What Our Readers Ave Thinking

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 14, Issue 66, 21 November 1949, Page 4

What Our Readers Ave Thinking

Though their views on all subjects are freely published here because we believe it our duty to uphold the public's right to freedom of opinion, our correspondents' opinions are not necessarily shared by this news. .paper. FREE BLOTTERS Sir, —Fortunately, Mr Sullivan has a sense of humour. He did crack a joke at the opening of the Radio Station at Rotorua. Your correspondent ' "Wondering Willie" (or should it be "Wandering Willie") is not so blessed. j He need not be alarmed. When he received the • offending slip with "Blot out the Opposition" on it, he held in his hand about' the only bit of propaganda so far issued this election—at least), it could be used for blotting paper. * Yours etc FUNNY BONE. MINISTERIAL LEVITY

'' Sir, —When hearing the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Cullen} the other night at Edgecumbe, telling us that Mr Sullivan would welcome a spell from • politics, I thought to myself "poor old Bill. Is he really already suffering, from senile decay." But after hearing Mr Sullivan . speak I had to reverse the entirely false impress] on which Mr Cullen endeavoured to convey, because I found Mr Sullivan going stronger than ever, in fact improving as he goes along, if that be possible. Consequently, I can only draw the conclusion that it must be the other fellow who s is x the , sufferer, when holding a responsible position as he does, he chose to come out in public and make statements like that. Of course, the debility mentioned may be catching to a certain extent, and_ seeing that Mr Cullen has so many fellow sufferers amongst his crowd, it seems to me that there 'is only one thing to do on the" 30th Yo irs etc., 1 SACK 'EM.

* s .SUNDAY CRICKET

Sir, —"Faith's" statement as to the of the United Crickt Club's; delegates is open to question. Their effort to follow the, dictates of their own conscience in religion is commendable in itself, but wh<tn they endeavour to compel others to comply with then* own religious practice they seem to have overlooked the fact' that others, may have equally strong convictions also.' Who knows? Has either side the right to seek to compel the other in masters of conscience imd religious practice? This too will bear investigation.

v > Willing obedience to God is one thing, but ■ compelled submission, to the dictates of another ■ can only produce intolerance and hypocrisy. Is not this attitude , of religious compulsion the same old seed from Which sprang so much woe in the past? Have we forgotten the Dark Ages, the greatest period of religi-, ous compulsion and intolerance ever known? Or those Scottish Covenant ters- so* many ; of whom'shed their blood rather than be dictated to regarding religion? Or the Pilgrim Fathers who to e.scape from such tyranny braved 4he stormy Atlantic in their cockleshells and the perils of an unknown country inhabited by Red Indians? Or those who defied Hitler and so chose the dreaded concentration camps gather than submit" to his dictates ! on religion? That old saying, "One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink" is still true, and if the United Cricket Club could enforce a cricketless Sunday they would still not have Sunday sacredness, as that does not depend on cricket.

Religious freedom has been bought at a very great price in human lives; let us value it aright/allowing the same rights and freedom to those who may differ with us as we expect for ourselves. Yours etc., THE GOLDEN RULF.

.COMPULSORY UNIONISM Sir, —It is my intention to; compare the past with what the future might have in store for the workers of New Zealand. To coyer past T>;:d ■ Uiren history I will take just a few quotations from a book published in April 1886 covering all aspects of finance including Trade Unions. "One of the duties is, an organisation for protecting the interests of workers by obtaining for them such advantages as higher wages, shorter hours etc." "Unpopular with the capitallist classes."

"In times past and especially while the legislature was engaged in a foolish and unjust endeavour to suppress trade unionism by law. the men were frequently guilty of using force and violence to compel those workmen to join their so-

ci£ty, who would otherwise bee.-, unwilling to become members-of trade: 'A unions," .< , - , v ■>. "No shipwright can, become; a member of a; union who has not./. served seven years apprenticeship, and no employer can engage a shipwright who cannot produce his indentures of his apprenticeship, be- ■ cause, if he did so; all'"the Unionist ' , workmen in his employment would, strike." - - ■-* The first Trade Union I have a > record of was in the year 136?. Now, Sir, what of '] the * .lanrre? The National Party have set out on ■ ' a policy which, if carried into ef- , feet, would throw the Workers of this country back to the very early 80's,-dn other words, from 6j3 to 70 years. ' ' „ Why do I say that? In your lead-' ;;■ er of November 4 you quote our M.P. as saying: "We have. no guarantee other than the known integrity of the men who drafted it and back it that his party's policy . will be carried but if the party be-, comes the Government." . The following questions might '•"■ '••.( throw some light on the points at issue. • , Does the first part of that statement mean, that the National Part;-*;., had no say in the drafting of thalp. statement? If so, why is it in their* policy? In the event of the National Party's becoming the Government, will they amend the I.C. and A Act so as to allow for the same condi- . tions ruling in England 63 3-rears ago, in other words, a closed union? If these questions are not answered very clearly then workers knowrwhat'to expect re wages and conditions once the Unions are brok- ./ en. That is the object today as it ' was nearly 70 years ago. Is history going to repeat, itself? That's the workers' question. Yours etc., ■

HARRY CARR. Our correspondent seems reluctant to believe that the National Party's policy statement means what it says —that workers will be asked to decide for themselves, by secret balolt, whether they want 'compulsory unionism or not; and that they will alteo be asked to manage their own affairs, democratically, by secret ballots. We cannot see how v any reasonable person can object to- such a proposal if he believes in democracy, at all. We believe it was suggested, by the National Party as,an insurance against the possible future use of the "force and violence." Mr Carr mentions as having been used in the past by militants against their fellow workers.' We are satisfiedi that the National Party's policy has the approval of the party as a whole; also iiiat it is no <part of the Party's intension to model any of its legislation on the ,out-of-date laws of any other country nor, for that matter, on the more recent laws of totalitarian states. Editor. / \