REVO-PATRIOTS AND PLAIN PERJURERS.

NZ Truth, Issue 881, 14 October 1922, Page 4

REVO-PATRIOTS AND PLAIN PERJURERS.

. , The shallowness and the futility of .'William Ferguson ■ Massey's monotonous flag-wagging stunt are obvious tb thinking: folk. Apparently the llnion Jack is to be used by 1 Reform to cover up its administrative defects, as a substitute for a sound policy, or as-a "smoke screen." ' For any of these purposes a largesized flag of any kind would be required. Tt would not be the first time the flag has been used at an interment.' If Nemesis is m any strength on our electoral roll, Reform may yet call down upon itself a retributive act of justice and suffer dishonored interment —dishonored except for the Union Jack covering. It is deplorable to witness the manner m which the Union Jack has been degraded by Reform's repeated endeavours to drag it into party poli-tics-—endeavours that have been successful or otherwise according to the point of view. We regret to have to make further reference to the subject, but as Mr Massey appears to have adopted it as his chief slogan for the coming Election, it must i-eceivc attention. Let it be clearly understood that "Truth" yields to none m its respect and reverence for the Union Jack and tiie liberty and freedom it symbolises. Under no other flag do citizens enjoy such freedom as we do. Our greatest and most fearsome examples of tyranny and oppression are provided by Soyiet Russia, which some misguided or criminally wicked individuals would attempt to persuade us provides the ideal form of Government. New Zealand does not want the gentle, loving rule of the .bloody Soviet. Nor does it want the Union Jack fiown m its face m and out of season by Reform politicians, accompanied by the bombastic bluster that they alone possess the virtue of loyalty to the Throne and Constitution and that the people must choose between Reform, plus the Union Jack, and Extreme Labor plus its Rod (lag. "Truth" agrees with the Prime Minister and his Reform chorus of mostly nonentities that the loyalty of the socalled "Official" Labor Party to the British Commonwealth has m the past been either non-existent or of a cheap and nasty variety. 'The attitude of the Party to the British flag is still equivScal. ' We are strongly of opinion that he Avho takes the Oath of Allegiance and observes it m form, but not m spirit, or observes it grudgingly, is far more contemptible than a rebel. - He is a self-branded hypocrite. ' A man who takes the Oath ' of Allegiance, but, while m a public po-; sition, ostentatiously refuses to sign a public address of welcome to the Heir to the Throne, is the. worst sort of twisting twicer. He is not- a, liege subject-^nor is he the reverse. He is neither m the nation nor out of it; he is on the rail. Better if he were right out of the country which gives him the freedom he would abuse. The man who takes the Oath of Allegiance because he cannot hold place without it, but throws cheap insults at the Throne m order to tickle the ears of the groundlings is a hybrid or hare and hound. Picture what such a hybrid would be, and you have him. Deeply contemptible as is this class of "loyalty, is it less contemptible for a political party to base its claim to o(il.ee not upon its own performances (non-existent), but upon the disloyal streak m the other fellow? Official Labor, once Red, then Pink, now conceals its real Red - under a Yellow streak. But how politically bankrupt is Reform when it can play no other card than Official Labor's revopatriotism! Tho revo -patriots make but a clumsy attempt to lip-serve Crtown and Communism, constitutionalism and classAvar, at one and the same time. But •the pluto-patriots who, povertystricken m policy matters, clutch at this straw, have uttered the last word of their own degradation. Disloyalty to the British Commonwealth, by those who shelter within it, is flagrantly dishonest. But does it excuse disloyalty to principle by a responsible Government? Tills' is the Government that was going to reform the patronage system of allocating public works money. It hasn't done so. It was going- to give us proportional representation. It has failed to do so. ' True, it made a profession of providing it for the Legislative Council; from which plan, however, it recoiled by a postponement process. In its 1912 Budget the Government sounded a note of the betterment principle —buying land m advance of railways? All windowdressing. • . . '

Again, the Government was going to stop land aggregation' and legislated m that direction m at' least three sessions. What aggregation, has it ever stopped? When has this legislation ever been applied?. ..The Government promised a roads policy, but Minister Coates sapiently points out that to .keep a policy is ' .inconsistent with "pleasing everybody." The- Govern-ments-moral sense is appalled at the proposal that Liberalism 'and Labor should, by mutual arrangement, avoid vote- splitting m order to oust Reform and appeal to the country under proportional representation. : -But who sent the 'telegrams to Otaki on a memorable occasion when it. was Reform's business to secure a Red Labor victory m the Second Ballot? Disloyalty to the Crown by people who take the Oath of . Allegiance m order to secure to themselves the sweets of office is smellful. Does Reform's disloyalty to. principle and .to promises smell any. better? ;■'. .' ' '{.: '_..;. : : A rebel"' 'only ' becomes disloyal to principle when lie affirms a loyalty which he does not feel, and which, given the opportunity, he is prepared* to repudiate. Disloyalty to principle is chronic with a certain class of timeserving politician. What says, the "porter of hell-gate" m "Macbeth": Who's there, i' the other devil's name. Faith, here's an eciuivocator, that could swear m both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven O, come m, equivocator. These self-styled "Reformers" m Parliament have appealed for judgment on the loyalty issue. May they receive the judgment that the political equivocator deserves.