FREE SPEECH

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20051, 7 March 1935, Page 6

FREE SPEECH

ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT

REPLY TO DEPUTATION

By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, March 6. A statement that there was 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, when replying to a deputation asking that the sentences imposed as a result of street speeches at Auckland last July should be reviewed. He did not know of any objection provided the meetings were held where traffic was not obstructed and the freedom of people engaged in legitimate business was not interfered with. During the course of the deputation allegations were made concerning the treatment of a prisoner by police officers. The Commissioner of Police, who was present, immediately invited the complainant to make a statutary declaration before a Justice of the Peace. If that were done he would have the matter investigated. He pointed out that no complaint had been made to any prison official at the time the treatment was alleged to have been meted out, which was at the central police station on Friday week. In regard to the specific case of one of the Auckland men, the Minister said it was difficult to interfere with a probationary sentence, but if representations were made after half of the term had expired he would consider the case. It was not usual to consider cases unless half of the sentence had expired. One point emphasised by the deputation was that since the sentences were imposed, places had been set apart by the Auckland City Council where meetings could be held.

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-political body. The Minister said he understood that 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, a delegate from the Auckland Free Speech Council, said that 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 that sites had been given, but only as a 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 sentences 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. The Minister: You can’t expect me to believe that. It is no use you coming here now and saying that policemen battered you about. Mr Smith said that the policemen slopped only as a result of remarks made by firemen. The Minister: What were the sentences on you? —Three months hard labour? Mr Smith: That’s true.

The Minister: Two year’s probation and you had to stay in at night? Mr Smith: Including six months Curfew.

The Minister: Did the police look very closely into the Curfew? Did anybody try to make you stay in? Mr Smith: I don’t think they would be so foolish. The Minister: Was any attempt made to keep you in your house at night? Mr Smith: I don’t know, but it’s on my probation papers. The Minister: You have nothing to complain about?

Mr Smith: I have. The Minister: That you are being kept in? Mr Smith: It Is there. The others can be picked up at any time on other charges. The Minister: So long as they behave nobody will interfere.

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? 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 1 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: Its a common practice Oj. the police to do that. Mr Wohlmann: Did you complain to any prison officials or to any Justice when you came out? The Minister said he understood t'- t the portion of the sentence requiring Mr 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 of 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 am 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 ail. You claim that you have been punished for breaking a by-law. You have been punished for inciting, 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 have had opportunities to make official complaints. Mr Ormerod has made a statement, and I wil' be glad if he is prepared to make a statutory declaration before a justice to inquire into it. Mr H. M. Smith said it was untrue

1 at he was an expelled member of the Seamen’s Union and that he caused disruption. “I atteuded a meeting of the Seamen’s Union yesterday 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.