Security

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31096, 27 June 1966, Page 12

Security

Sir,—“A.R.” dodges the issue when asked to define a Communist. When leaving Vancouver just over 40 years ago, my brother handed me a few’paperbacks to read on the voyage, among them being one entitled “Communism and Christianism,” written by a Christian bishop. I forget his name—is fact, the main thing I remember is that, in his opipion, the Golden Rule was applicable to both creeds; “Do unfo others as you would have others do unto you.” If somebody points to the outrageous crimes committed by so-called Communists, I would remind him of the atrocities recorded in the history of Christianity. Apart from the Christian belief in the Fatherhood of God, what real difference is there in the two creeds? It appears that the

common people in many parts of the world are waiting and hoping for communism, just as we are waiting and praying for Christianity.—Yours, etc., D. ROBERTSON. June 25, 1966.

Sir, —May I repeat: the greatest threat to freedom in New Zealand is a secret police or security service. “A.R.,” representing those who approve of a political secret police, when asked what was a Communist (the sole apparent cause and object of the Security Service) answers that his own definition was not publishable but some of his friends knew. When asked where these undefinable creatures were, he points to the university and the trade unions. In the eyes of “A.R.” and the like of him then, nonconformist thought is “Communist” and subject to secret police supervision and intimidation. A free society is proud of non-conformity. “Security” suppresses it. If we are asked to fight for freedom of thought and expression let us start right here, fighting against the insidious trespasses of “security” into our cherished civil liberties.— Yours, etc., CIVIL LIBERTIES. June 25, 1966.