The Press Tuesday, November 25, 1924. The Disloyalist Mind.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18239, 25 November 1924, Page 8

The Press Tuesday, November 25, 1924. The Disloyalist Mind.

Whenever it is suggested that the leaders of the modern Labour-Socialist movement arc indifferent or hostile to the spirit of loyalty, Labour men rise up to protest that such imputations of disloyalty are slanderous. Occasionally it does happen that the immediate ground chosen for criticising Labour is not strong enough to support the charge, but it is none the less true that at heart the Labour extremist is in general thoroughly disloyal. Those who have been reluctant to think so will hardly be able to maintain their charitable doubts in the face of the monstrous comment of the London "Daily Herald" upon the British Government' 3 handling of tho situation created by the tion of tho Sirdar. It is possible to find excuses for a critic who may urge that instead of taking the action required by the practical necessities of the case tho British Government ought to have set in motion the machinery of the Loague of Nations. But the "Daily "Herald," which is the official organ of the British Labour Party, and the authentic voice of tho Labour movement, goes far beyond this: it seizes upon the'incident as an opportunity to pour forth a torrent of venomous disloyalty. It declares that the action of the British Government is "precisely "similar" to the action taken by Austria in July, 1914, when the Archduke was murdered in Serajevo. The circumstances of the two cases differ so completely—the act of assassination is the only fact common to both—that nothing but reckless malice could inspire anyone to make such a comparison as the "Herald", has not .shrunk from making. The "Herald" is far too intelligent to be ignorant, of the difference between the two cases, but in any case its malice and disloyalty are made clear in its subsequent comments. '"Britain," it says, "is more fottunate'than Austria, "as no big Power stands behind "Egypt as Russia did behind Serbia. "We may therefore pursue a policy of "crushing, a small nation without fear"ing armed opposition by a State of our "own size." This stupid insult does not merit repudiation, but it requires notice for its revelation of the recklessness and malice of the disloyalist mind. Wo should merely have thought the "Herald" hopelessly and dangerously misguided, if it had blamed the Government for not meeting the outrages of Egyptian nationalism with tender forgiveness. But its wrath is not directed against what it may think is the wrong way of handling Egypt; it is directed against Britain because Britain is Britain. The man who can so atrociously defame his native country, not merely putting the worst construction upon its actions, but consciously defying facts in order to clear tho way for his defamation, would hardly fail to rejoice over his country's misfortunes. Such disloyal men are worse enemies of their country than open enemies abroad.' And the "Herald" is not the organ of | some insane traitor; it is the official spokesman of the British Labour Party. It !>y no means represents, in this matter, the average British workingman,, and it probably does not represent the majority of trade-unionists, but it does represent those who furnish the drivingpower of the Labour movement, and its article demonstrates quite clearly that whatever virtues militant LabourSocialism may claim, loyalty is not one of them. And what is true of militant Labour in Britain is so true of militant Labour here that we shall bo surprised if anyone in authority in the Labour movement in New Zealand expresses disapproval of the monstrous article of the "Daily Herald."