The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1940 What Freedom Means

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21554, 17 January 1940, Page 6

The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1940 What Freedom Means

TWO nbivs items published earlier this week could be read effectively in conjunction with each other, for in some ways they symbolise the real inner purpose of the war. The first was a message from New York in which the London correspondent of the New York Times commented on the freedom of expressiota in Britain after four months of war, which he described as amazing when compared with France of to-day, or the United States in the. last war. This dispatch stated that recent articles have blamed Mr Chamberlain’s appeasement policy for the outbreak of war. Letters in the newspapers dwell more on Britain's faults than Germany's, and Left Wing publications even debate whether the war merits support. The second message contained the report of a speech by Mr T. L. Ilorabin, a Liberal member of Parliament, who declared that he trembled to think what would happen if Mr Chamberlain, Sir Horace Wilson and the “brass hats” ran the war among them. He added that if the war was to be won Mr Chamberlain must go. In a free country nobody will think any the worse of Mr Horabin because he criticises the Prime Minister in this manner, but if a person in his position attempted in Moscow so to belabour Stalin, or in Berlin to suggest that Hitler’s statesmanship had imperfections, a speedy and permanent silence would be put upon him.

The right of men to speak their mind, even in times like these, is a carefully cherished British privilege. It is inevitable that some limits must be imposed, but in a general way anything short of direct incitement to dangerous is permitted. This is part of the British heritage; it is an important part of what we are fighting for now. And it is good that this liberty of expression should not be checked, since it enables useful suggestions to be made. Here is one example of that. On November 17 the Spectator, a Conservative weekly, commenting on Mr Winston Churchill’s broadcast speech of November 12, described the talk as one containing several passages “that must be regretted.” It went on to say: “The First Lord's fire and brilliance are always welcome, and it may be true that nothing but the plainest words can impress the average Nazi mind. But Mr Churchill was talking primarily to British hearers, and he failed curiously for once to gauge the temper of his countrymen. They have no desire to meet Nazi taunt with taunt. A reference to ‘General Goering —I beg pardon, Field-Marshal Goering,’ is a very pointless artifice, and denunciation of ‘Hitler and his Huns,’ involves a resort to abusive epithets in which even Mr Churchill can hardly hold his own with Dr. Goebbels.” The effect of such comment as this may be that Mr Churchill would modify his technique on finding that he was not correctly interpreting the spirit of the country. The best comment on British methods of meeting war conditions, however, must come from neutral sources. ‘A description of British censorship was given, again by the London correspondent of the New York Times, in an article published on December 3. “There has probably been more talk about less censorship in this country than anywhere else in Europe since the war broke out,” he wrote. “That is partly because, being inexperienced in such matters, the British made a terrible botch of reconciling the necessities of war with the ideals of freedom of speech and press, and partly because the very idea implicit in the word “censorship” is as abhorrent to them as it is to most Americans.” The article then goes on to say: “The point is that British censorship, except where it is designed to save the lives of British soldiers and sailors and not the skins of politicians, is a no more serious barrier to truthful presentation of the news than the libel laws of the United States.” Clearly such honesty as this is bred of confidence. Dr. Goebbels cannot release the truth to his people; he cannot even allow them-access to foreign broadcasts because he knows the truth would undermine their allegiance. British people, nurtured in the tradition of freedom, can enjoy and assess at their proper worth the broadcasts of “Lord Haw Haw” from Berlin, but a German is liable to imprisonment, or even death, for listening to a foreign radio station. Such a simple thing as this shows the chasm between democratic and totalitarian ideas. To maintain their liberties the democracies must vanquish the antagonist who wishes to vanquish them.