to know where they stand, and some of them have told me they are as ready to go to prison for what they believe to be the right as they were to go to Europe. I may add that all of these works which are being prohibited in New Zealand are allowed freely to circulate in both Great Britain and Australia. Why 1 does the New Zealand Government forbid literature which other Governments permit P REMOVE ALL RESTRICTIONS. “In urging that all restrictions on cleanly-worded literature be removed, may I add the claim that no great material change can ever be safely made unless it is preceded by an intellectual changp—a change in the thoughts of men; and it follows that there can be no ‘right’ change of thought unless it is based on knowledge. There can be no real knowledge where any avenue of information is closed to the reader. "When you write and administer laws which penalise men who dare to seek to know every viewpoint, you make the magistrate the agent ol reaction, and

the Police Court the machine of an error as hateful and as hated as anything Prussia and Russia ever knew in the terroristic days of their libertydestroying Imperialism, force-sustain-ed, 'and foundationed on a blood-and-iron absolutism. It is surely not well that New Zealand should follow an example so pregnant with danger. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION STATED BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL. The reply of Sir Francis Bell was as follows: “Dear Sir, —I did' not' immediately reply to your letter of the 16th inst., because I desired to give careful consideration to your suggestions and requests, and to the points upon which you invite an indication ■ of the view and intention of the Government. “With .regard to the drama, Damaged Goods,’ you most be aware that the question of dramatic representation relating to such subjects is one upon which very diverse opinions are held. Personally, I should not be disposed to interfere with the discretion of the Censor on a point of the kind; but I think I dufcjht to add that, in my view, a decision to prohibit the representation of the drama would bo wise. I have no official information on the subject. “A FLAGRANT OFFENCE.” “With regard to the sentence imposed on the foreigner who distributed copies of certain documents, I entirely agree with your insistence ‘that there can be no full intellectual progress unless we are permitted to read (and thdj? to know) every viewpoint.’ And I do not contest your conclusion that pamphlet entitled, 'The Communist IVogram mo, ’ contains ‘a valuable presentation of the case for constructive industrialism.’ I am not- as competent as yourself to express an opinion on that point. But surely you must see that neither of those contentions of yours has any hearing upon the question whether the person charged committed a flagrant offence against the law ofVNew Zealand. Bach of the documents which the offender was proved to have distributed advocated in the plainest manner bloodshed and violence as the method by which its propaganda were to he carried into effect. It is greatly to be regretted that in your temperately-worded letter you should have avoided the real and precise issue deliberately raised by those on whose behalf the offender distributed the pamphlets. • I do not suggest that you arc oue of those who instigated and approved the distribution ana circulation of literature advocating such methods. But your vords can only mean that it Is not criminal to advocate murder as a method of attaining social or political conditions or constitutional change. That is the issue between the Government of a eiviliseo country and ’ offenders of the class for whom you ask that the prerogative of pardon should he exercised. “BY PEACEFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL METHODS.” “In a country where universal suffrage prevails, no section of the community can contend with any show of reason that it. is unable to attain power by peaceful and constitutional means, if and when a majority of the people can he persuaded to hold the views which that section advocates. But in a free country no minority can justly •’lnim to hold power over a majority. Fray do not meet this with the msual futile argument, • that so long as more than two parties exist, power may he held by a party which has not a full majority over the other two camhined. The argument is good platform stuff, but appeals no more to your reason than to mine. If your cause and opinions prevail with a majority of the people of New Zealand, then, you l;uow as well a«i I do that your party can attain power at any general election. And, again, if persons holding views far more extreme than your own can persuade the majority of the people of New Zealand that what they advocate is right, those extremists will attain, and hold power. Therefore, plainly it is not only unnecessary, but criminal and wicked, to advocate the attainment of power, or alteration of the constitution, by bloodshed and violence. You are, as fully aware as I am that the possession of universal suffrage by a people is a guarantee that power shall be held by persons who represent the ( political views of the majority. LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM. “You must pardon me for saving that.

yon are not just, either to the Government or to yourself, in presenting a contention that liberty of speech and freedom of advocacy of any form of constitutional, or even., of revohstiooary, change has been in any manner curtailed in this Domxmon since the w ended. The restrictions imposed daring the war were rendered necesney by the cir‘umstances of the war itself- Yon know that every ouch restriction has been cancelled by legislation introduced by the Government, with .the single exception expressed in the Boiko Offences Amendment Act of 1019, and in the War Regulations Continuance Act of 1920, that advocacy of videnoe or lawlessness fa yroUbted. Go long as men refrain in print or leiwum from inciting .to violence or Mneanw, they are absolutely free to bold and express any opinions, and to advocate any change, however revuhrtaonary, in the constitution or in the foam of government. The continued War Regulations prctiibfa the eqnmoa of sedireos intention, which may prvwrih|g have misled yon and others into the belief that advocacy of ootisnuiiism pr socialism, or of a republic, is prohibited. You will find, however, that by section liß of {he Crimes Are it is provided that ‘no one shall be deemed to have a eeditiaas intention only because he intends in good faith to incite His Majesty’s subjects to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any mattes- affecting tbs constitution, laws, ar government of the United Kingdom or of New Zealand; or to point out in order to their removal, matters producing or having a tendency to produce feeling! of mind and Swill between different tilnaane of Hi* Majesty’s subjects.’ In other words, it is neither unlawful ner andWaaiu to advocate the wildest, form of socialism or communism. "What fa unlawful and seditious fa to advocate murder and violence as legitimate methods for attainment of political ends. If yam contentions were carried to their logical conclusions, fa -would he legitimate for any section of the oomnsimity to drill and arm, with the avowed abject of slai ghtering the majority who could not be otherwise coerced. WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE ANT LAWLESSNESS. “You most, therefore, take my on> wer to be that the Government of New Zealand does not now interfere, pnd does not propose to interfere, with liberty of speech or action; but that it does intend to prevent, and wffl nse all its powers to prevent, violence and lawlessness; and that its officers will, in accordance with the duty imposed upon them by law, endeavour to bring to justice persons who refuse to comply with that oondkaan, and that *U Government will nob ontshlish a practice of exercising the prerogative oi pardon in favour of such persons wbec convicted. “Your contention jjbat-the mere possession of literature of the kind is cn offence is perhaps technically correct, but that fa not the offence _aeriou«ly contemplated by the law; circulation of such documents, or the possession of a number of such documents, sfrvioucly for the .purpose of circulation, fa in itself plainly deliberate advocacy of murder, and therefore criminal and punishable. “Lour statement that literature of the nature in question fa allowed free circulation in the United Kingdom :nd in the Commonwealth, I am mot concerned either to admit or diroute. With regard to the Com monwealth, there is mutual respect and goodwill between the Governments of Australia and Zealand, but neither fa guided in its legislation or procedure by the precedent of the other. In the . "United Kingdom advocacy of violence fa treated rather as matter for contempt than i for repression, because of the existence :of regular armed forces of the Crown iro protect the majority of the people against unlawful violence* from a minority. Here in New Zealand wo are, fortunately, able to rely upon a very small police force to maiwain order, because that force has the support of the law-abiding people of the Dominion. But peace, order, and good government require That violence to attain political ends shall be as unlawful as it is to secure private advantage, and that there shall be no distinction between that class of crime and any other crime. The law of England has from tjfne immemorial treated a person who incites to any crime as eqnall; guilty -with the criminal who effects the crime. “May I suggest that if you think fit to publish your awn letter to me. you sbould publish with it this T our letter very clearly expresses youi views, and this reply , which I assure ! you is intended to be without persona! offence to yourself, is the answer oi the Government to your content ions.