OUT OF DATE.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8361, 26 July 1920, Page 3

OUT OF DATE.

“ EYE-FOR-EYE POLICY.

GENERAL RUSSELL AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Regarding his attitude towards the conscientious objectors to military service, and his recent statements thereon (which have caused considerable discussion) General Russell made a statement to a “New Zealand Times” representative. VINDICTIVE POLICY OUT OF DATE. General Russell explained that he made the statement he did in reply to a specific question which he answered, and he undertook to make his answer public, which he had done. “I advocated the release of conscientious objectors on the ground that their imprisonment serves no useful purpose,” said Sir Andrew. “The vindictive eye-for-eye and- tooth-for-tooth policy is out of date. As a reformative measure it is ineffective During war the necessity for preventive punishment is imperious as r clear warning to others. On the restoration of peace such action, in my opinion; is no longer necessary. The conscientious objectors in question will not be prevented from similar action in a future war by further punishment now. For the future the true prevention of this abnormal view of a citizen’s .duty to his country is to be sought, not. by the negative process of punishment, but by the positive process of inculcating and fostering : true national spirit. There will always be found in every* community a few abnormal men who fail to rea‘lise that their conscientious objection is, in fact, a form of selfishness, in that it means that someone else has to take the conscientious objector’s place at the front. NO CIVIL RIGHTS.

“ As to the disfranchisement of conicientious objectors who refuse obedience to any law with which they disagree, they certainly cannot claim the right to make laws to be imposed on others. I therefore take the view that, unless they make it perfectly clear that they are prepared to obey the laws of the country, they should not receive full civil rights. In the meantime the continued imprisonment of these men involves expense to no purpose, if my conclusions are correct. “It must be understood, of course, concluded General Russell, “that the views I have thus expressed apply solely to the genuine conscentious objectors, and not to shirkers. Moreover, I wish you to make it clear that what I have stated is purely my own personal view. ’ ’