CENSORSHIP OF LITERATURE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16416, 3 May 1921, Page 2

CENSORSHIP OF LITERATURE.

A LABOUR PROTEST, REQUEST FOR JOHNSON’S RELEASE. TPfv Press Associat ton ! WELLINGTON. May 2. A deputation from the Alliance of Labour waited on the Acting-Prime Minister this afternoon to urge the repeal of the remaining "War Regulations, and request the release of Johnson, who recently was sentenced to imprisonment for selling seditious literature. The deputation comprised Messrs Mack (Rail veaymen), Young (Seamen’s Union), Arbuekle ([Miners' Federation), Bruce and L. Glover (IVa torsi dors), Parlane (Drivers’ Union) and Ellis (Canterburr Freezing Workers). Mr Mack claimed that they more truly represented the workers of New Zealand than any oilier deputation that had ever waited upon any Minister. They felt that the time had come when the War Begulations should he repealed. and. whilst they were not prepared to say that Johnson was wholly elarnelcss, they thought that if he had bad counsel fha sentence might have been different. They asked the Minis- ! ter. therefore, to review the sou fence ! and consider the repeal of the regulations. His • own organisation all over tlio Dominion had half an hour ago passed a resolution supporting the deputation's plea. Mr Young said he thought, the sentence was very severe. The regulations were passed specifically for the . war period and should be repealed. Sir William Berries, as Minister of Labour, had .refused lo prosecutes employers holding up tho whole shipping in Wellington port lor fourteen days, on the ground that the regulations were passed expressly for tho war period. The only effect of the regulations now, he urged, was prevention of freedom of speech and the Press that should obtain in the conn try. 'Mr Arbuekle also contended that the imprisonment of Johnson was an interference with the freedom of speech. I Mr Glover urged that if the Minister | know Johnson he would recognise that jhe would no more iead a profession against Parliament.- than the Hon J. G. ! AN. Ai 1 ken, that ho would be the last j man in the Labour movement to do I anything of the kind, and that there i were plenty of men in tho Cabinet more I likclv to be responsible for violence'than ) Johnson, who had not known what was | in the pamphlet. Sir Francis Bell, replying, said that Mr Glover's observations were the only | ones that would induce him to consider ; Johnson's case. Arguments addressed ■ to tiie Goi eminent Hiat it was not | criminal to circulate literature advocat- | ing violence had not his assent. Free- | cb m of speech and discussion was their ; right as Englishmen, but no man, un-lo-s subject to tvrnunv, had the right ! to csill ' iiji'ou Ills fellows, because lie I .SUM impatient. id knock somebody on • the head. In Russia Englishinon had ; been imprisoned, not because they i spoke against the present Government, | but because they held opinions against j the Government and it was idle to say Lliat. freedom of speech would be the j result of the acquisition of power by those on whoso behalf Johnson distribI uted the literature. The war regulaj tioiis had been repealed, those retained i being now law by Act of Parliament, j as was the Police Offences Act, passed jto make clear that the Government 1 insisted upon prohibiting lawlessness 1 and crime. They were free to have j any other literature they pleased, free j to advocate in speech and print the wildest form of Socialism and communism. That was not sedition, unless they advocated violence as a means of obtaining their Utopia. Short of that they were entitled to say anything they pleased and they could defy anybody to interfere, but if they distributed literature of that kind, which did advocate violence and slaughter as a political method, instead of waiting to gain their Utopia, by the votes of the majority, it was unlawful. Every Government was bound to prevent it and was bound to protect the majority against the assault of the minority. Johnson admitted circulating the literature and was proud of it. Ali- Mack : Not knowing what it contained. Sir Francis Belt: A man must be responsible for his acts. He was satisfied that Johnson committed an offence, a wicked and criminal offence, but Mr Glover said the man was not cognisant of selling literature advocating murder, arid as not being a man who would himself advocate that political method for New Zealand. He would take that into consideration, and lay it before the Minister of Justice. The rest of it he would not. Mr Glover’s plea was quite different from the argument that tbev wanted the man let out because they wanted free speech. He believed in free speech, but could not and would not agree that they had the right to advocate cutting down their fellow citi3*3ns. lie would put before the Minister of Justice the plea for mitigation of sentence on the ground that Johnson was not knowingly or wilfully guilty of advocating murder.