PUBLIC DEBATE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 276, 18 August 1919, Page 3

PUBLIC DEBATE

ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

LABOUR V. COLLEGE STUDENTS

A public debate was liokl on Saturday GvcniiiK iu the Victoria College gymnasium between the Social Democratic laity and the Victoria College Debuting fcociety. Captain iiorice, the chairman of Uit College Debating Society, presided. The subject chosen for debate was the proposal, "That this people should uphold the cause of the conscientious ol> ».' T. Brindle, of the Social Democratic Parly, was the first speaker. He said that the war that had just terminated was a war to eiul war. Such was not the case. Tho great war had not emled war—it lwd laid the seeds of further wars, so that the conscientious objector had been fully vindicated. He quoted Laid Roberto's definition of conscientious objector. Durini! the past four years they had the conscientious objector, the* religious objector, and the anti-mui-Urist. The last-named maintained that was was not necessary because dispute could be settled. Then there was the Socialist objector, who did not think it was right to settle a dispute by taking another party's land. What he wanted them to realise was Hut all these objectors "'believed,"—believed in their objections. They lirmly .believed that the preservation of human life was a- sacred thin?, and its domietiou could not be tolerated. They hoid that neither men nor women fought for ideals under compulsion. Tho treatment meted out to tho conscientious objectors had been scanmious, niul a shame to civilisation. Tho treatment of tho conscientious objectors by tho military was brutalising. Mr. Brindle contended that if compulsory liiVMnnsr was to ha made leKol. ™n life-giving compulsory motherhood should be legalised. ■Mr. B. Bvnns, of Victoria College, who opposed. Fau\ that when the resolution, was sent to the Debating , Society, he wondered what w?s meant by the woixl "uphold"—whether it meant to.sympathise; if so, he, the speaker, agreed that they should sympathise with the objectors. Continuing, the speaker said that if they were going to admit that the State was an oi-gnnism, then it. must be obvious •that v/hiohever member .of the State desired the privileges of the State must necessarily be prepared to do his duty l>v the Stnto, ljcwiuse every privilege carried with it a duty. If there was a conflict the individual must give way to the State, or the individual must be east out of tho State. The conscientious objsotorß nad cut themselves adrift from the State. The speaker then dealt with the question of fcho disfranoisement of the objootor, an'd ho held thet the objectors having broken the law were rightly punished. Witili respect to discipline, tho speaker snid that the discipline insisted, upon by the Federation of Labour, nnd the Lnbonr unions, was severe, and what was good enough for tho Labour unions should ho good enough for tho State. Sumninrieinst bis , arguments, the speaker said that tfio pcoplo could not uphold tfhc cause of the conscientious objector as regarded, ditil'ranchisement and imprisonment; they had brought tliefiedisabilities upon theinsslyes by breaking or refusing to coiupiy with tho laws of the country.

Mts. Beck, of the Social Democratic Party, who followed, said that the Kenem! run of conscientious objectors who had refused'military service believed in the brotherhood of man. They recognised the folly of war in the settlement of international , disputes. This was tho only attitude that Hie conscientious objectors could liavo bakeii • up. The final appeal in nil matter? was to man's consoienee. If they had nn international contideutious objection to war there wouT.d bo no war.

Jfr. W. 13. Leicester, of Victoria College, followed in opposition, and said that Jio ooilkl soo no objection to ;\, man suffering or dying for his convictions, but if his convictions were wrong what n waste of time! The conscientious objector, like th<? Socialist, stocd midway between his critics, and ilistend of hurling a Tmck nt them wanted to uproot the. universe.