UN-BRITISH.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 15975, 18 November 1919, Page 4

UN-BRITISH.

Ajjothbb aim of this undesirable element in politics is to prevent free speech and fair criticism by candidates who are not allied to the Party. Such athave boon made in the four chief centres, and is anything but creditable to the N. Z. Labour Party. It is unfair to Labour, which has always stood for preservation of the fullest measure of democratic right, that this objectionable system should be perpetrated in its name. The working man of New Zealand has never hitherto denied the right of a political speakor to a hearing, whether it agreed with him or rot, and we are convinced that within the ranks of genuine Labour, as opposed to the wild-eyed extremists, there is no sympathy with such an essentially un-British proceeding. And yet this is what is happening throughout New Zealand from light to night. It would be difficult to find a more convincing illustration of the argument; than the experience of Lieut.-Colonet Mitchell when he opened his campaign for Iho Wellington South electorate the other evening. Ho was, as the N.Z. Times points out, entitled to exception-, ally sympathetic consideration, because he had fought with distinction on the battlefields of France and Belgium, and had been maimed in the service of his country. Moreover, he had a message for the people full of solemn significance, and made more weighty by the terrible experiences through which he had passed. Above and beyond this, he stood for the rights of the soldiers, which rights the Bed Fed. gentlemen profess to lie eager to champion. But Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell not only received no fair consideration from the disorderly section of his audience who style themselves Labour, but he was not even accorded decent treatment. The interjections were, says the Times, an insult alike to the candidate, to the memory of our glorious dead, and to every soldier who fought and suffered in the cause of his country. There were cheers, but they were for the hero Paddy Webb, who preferred the safe security of prison to the dangers of the battlefield. It was a squalid exhibition of disloyalty and want of patriotism, as well as an unhappy example of intolerance, but nevertheless it has found its defenders amongst jh© leaders of this Red Fed. movement which is now masquerading as Labour. And yet we find Mr Mcllvride and Mr Brady allying themselves with these men, while at the same time professing to have great sympathy for the soldiers and their dependents! Oh, the irony of it!