WARNING ISSUED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 849, 24 August 1933, Page 5

WARNING ISSUED.

Government Will Repress Disloyalty. PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH. (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY, August 17. Speaking to the Sane Democracy League a few days ago the Prime Minister told his hearers that the Federal Government proposes to take vigorous action against all organisations or individuals that may advocate “ any endeavour to overthrow established Govemment and set up another maintained by force against the will of the people.” The danger to be feared, as Mr Lyons pointed out. does not arise so much from the Communist Party direct, “ but rather from various other organisations dissociated in name, but in reality directing Communist organisations in the Commonwealth.” The Federal Government does not “ aim at the repression of opinion ” because that opinion happens to be politically hostile to it. Moreover the Prime Minister was careful to assure his audience that “ in no way can this be regarded as an attack on legitimate trade unions, nor will it interfere in any way with their activities”; but he and his colleagues are resolved to deal strictly with those organisations and agitators that are “ prostituting trade unionism and using it for unlawful purposes,” and where convincing I evidence is forthcoming to this effect, the law will be set in motion against them. Difficult to Enforce. No doubt the majority of people here sympathise with the views expressed by Mr Lyons, and would be prepared to support any action that his ; Government might take along the lines ! indicated: but while it is absolutely] unjust and unfair to interpret Mr Lyons’s warning as a threat to Labour organisations generally, it must be ad- 1 mitted that it will be difficult to apply | such legislation justly and effectively. | The trouble is that the terms “ Com- 1 munism ” and “ disloyalty *” are used in vague and comprehensive ways by |

so many different people in very different senses. Not long: since the Graziers* Association proposed that the dole be refused to all Communists, and the proposal was dropped only after members had pointed out how difficult it is to distinguish a “ Communist ” from anybody else. This week the Farmers’ and Settlers’ Conference passed a resolution to the effect that “ electors found guilty of disloyalty to the Empire ” and of serious crimes, should be disfranchised for varying terms; and Mr Trethowan, M.L.C., explained that he and his colleagues “ feel that a stop should be put to Communistic propaganda.” But unfortunately some members of the conference appeared to regard “ Communism ” and “ Socialism ” as equivalent terms, and some of them are inclined to describe as a 44 Socialist ” anybody who does not accept their own rather conservative views about their own rights and privileges. Question of Interpretation. The term 44 disloyalist ” itself needs a good deal of interpretation. Last week Mr Stevens told the joint Nationalist caucus that he propose? during the coming session to introduce measures to suppress 4 * disloyal organisations/* and he was at once asked pointedly what he means by 44 disloyalty." One paper has rather unkindly pointed out that most of the trouble in Germany just now has arisen over Hitler’s attempt to treat as “ disloyal anybody who presumes to differ from him. Of course nobody expects Mr Stevens |to go as far as this. But the fact remains that there are laws which already | provide penalties for sedition, which is ! disloyalty in action, and if Mr Stevens I attempts to define too elaborately the idea of 44 disloyalty ” he may find himself brought into conflict with that conception of liberty in thought and speech which is usually regarded as the inalienable heritage of the British people.