FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

NZ Truth, Issue 606, 27 January 1917, Page 1

FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

WHAT OF II IN NEW ZEALAND ?

' The .prosecution and gaoling of men, working men., too, who have been held to be guilty of making seditions utterances, or Titterances^heid by magistrates to have a seditious tendency, continues m New Zealand, and the indications are that the prosecutions (and the gaoling) will continue if men dare to give utterance to. their thoughts, and as long as there is a valid law under which men- can be prosecuted and gaoled^ No doubt m due course the validity of. the War Regulations under which these men have been, prosecuted and gaoled will be tested before a constitutional tribunal, and no less an authority than the Chief Justice of New Zealand has declared that if anything illegal or grossly violating the rights and . the liberties of the people has been done by Act of Parliament or the Executive, the constitutional tribunal will not hesitate to over-ride Parliament and the.Ex- , ecutive . Far be it for ' ' Truth " to anticipate what the Supreme Court of 'this country will hold if , called upon to cfecide the validity or otherwise of any Act of Parliament or Regulation framed by the Executive ; what we are more concerned about is the *f act that there is such a tribunal, and that such a tribunal will not hesitate to decide, though the very heayens will fall, that Regulations, War or otherwise, were illegal, oppressive and altogether opposed to all ideas of liberty if, m the opinion of that tribunal these laws are illegal, etc. The history of the British Empire teaches us that right through the ages, m times of stress and storm, the courts of justice, or the judges, have not hesitated to do their duty at all costs and hazards, with tho result that to-day the average Britisher now regards the highest judicial tribunal as the palladium of the Britisher's rights and liberties. •: "- •-•;■ • It has been an almost weekly occurronce m New Zealand for the past two months or so, for some magistrate to decide that defendants before thorn, who have been arrested and denied bail, are guilty of seditious utterances or utterances which, m the magistrate's opinion, have a seditious tendency, and the uniformity of tho sentence, viz., 12 months' imprisonment, almost suggests that the magistrates generally have decided on that uniformity, apart from any morits or demerits of the case before them. In most cases, the men ordered to be imprisoned hav£ not been legally represented, and m their own rough and ready ways. have submitted arguments m their own defence, which arguments, however, have been wasted on the magistrates. However, we are not ioeking to accuse the magistrates of partiality; but it would seun that tho uniformity m the sentence* 1 and the occasional remarks of some oC these admimstraton* of •harp samraary justice Almost m- 1 dicatc that a charge of seditions | Utteracee ha* o».0j to b*> preferrc »''. ■

against a man, and mat that man might there and then consider himself a prisoner, without the formality of a trial. It, however, has to be conceded, m fact cannot be denied, that quite a number -of 'the men sent to prison practically knocked at the gaol door. In other words, according to the wording of the War Begulations under which they were dealt with, there could be no question that they contravened those Begulations, and as the magistrates are charged . to administer such Regulations there was no^optioii left but to convict, though, of course, the conviction did not close the, door to a further review of the conviction by a higher and superior tribunal. The frequency of the prosecutions and the gaoling of "stump" and other orators for giving voice to opinions m violation of certain War Regulations has led many, earnest and serious-minded individuals m the community to ask whether there is such a thing as liberty of speech m New Zealand, and the inevitable answer is, that under certain War Regulation's there is no liberty to speak m opposition to many things m. this country where Conscription is the law of the land, m the event of voluntaryism failing. At anyrate such is the impression created not so much by the decisions of the magistrates, as it is by the "-extra" remarks of these gentlemen. Indeed, it seems to be the general opinion that it is an offence to adversely criticise the Military Service Act of 1916. Fortunately,, such an opinion is erroneous. What, according to the magisterial decisions, is a wrong thing to do is to offer opposition to the operation of the Act m question. It would be a -monstrous state of affairs if it was criminal to adversely criticise any Act of Parliament, even if the purpose of the Act of Parliament was to help to win the war, but we have not yet forfeited all our liberties. No Act. of Eirrliament is perfect, and daily we are getting proofs that the particular Act is far from perfect, that its administration is being rendered very difficult, and, presumably, when Parliament assembles will need amending. Jt is not seditious, there is no seditious tendency m the simple and truthful statement that this, to some, if not a great many, repugnant Act of Parliament is defective and imperfect and that its administration is so cumbersome and difficult that it will require amending. To assert thai this Act of Parliament, which a number of people proclaim to be rcftugnant to them, should be re- ! pealed, is not an act of sedition, but to advocate its i t-ncnl, without at least strongly advoeiitinir voluntaryism is*, by the magistrates who h:ivo interpreted the j law, p, wrong t.hmp: l» do, the doing. of which wilt b«i met with twelve months' imprison mo m. ! ! I While, horwcvt.r \ho '.Military i •Service Act iy th»« Izw of '.)»•» i.\niJ,

while, however; War ; Regulations, hold the force of the law of the. land, they must be respected and obeyed. It is true that m the past centuries, m fact right up to this day, many men rather than respect and obey laws which they regarded as wrong and harsh, and which were wrong and harsh, have paid all sorts of penalties, the loss of their liberties and even their lives, and as a result the people have been taught to realise that liberty to be retained must be paid for. But m this age is it really necessary that any man should bt? martyred to prove that a law is harsh and unconscionable and a violation of our liberties as a free people? "We have our tribunals to appeal to, and history has taught us that judges after all were wiser men than politicians. And when all is said and done, what are the politicians of today? They are small-minded opportunists, with an eye ever on the main chance, who are careful to "keep right*' with the electors, and contrive to twist and contort, m fact do anything to retain the pay and the privileges pertaining to Parliament. The politicians who passed the Military Service Act did so because they believed the people, who, generally speaking, were silent, acquiesced. Should the people indicate that they wanted the Act repealed, the politicians would lose no time m repealing the Act. If the feelings of the people are that the Act should be repealed, then, it is singular that no politician has come forward and publicly recanted. • « « We have heard quite a great deal about the. conditions existing prior to the passing into law of the -Military Service Act. We were told that mayors of cities and towns took it upon themselves to refuse to anti-conscrip-tionists the ■right- to use the platforms of town halls, from which the arguments against Conscription could be explained. We find to-day m Wellington that men are | complaining because they are being prosecuted under by-laws which have the tendency to suppress public street speaking. Yet, what did one magistrate suggest? He frankly advised them to seize, by legitimate and constitutional [methods of course, the right to | make by-laws, yet is there any move m that direction? The municipal elections are approaching, and where is Labor? Is it doing anything at all? Is is organising? Is it marshalling its forces preparatory to making a clean sweep of the polls? No, The' truth is the workers want a leader, a Labor leader. The worker has tired of the Red Fed and the Union Secretary. The worker wants and asks m. vain for the Laborite as he is known m Australia. It is not the worker who is apathetic. He has tired of > the miserable, squabbling, vain and pretentious crowd who form j a "Mutual Admiration Society,"' who select themselves as municipal and parliamentary candidates, who invariably are found at the bottom of the polls when the numbers go up. The very fact that Labor is not represented m the City Council too clearly mdi- : cates the feelings of the worker. A splendid opportunity is afford- : ed Labor, if it could be properly \ organised, sit the forthcoming municipal elections, but there is not likely to be a lead from Wcl- ■ I i Jig ton: It might be different! elsewhere, find it is to be hoped it is. . !