The Churches and Free Speech

Southland Times, Issue 24605, 29 November 1941, Page 6

The Churches and Free Speech

During an address before the Justices of the Peace Association in Wellington on Thursday Dr O. C. Mazengarb criticized “certain ministers of religion” for “fostering a spirit of antagonism to the civil law.” In the absence of explicit allegations the charge can only be explained by the speaker’s reference to man-power tribunals. Apparently Dr Mazengarb was thinking of the resolution passed recently by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The substance of the resolution included a determination to uphold Christian conscience, an expression of disappointment with the way in which the national service regulations are being administered, -and an assurance that “those who suffer in consequence” will continue to receive the sym—pathy and ministrations of the church. It was unfortunate that the resolution was not accompanied by a condensed report of the discussion which preceded its acceptance by the assembly, or that an explanatory statement was not issued later. As it stands, it cotild not fail to create a painful impression, for it implies that the church’s sympathies are too heavily weighted in favour of conscientious objectors and fails to indicate the real point at issue—which apparently was the value of the present method of hearing and deciding appeals against military service.

In the circumstances it cannot be surprising if Dr Mazengarb judged the resolution at its face value. But it is not so easy to understand the drift of his later remarks. “The Press reports of the proceedings (at the man-power tribunals) showed there was urgent need for a change in the law,” he said, “but while the law was there these clerical critics should respect it and not criticize the tribunals, which had the un-

pleasant duty of endeavouring to penetrate into the real minds of men.” It is difficult to see why churchmen should be denied the right to criticize the administration or interpretation of laws, or indeed, anything else which affects the moral life of the community. Laws are man-made, and there is no reason why they should be placed above criticism, especially where they touch those provinces of behaviour in which the churches are specially interested. It is true, of course, that in war time there must be no private or sectional interference with laws designed for the safety of the country. But if the methods of administration are causing injustice and needless suffering it is the duty of responsible bodies to speak against them. Freedom of speech belongs to churchmen as well as to laymen, and there are times when they have no right to remain silent. It is important to remember, however, that criticism needs clarity as well as boldness if it is to be effective.