CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24835, 7 February 1942, Page 6

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

The particulars contained in a return which has been submitted to Parliament, respecting the appeals that have been made on conscientious grounds against inclusion in the armed forces overseas or within New Zealand are interesting and valuable as far as they go. They do not, however, go far enough. They detail the fate of these appeals up to July 31 last and therefore leave a. period of over six months concerning which information has yet to be given. Within the time covered by the return 243 appeals were allowed out of 1932 that were lodged—but not all prosecuted, some being withdrawn and others being adjourned for. different reasons. The appeals in 535 cases were dismissed outright and in 375 cases they were dismissed subject to the appellants giving noncombatant service. A question about which the public may, justifiably be curious relates, to the action that has been taken by the authorities to ensure that the 910 appellants who did not secure exemption render the service, either complete or qualified, that is required of them. Unfortunately, the return does not show whether the decisions of the tribunals have been actively followed up by the authorities. The heavy demands that are now being made upon the manpower of the Dominion for service in the forces raise this point to a level of great importance. Married men who are childless have already been called up and the Minister for National Service has now intimated that married men with families are about to be called up in age groups. In circumstances such as these the country may reasonably desire an assurance that the single young men who have unsuccessfully sought to evade military service on the plea that their consciences forbade, them to undertake it are being compelled to perform their duty. principle of equality of sacrifice, which expresses the policy of the country, is not observed if men with family

responsibilities—men who in many cases have depended on their businesses for their livelihood or who hold executive positions in the businesses of the companies that employ them —are required to serve in the army before all the eligible single men who have b een refused exemption are compelled to fulfil their obligations. This argument may be carried further. Before the mobilisation of married men is completed there should be a review of the proceedings under which exemption from service was granted to a number of single men. Complaints, which we cannot wholly disregard, have reached us from numerous quarters that the representations tiiat were made to the tribunals misled them to the extent that exemption was granted in the case of appeals that should rightly have been dismissed. It would be only an act of justice if men who have gained exemption by recourse to deception should be called upon to show cause why they should not serve. ' The public would probably be gratified, also, if it learnt that the defaulters, for whom comfortable accommodation has been provided in pleasant surroundings, were compelled to discharge some useful form of national service.