RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

Taranaki Daily News, 7 March 1935, Page 7

RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

NO RESTRICTIONS MADE

ADDRESSES IN PROPER MANNER. REVIEW OF SENTENCES SOUGHT. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A statement that there is no desire on the part of the Government to restrict free speech provided the speeches were made in a proper manner was made by the Minister of Justice, Hon. J. G. Cobbe, in replying to a deputation asking that the sentences Imposed as the result of street speeches at Auckland last July should be reviewed. He did not know of any objection provided meetings were held where traffic was not obstructed and the freedom of people engaged on legitimate business was not interfered with, said the Minister. The deputation was introduced by Mr. W. E. Parry, M.P., who stated that the Free Speech Council was representative of all walks of life and was a non-poli-tical body. The Minister said he understood there were places in Auckland where people could gather and speak. The Government did not wish to curtail the freedom of speech. Mr. H. M. Smith, delegate from the Auckland Free Speech Council, said sites should be made available for meetings where there would be no obstruction of traffic. The Minister: Is not that the position at present? Mr. Smith said sites had been given but only as the result of representations made in response to public opinion. The Minister; Still you have places now. Mr. Smith said the fact that there was now the right to speak should demonstrate to the Minister, that the sentenced imposed had been harsh. They had been actuated by political motives. The Minister: That is absolutely incorrect. You stick to the truth. Dealing with his own case, Mr. Smith said that he had been batoned by the police in the fire station. COMPLAINT NOT BELIEVED. The Minister: You can’t expect me to believe that. It’s no use you coming here now and saying that the policemen battered you about. Mr. Smith said that the policemen stopped only as the result of remarks made by the firemen. The Minister: What were the sentences on you? Three months hard labour?— That's true. The Minister: Two year’s probation and you had to stay in at night?—lncluding six months’ curfew. The Minister: Did the police look very closely into the curfew? Did anybody try to make you stay in?—l don’t think they would be so foolish. The Minister: Was any attempt made to keep you in your house at night?— I don’t know, but it is on my probation papers.

The Minister: You have nothing to complain about?—l have. The Minister: That you are being kept in?—lt is there. The others can’ be picked up at any time on the other charges. The Minister: So long as they behave, nobody will interfere. —Yes, according to how you administer the law in the interests of the capitalist classes of the country. Mr. C. Smith, representing the Wellington Seamen’s Union, said that it seemed ridiculous that a man should be given a sentence for a right which the city council now allowed. Mr. M. Ormerod, representing the Communist Party of New Zealand, contended that the restrictions were part of the Government’s action in suppressing the working class movement. “A week ago I was in the Wellington central station taking out a short term for a fine and a police officer came in and used disgusting and very provocative language against me,'’ he said. “He was trying to provoke me into trying to hit him to give him an opportunity to beat me up.” Mr. W. G. Wohlmann (Commissioner of Police): Have you made any complaint? PUT IN A PADDED CELL. Mr. Ormerod: No. I was transferred to a padded cell. That’s a question that needs investigation. Mr. Parry: In the Wellington Central police station? Mr. Ormerod: A week last Friday. I was locked there till I was taken out to Mount Crawford. The Minister: There is no good in talking nonsense. You can’t expect me to believe that the police treat any man in that manner. We don’t stand for anybody being treated unfairly by the police. Mr. Ormerod: It’s a common practice of the police to do that. Mr. Wohlmann: Did you complain to any prison officials or to any justice of the peace when you came out? The Minister said he understood that the portion of the sentence requiring Mr. H. M. Smith to be at home by 7 p.m. had nearly expired. It was a difficult matter to interfere with a probationary sentence, but if representations were made after half the term had expired he would consider the case. Mr. Wohlmann (to Mr. Smith): You claim to represent the working class of New Zealand and that when the offences occurred you were representing the Seamen’s Union. I aih informed that you have been expelled from the Seamen’s Union because you caused disruption and that you and others do not represent the working class at all. You claim that you have been punished for breaking a by-law. You have been punished for inciting and obstructing the police and other matters under the Police Offences Act.

“The allegations made against the police have not been substantiated by any evidence. You had the opportunities to make official complaints. “Mr. Ormerod has made a statement and I would be glad if he were prepared to make a statutory declaration before a justice to inquire into it.”

Mr. H. M. Smith said it was untrue that he was an expelled member of the Seamen's Union and that he caused disruption. “I attended a meeting of the Seamen’s Union this morning,” he said. Mr. Wohlmann: You are not a member of the Seamen’s Union now. Mr. Smith: I am a member of the Seamen’s Union.