(Established 1898). The Waimate Advertiser. (Published every evening since 1914). FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1922. THE LISTON CASE.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 19 May 1922, Page 4

(Established 1898). The Waimate Advertiser. (Published every evening since 1914). FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1922. THE LISTON CASE.

The verdict of the jury concerning the charge of seditious utterance made against Dr Liston at Auckland was the only logical conclusion compatible with British law and the ideals of British justice, that any “twelve good men and true” could possibly arrive at. Undoubtedly, as was stated in the jury’s rider, Dr Liston was guilty of a grave indescretion; but we venture to think that had he been granted the same freedom of speech and tolerance as that which obtains in the Old Country, his utterances would not have been unduly advertised, and thus giving to men of lesser culture and intelligence an incentive to indulge in similar indiscretions. It is in such matters that freedom-loving Britain differs from New Zealand. Thirteen months ago, Major Archer-Shee urged in the House of Commons that the sedition laws should be enforced against speakers in Hyde Park who made a practice of bringing the Government into contempt. The reply of Mr Shortt, K.C., the Home Secretary, stated in a few words the British practice in such cases: “Many seditious, abusive, and revolutionary speeches are reported by the police, and provided that no breach of the peace is caused, and th e speeches do not advocate direct violence, there is no need to deal with them. The custom is to regard Hyde Park to some extent as a safety valve.”

That was the attitude of a British Executive at a time when it was facing such a storm of abuse, aimed by men of all classes and all parties,

as has never been known in the history of Australasian Governments. The one great advantage of freedom of speech is that it tends to disperse the dangers that culminate, in many instances, in bloody revolution. A great writer has observed that “Violence exerted towards opinions which falls short of extermination serves no other purpose than to render them more known, and ultimately to increase the zeal and number of their abettors.” The laws governing sedition in New Zealand, as in mest countries, are difficult to define and to apply, and it would seem that, as Lord Kenyon once remarked, “that whatever twelve of his countrymen thought blamable was libellious, and whatever they thought not blamable was not libellous.” might be equally well applied in cases of sedition. The laws of New Zealand in this respeet certainly need readjustment, and when they are being readjusted, it would be well for all lovers of freedom to see that the rights of all sections of the community, political as well as religious, are safeguarded.