N.Z. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 129, 18 February 1918, Page 6

N.Z. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

MR. HOLLAND'S FURTHER REPLY TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. H. E. Holland furnishes the following statement: — _ . • I had hoped that tho Prime Minister would make some endeavour to offer an explanation of tho facts furnished by l me in my last statemont. But he has not done so. It is unfortunate that Mr.. Massey is completely silent on the matter of conscientious objectors being subjected to two and three sentences for the one offence, although he at first denied that more than one sentence could be inflicted. He is also ominously silent about the cruelties which were inflicted on the conscientious objectors on the transport and in Sling Camp. He now flies off at another tangent, and argues that/'these men are not conscientious objectors, but soldiers of the Expeditionary Force," etc. I have known some of the men—particularly Messrs. Ballantync and Briggs—for a. number 6f years, and they are not only conscientious objectors "themselves, hut both of them belong to families,that have for long vears held pronounced views on militarism. Mr. Massey scorns to think that the possession of a conscientious principle is a matter to be determined by Act of Parliament or War Regulation. For the first three centuries of tho Christian .era the Christians generally held similar views to those held by the Christian conscientious objectors of to-day; and tho rulers of that period took much the same, view that Mr. Massey and his Government take to-day. Tlien the conscience mon (and women) were thine; to the lions or nailed to the cross. Mr. Massey makes a law which refuses to the Catholic, the Anglican, tho Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Salvationist, or the So- J nialist the. right to hold a conscientious objection to military service; and, having made his law, he then pronounces its victims "conscienceless." I can appreciate the difficulty which he must necessarily experience in getting tho more thoughtful of his own supporters to see it that way. But can Mr. Massev explain the apparent contradiction of two of his statements? In the first denial he said: "There wero fivo of these men who stated they were conscientious and , religious objectors. These latter were not compelled to wear uniform and wero not "sent to France." I furnished facts in my last statement which completely disposed of this assertion. In his second statement, Mr. Massey tells us "these men are not conscientious objectors," and ho terms them "these, so-called religious, conscientious and Socialist objectors." Will he then tell us how it came that, as he first alleged, five of- them were treated as conscientious objectors if none of them were conscientious objectors? Will ho also explain tho discrepancy between his first statement, which was clearly to the effect that only sonw of them were compelled to dress in uniform and for the sole reason that their civilian outfits were condemned by the medical officer because they "would not ■ observe ordinary cleanliness," and Sir James Allen's statement, which is in effect that "no promise was ever made ... that tho men would not be forced to wear uniforms"—tho implication being, of course, that it was all along intended to compel them to wear uniform? In my speech no reference was made to anv promise about a uniform, hut only about persecution. However, it is for the Ministers to tell us whoso statement is correct. 1 notice Sir James Allen says: "The Defence Department knew as much about these men as it knew about any other soldier that was embarked and reached the other end." He adds that it is impossible to keep a record here of every man's movements. If this is so, it is weighty proof of the need for great Departmental changes. Fourteen men and boys with conscientious objections are forcibly carried from New Zealand, they are subjected to treatment born of tho spirit of Diocletian, some of them aro taken in irons to France, threo of them—one a hoy of between twenty-one and twentytwo—are forced to tho firing line; their mothers are almost frantic with anxiety and grief, an'd for months the Department tells them it can givo them no information as to tho fate of their boys. YVhy was it left to some of' tho mothers to learn from private sources —as they have learnt this week—that their boys have been eourt-martialled and sentenced to fivo years' hard labour 0 The three sent to the firing line wero Messrs. Ballantyne, Little, 'and Baxter—and these are the men who have been sentenced. Mr. Ballautyne is in a military prison in France, and the others are also in prison, either in Franco or England. I submit that tho Prime Minister's sneer about ''the broken-hearted mothers" will not satisfy the men and women of New Zealand who, whatever their political altitude or their views on militarism, love justice. One of the things they will want to know is why those mon and boys aro not brought back to Now Zealand. It f-eenis to me that there is no language in which could he adequately expressed tho regret and resentment ivhich every fair-minded person must have felt on residing tlm letter (alleged to have come from the parent of an objiv.tor) put into print by the Prime Minister, with the only possible object of besmirching tlm parents of tlm fourteen deported objectors. I would urge that the peop'e have a right to expect from the Prime Minister a higher conception of what he owes to his oflice—a hjgher regard for the dignity of his position—than to permit the angoP of an ill-advised moment to induce him to offer for publication such an allowed communication, and to offer it without th(v name of tho alleged author. Tho parents of such of the conscientious objectors as I am personally acquainted with are as highly respectable, and as deeply respected by thosi who know them, as any member of Mr. Mnsstiy's Cabinet, and would neither Ik> guilty of penning .such a letter as the one referred to nor of putting it into print if it happened to fall into their hands.