THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN RUSSIA

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 204, 23 May 1919, Page 7

THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN RUSSIA

Sii. —Some months ago you, in common with (he entire daily Press of New Zealand, gave' publicity to cablegrams announcing Uμ: (he Soviet Government of Russia passed and published a rnon'strouo decree for the nationalisation of women.- Many leading articles abusive of the Bolshoviks wero 'penned on the assumption that the ii.formation contained in the cable messages was authentic, and a shudder of horror and disgust ran through the entire country. General credence was givon to the shockin? siory, except among those who.understood something about Socialism and its standard of 6ex equnlity, and those latter simply laughed at the absurdity of the assertions in spite of.their cleverly doctoied form of publication. Tho infamous canard first fiavr light in the columns of "The New Europe," a weekly periodical, which in its list of collaborators includes men liko Mr. H. -Wickham Sleed, editor of the London "'times , '; R. W. Setnn Wntson, Profcseor .. H Spencer Wilkinson', Professor R-amsay Muir, Frederic Harrison, J. L. Ciarvin, editor of-the London "Observer"; Professor Thomas G. Marsaryk, and Professor Sir Paul Vinosiran".

The issue of "The New Europe" for March 13 contains the following statement under the heading "The BolshevUts and tho Status of Women":—

."We have received '-he following communication from our collaborator, Dr. Harold Williams :-

"'The stntemont has been frequently made of late in tho Press and in public speeches that the Bolsheviks have issued <i monstrous decree for the nntionalisnlion of women, arid a Women's Society in Paris is reported to have- undertaken a campaign against the Bolsheviks on this particular ground. Personally, I cannot be accused of any prepossession in the Bolsheviks favour, but just because I feel so acutely .tho enormity of their real criines and the- iniquity of their whole regime, I consider it wrong to weaken the. case against them by imputing to them crimes they havo not committed.

" T have made particular inquiries anions • friends recently arrived from .Russia as to the alleged nationalisation of women, and they all assure mo positively that they have never heard or read of such a decree. It is certain that the Central Bolshevik Government has issued no order of (ho kind, and if Anarohists. in Smolensk or Rchoolboys in roine other provincial town have printed such nbominabh productions, the Centtral Government, cannot be held responsible. The position of women and of everybody else under the Bolshevik ramie is far too tragical to be made the subject of ■ such gross' caricature as these reports of the nationalisation of womeii really are. , "

-TVe gladly give prominence. to tho above declaration, since, according to tho •Russian Information Bureau' (tbe Bolshevik Agency in London), an articlq, otititled 'The Bolsheviki and the Status of Women,' published in No. 107 of 'The New Lurope,' 'appears to have set the ball rolling.' In it we gave 'a translation of a decree issued by the Bolsheviki of Vladimir, and published' in the official Soviet organ, 'Izvestija,' which bad teen supplied to us by an Englishman personally well acquainted with Russian conditions durinj? the war, and of unquestionable good' faith. Wo now find that he was inaccurate in quoting the document from the official Bolshevik organ 'Izyestija',' and that he had confused it-with the local Vladimir newspaper of the same , name ("Izvestija" beinJr tho Russian for "News"). As this ■ puts an entirely different complexion on the matter, and as the Central Moscow Government cannot bo held responsible for the lucubrations 'of ' every local committee, we-desire to.withdraw unreservedly the imputation, and to express our regret for the mistake."' •

Ihave no doubt, Sir, but (hat von will be pleased to give as much publicity to this refutation by Dr. Harold Williams, of an accusation against the Soviet Government as filthy as it was untrue, and .of the/'New Europe's" withdrawal and expression of regret, as you. did'to the 'original.c'nblo messages on the matter. I cannot .help regretting', for the sake of the cable service to the New Zealand Press, that the "New Europe's" retraction was not Riven the same prominence as its gross misrepresentation or invention.—l am, etc., ' ■ . P. PHASER, k M.P., Wellington Central. Wellington, May 14, 1919. ■' [The member for Wellington Central as on very dangerous ground when he sets out to defend tlie Bolsheviki in theii; treatment of women. Mr. Eraser appears to labour under the mistaken idea "that the only evidence of the abominable treatment of women by the Bolaheviki was that contained in the article which appeared in the columns.of "The New Europe." Ho also appears to imagine that because Dr. Harold Williains made inquiries from friends in Russia, who had iievoL , heard of the decree nationalising women, sucli a condition of tilings could not exist. Unhappily, the first-hand evidence of no less a personage than the I American Ambassador to Russia, the ! Hon. D. E. Francis,' puts n very different complexion On things. Giving evidence 'in March last before the United State; . Senate Committee of Investigation,- Mr. | ■Francis, who had only recently returned from' Russia, stated that in various provinces the Bolsheviki' had "nationalised"' women. So. far as he knew, the Central Soviet had'not itself issued nationalisation'decrees, hut it had decreed that a mere notification of intention to _ the Soviet is sufficient, to establish either marriage or divorce. One of the provincial decrees issued .was published in the ■ New York "Times" in March last. It ordered the commandeering "for the needs of the artillery regiment of sixty young women and airls of the bourgeoisie classes, and (o deliver, them at the barracks." ' It does not matter to the unhappy women affected whether these decrees'come from the Central Government or from the Provincial Soviets which flourish under it: the outcome to them is no less dreadfnl.l