STRICT RULE OF LAW

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 199, 20 May 1944, Page 6

STRICT RULE OF LAW

British Censorship POSITION IN N.Z. CONTRASTED (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) x AUCKLAND, May 19. Modification of the New Zealand censorship in the light of the changed military situation in the I’aeitie, and also to eliminate interference with publication on any ground except security, was ‘strongly urged in an address at tiie annual meeting of Now Zealand Nowspaipers, Limited, by Mr. E. V. Dumibleton, who was a member of the party of newspaper men who recently returned from Britain. After describing leading features of the British voluntary system, he said that the newspapers in New Zealand must accept the censor’s decisions even if they thought them wrong. If they did not they committed an offence at once, whether or not it could be shown that publication had helped the enemy. If they objected they were likely to be labelled “unco-operative.” The theory was that the censor was infallible. The British censors were more modest, and if they were not the Courts were there to keep them in their place. In other words, the British censorship was a strict rule of law; in New Zealand, to too far great an extent, the censor made the law. The best evidence that the British system succeeded was that it had been operative throughout the war in a country very close to the enemy. By contrast, New Zealand was thousands of miles from the nearest enemy-occupied land. Mr. Dunibleton expressed the opinion that, with some very important exceptions, notably shipping news, the Japanese were not even interested in the military .news of this country that had to be submitted for censorship. The important fact for the Japanese was not whether trpops moved somewhere inside New Zealand. hut the fact that between Japan and New Zealand was the American Nav.v. He suggested that it was time our censorship requirements were modified in the light of this fact. Censorship in Britain.

The censorship both of Britain and America was confined to security, unlike in New Zealand, where the censor, was authorized to stop the publication of items which he or the Government decided would be injurious to public morale. The result was that the Press in the Dominion was less, free to publish news, and less free to comment on it. than in Britain or America. What was not merely possible in Britain, but was thought essential, was not possible in the same degree here, apparently because the morale of New Zealanders was more tender than the morale of Britishers. That was not true of New Zealand servicemen, who could think for themselves as well as any troops in the world, and he did not think the New Zealanders at homo were very different. In America comment was completely free. Every question was publicly thrashed out to the last detail, without regard for whose .bones were broken in the process. We occasionally heard views published there which we disliked, but we should always remember that there were thousands of American newspapers, and nil shades of opinion found expression. The total result was healthy and stimulating. , , , Mr. Dumbleton pointed out that though the newspapers were the first sufferers from excessive censorship, it was the public who were the final sufferers. He thought that New Zealanders should reflect on the fact that in the two greatest democratic countries, both of which had an immense -stake in the war. and difficulties far exceeding ours, the Press there had more freedom. He declared that some of the restrictions in New Zealand would not be tolerated for one day in either Britain or America. Our censorship on the security side should be modified, a>id on the nonsecurity side not merely modified but aboL> ished, 'he said. “In this matter what is good enough for Britain and America should be good enough for us, and what they think would be bad for them is bad for' us,” he concluded.