The Dominion. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1919. THE PERILS OF DISORDER

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 62, 6 December 1919, Page 10

The Dominion. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1919. THE PERILS OF DISORDER

■ _ The disturbance of public meetings has been carried in the present election campaign to lengths previously unheard of in this Dominion and affairs in this respect arc going from bad to worse. Events at Christehurch on Thursday evening are the latest reminder that iu such conditions as have arisen even the' Prime Minister of the Dominion, who in the most definite sense represents a majority of its people, liable to be, denied the opportunity of delivering a public address. ' At Christehurch, as in other places where the. democratic rights of assembly and free speech have been, violated, the offence was distinctly that of a minority. Thousands of Christehurch -citizens wished to hear the Prime Minister speak; The. disorderly invasion which broke up. the meeting was the work of a comparatively small number, perhaps only a few hundreds. So far as the relative strength of the orderly and disorderly elements is concerned, these facts are typical of the. whole, weed-growth of disorder which is threatening to choke the fair and open discussion of public affairs in this country. Practically everywhere it is a minority, a minority whose only, intelligible- utterances are the catch-cries of ihe .Red Federation, that- is responsible for breaking up meetings and howling down political candidates. No one, however, who really -appreciates the benefits of living in a free country where the vote of one man or one woman is as good as another will on this account be inclined to regard the attempt to destroy freedom of speech as a thing to be passed over lightly or treated with indifference, it may. be true. I hat so far as this election is concerned the extremists jn whose interests meetings arc broken up and candidates of another colour denied a bearing will lose instead of profiting byftthc action of their adherents. But an altogether bigger and broader .question is involved than the interests of this or that political party. The chief issue raised is not that of. fair play to any po.iitical party; it concerns those* rights and privileges of the whole popu-. lation "which every one of its members has a common and vital interest in maintaining It is obvious enough that an attack on'.', free speech 's an attack on freedom itself. There can bo no freedom in a conn Cry where any agency is permitted to deny the people the open | and unimpeded contact With th»ir representatives which is essential ! to the intelligent exercise of their demoevatie privileges. It is easy to take the comfortable view that liberty can never be undermined to this extent in a country like New Zealand, hut careless optimism cannot, disoose of the ./nets that f'"ee speech is being attacked in this countrv to-dn." as never before, and that half the danger the attack holds is due to the apathetic indifference, with which it. is apt to be regarded by a considerable section of the nopulet'on. Mp"-<' people, no doubt, ronr-rd mob-disii" , ban''c at, niib'ie meetings- as a- tb'.iir /»f slight importance. Not a few an? content to find entertainment in "lore or less witty exchanges between harassed- candidates and their 1, tormentors. It is precisely in this carelessness and light- j hearted indifference that the worst. I danr'er appears. In many nai-ts of ' the Dominion, more especially in the larger centres of population, the. riotous disturbance of political meetings is coming to be accepted as a matter of course, and this is a state of affairs-'"iii'hich no thoughtful man or woman will regard without concern. It means in the first place that respect for law and for orderly procedure is being sapped. It means also that unimpeded scope is conceded to a movement which is calculated to close the public platform of the Dominion to all men of moderate views, and leave it open only to the recklessly extravagant exponents of anarchistic doctrine.

The remedy for indifference in regard to the attack 'that is at present being made on free speech in this' country is to consider how far it has gone and in what manner it bears on liberty and popular welfare. The widespread and frequently successful attempts made to howl dewn candidates who stand for constitutional progress and arc onposed to revolution fill only one side of the picture. It is* an equally striking and impressive fact that demagogues whose whole aim is tn stir up strife in the community and inflame class against class are never made the target of such tactics. Where extremists arc refused a hearing, the" refusal is conveyed in an orderly way, as :vhen four-iifths of those who attended a meeting at Murchison on Wednesday passed a resolution declining to hear Mi:. H. K. Holland, and ouieily left the. hall. The example is one that might well be widely followed, but in general, as matters stand, the most rabid extremists are assured of a quiet hearing, while, those'wlw fairly represent the people and reflect public opinion are to an increasing extent gagged. Little, thought is needed to show that this is something worse than a dangerous toleration of disorder, and that it represents in fact a definite step towards substituting anarchy for democracy. | The people of this country are inclined to take their liberty for granted. They would wise to ask themselves how they will maintain their liberty if a riotous minority is allowed to so invade the right of free spewh that only revolutionary extremists can command a hearing. That is the direction in which matters .arc tending at present, alid the.extent to which IbV"

attack on free speech is deliberate and organised is really a matter of secondary importance. Heedlessness as well as criminal intent may contribute to-the destruction of'free institutions and popular liberties. All possible emphasis is laid on the need of re-establishing the right of free speech when it is considered that without free speech democratic freedom cannot exist. It is only where public affairs are openly ventilated and discussed that the people are in a position to support freely and by independent initiative whatever party or policy Ihey prefer. Tolerant as is the prevailing popular attitude in this country it is fairle certain that an overwhelming demand would have been raised ere now for the maintenance of law and order and the protection of free speech but for the extent to which public opinion is weakened and divided by the strife of political parties which have no real ground of difference wh-re public money is concerned and are held apart only by the selfish and distempered ambition of individuals.