P.P.A. LITERATURE

New Zealand Tablet, 13 June 1918, Page 30

P.P.A. LITERATURE

GOVERNMENT EXPLAIN WHY IT IS BANNED For some time past the Protestant Political Association has been protesting against the exclusion by the Government of certain literature which it is anxious to have circulated in this country (states the Wellington correspondent of the Otago Daily Times). In answer to representations the following letter has been sent to Mr. J. S. Dickson, M.P., as representing the executive of the P.P.A., by Mr. Myers, Minister of Customs, and Sir Francis Bell. The letter begins: “The question of permission for entry into New Zealand from abroad of printed matter questionable by reason of its character in the time of war is one to be decided by the Minister of Customs. The stoppage of sale or other circulation of literature already in New Zealand or printed in New Zealand is a matter controlled by the Attorney-general. To ensure as far as possible uniformity in the principle of our decisions we have arranged to act together in determining the various questions involved, and at our request Mr. Martin Chapman, K.C., has kindly consented to act as censor of all literature referred to him by us and to advise us as to its character. “Our duty is to prevent during the war the circulation of matter objectionable for numerous reasons, of which it is necessary at present to define only three general classes: (a) Incitement to resistance of the law; (b) treasonable, as having a tendency to assist the enemy ; or (c) so offensive in language, allegations, or insinuations as to give rise to justifiable resentment by any classes of the community. Under class (c) we have to deal with the literature in respect of which you have made representations, and of which the books and pamphlets already stopped at the Customs are examples. Every work must be considered and dealt with on the separate considerations affecting its special character; but we think it desirable to lav down for your guidance some indication of the general principles we propose to adopt in regard to classes of printed matter which your association desires to circulate. “Literature attacking any religious doctrine or political principle is objectionable only if the language used is outrageous in its violence. Again, the attribution to a religious sect of objects distinct from the advancement of religion is not of itself sufficient to justify intervention by us; but the attribution of immorality to classes of persons who have taken a vow of celibacy is beyond the line of possible controversy. During the war members of one of such classes cannot defend themselves, and the public peace and safety would be endangered if the circulation of such matter were permitted.” On receipt of this letter the executive of the P.P.A. appointed a deputation to interview the Ministers, and that interview took place on Tuesday. It was not open to the press, but a report of the proceedings has been supplied by the Ministers. The Rev. Howard Elliott pressed very hard for the admission of certain of the literature now banned. He insisted that the writings were true, and that they should be allowed to circulate even at the expense of the hurt feelings of Catholics. He did not accept the standard •of judgment likely to be adopted by the censors—namely, whether the -literature would irritate Roman Catholics. He declared that one section of the community had no right to be irritated if what was published was true. Sir Francis Bell: The question is not whether it is true or not. The point is that you should not at this time proceed to your proof or your attack. Why you choose this time I do not understand. The country has entrusted to us the right of saying whether this is a fit time for such propaganda. Personally I dislike interfering with men in a manner in which in time of peace no Government could adopt; but I know that it is necessary that in time of war someone or some body of men should determine what is and what is not expedient; and it is for the body of the community

until the end of the war to surrender their view of expediency. Sir Francis went on to say that he and his colleague would take into further consideration the arguments addressed to them by the deputation; but that they should have all the license of peace in time of war he could not concede. Mr. Myers endorsed and supported the opinions expressed by Sir Francis Bell.