BANNED LITERATURE

Otago Witness, Issue 3525, 4 October 1921, Page 49

BANNED LITERATURE

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT, (From Our Own Correspondent.) AA ELLINGTON. September 28. The censorship was mentioned again in the House of Representatives to-day. The Hon. \\ . Downie Stewart, in replying to a question put by Air H K. Holland (Buffer), said that, the question as to whether any particular book or magazine offended against the rule laid dawn by the Government against advocacy of violence had to be adjudicated upon by some officer. The fact that certain books had been admitted to Australia and stopped in New Zealand indicated merely a difference of opinion in applying the rule. lie was willing to submit these publications to the censor for further consideration. Mr Holland made a warm protest against the maintenance of the censorship. He was sure that all members cf the House had read "Rod Europe.” if this book, which at present was prohibited, could be placed in the hands of every person in New Zealand, and if the people could be relied upon to read it, and understand it, the Government would not be safe at the next general election. Some of the publications banned by the censor did not advocate violence at all. They were prohibited because they did not suit the opinions of certain people in this country. The Minister observed that a curious feature of the question and the discussion was that Mr Holland had not made it clear whether he personally wished literature advocating violence to be permitted to come into the country and be circulated. Air Holland contended that the literature he had referred to did not advocate violence. Mr Stewart pressed the point. He said that assuming ihe literature did advocate violence, he gathered from the extract that the member for Buffer had read that he believed it was the right of any person to take steps to advocate the upsetting of legal constitutional authority. Air Holland retorted that the words he had quoted were those of a Lord of Appeal (Lord Carson), whom the Government would favour. Mr Stewart replied that Sir Edward Carson as a politician, and Sr Edward Carson as a judge were two different men. He added: “I am going to quote an authority that I suppose the member would recognise. That authority is a member of the Now Zealand Labour Party (Mr I). G. Sullivan), who had stated that the Government was justified in deliberately excluding from the country such literature as advocated and urged the people to laziness and rebellion, and he had declared that ho had no wish at i all to permit the circulation of literature i advocating violence, lawlessness, and sediS tion. Air Holland: But we are talking about literature that do s not advocate violence. Mr Stewart: We must establish the general principle firs -. If we are not agreed on the general principle it is no use our discussing its application to a particular book. Mr Holland said that be was willing to discuss with the Minister the question the latter had raised Air Stewart said that the member would not agree on the general principle. Not only was that so, but it appeared that the Labour Party itself, when it came into power, intended to establish a censorship far more rigorous than that complained of now. It was apparently going to censor patriotic school literature, which it claimed was distorting history. Mr Holland alleged that the Minister was misrepresenting the party. He asked whether the Government was prepared to prohibit all books which advocated violence. All- Stewart replied that every rule must be applied with discretion and according to tlie exigencies of the case. Air Holland : You would have to tako 509 books off the shelves of the library here. , , , Air Stewart said that the books had been adjudicated upon at the time of the wav. Since the war the matter had been reconsidered, and Sir Francis Bell had made a statement of what he considered a reasonable rule. This rule had apparently been agreed with by Air Sullivan. Some of the books under discussion might have been barred before the rule vvas restated, and the Government was quite willing <o give reconsideration to them under the new rule.