"CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS"

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 209, 29 May 1919, Page 6

"CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS"

DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN DEALING WITH THEM. Sir,—While few of your readers can have aijy sympathy with citizens whose conscience pcrntits them to partake of the'benefits of socialised life, and at the same time prompts them to disclaim obligation or responsibility in connection with the defence of those benefits, all must, I think, protest against any unft.«»' discrimination or differential treatment/in dealing with "conscientious objectors." It is absolutely impossible to 'determine wlio are and who aro not Ijona fide conscientious objectors on purely religious grounds, and to attempt to do so is but a short cut to the making of martyrs. .Why havo tho report and detailed findings of the Commission appointed to discriminate between bona fide religious and non-bona h'do conscientious objectors not been published? Surely the public have a right to know how the Commission found it possible to discriminate (in the matter of .conscientious objectors) on purely religious grounds. Here is a copy of a petition, which is to be presented 'to both Houses of Parliament, on the question of unfair discrimination in the matter of punishing conscientious objectors. It does not raise the general question of conscientious objection, or of its punishment—only the question of unfair discrimination in the punishment:—

"The petition humbly showetli: (1) That a Commission has been appointed to review the cases of objectors who are in prison- for 'breaches of the Military Service Act; and that it is proposed to give favoured treatment to those who. becauso of religious convictions, failed to comply with the law, while othe? equally honest and conscientious objectors are to hear the full penalty of their offence. That there should be such unfair discrimination—that men who arc guilty of the same offence should bo treated, differently because of their views

on religious question?—seems to your petitioners a gravo reflection on the tolerant spirit of the ago and the administration of justice. Tour petitioners enter their emphatic protest against such lneqiiiitablo discrimination, and respectfully pray that if any relief is to be given to objectors under the Military Service Act, it ought to bo given r.ot on the variable ground of religious belief, but on the ground of the honesty' and real conviction of the objector." Here, again, is a letter from a released conscientious objector, giving typical instances of the unfair discrimination complained of:—

"Typical instances of inequalities in punishment of conscientious objectors:— I'.G.W., a recognised Quaker, was kept in military detention at Trenthani and Wellington just about six months, then served eleven. months' imprisonment with hard labour, was rearrested, and has now served abo\it half of ft. two years' hard labour sentence. If the law takes its course, he will have to remain in prison till about March next year. "His brother, H.W., has simply sowed a two years' sentence, and is now fiee. In tho matter of declining to obey the military laws, the two brothers * look precisely the game stand. .Among Socialist and Irish objectors there • are similar inequalities. Tho M. brothers, thoroughly earnest internationalists, are serving, with others, their second long sentence. Many others of the same class nre free after serving only one term. Two typical Irish objectors are J.C. and G.L. C. is* serving his second sentence; •L. is free, though he began hjs'term of puiiishm«it later.- The position is mado doubly absurd by the fact that thn Court-martial which tried L. intended to nn\ke> Ins penalty especially severe— the Court being displased with the tone of hi.? address. Even anions men sentenced at the same time there has been great diversity of penalties, for no' apparent, reason. Auckland and Clivisloliiirch sentences have frequently been for 'more lenient than those imposed at Trenfham. 'Die F. brother?, of North Auckland, Qunkers like the W. brothers, were left fre? for nearly a year after they were called iii the ballot, then served a single -term of eleven months' hard labour. Other? heve been even more leniently treated. One objector OScared punishment entirely on account of a literal error in his x charge sheet. It may be that, in some of the rase.? of exceptionally \enient treatment considerations of humanity weighed with the authorities, lint it is only right .that th« disparity should bn known. About thirtj men aro serving their second Ion? lerm, and among theso are most of those who previously had long periods in military detention. I have mentioned n few names for the benefit of any person who might wish to verify these statements. But these are only a. few of numerous cases. The men mentioned as suffering exceptional penalties would be annoyed to think that any appeal might be made on their behalf on personal grounds; I would suggest, therefore, that it would be better not to Use the names in public statements unless it is quite necessary. It seems to me that the attempt of Sir James Allen's Advisory Board to draw a. lino between bona fide religious objectors and defaulters only ireates a further unfair discrimination. Some of us who had refused service on, religious grounds declined to appear before the board because wo considered retrospective' discrimination- against Socialist, Irish, and Maori objectors to be immoral and unjust." Let mo once more clearly emphasiso the fact that I ain not disputing tho propriety of punishing eo-called conscientious or other objectors, but. protesting against unfair discrimination in punishing thorn.—l am, etc., HUGH MACKENZIE.