Why Exemptions ?

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 32, 13 October 1911, Page 5

Why Exemptions ?

—; ♦ r-r"v % By E. H. C: RI,JSt>EFJ v ,:

Ono of > the clauses of the'', latest oif "ideals in Christiaivdegielatjpn" (a. term applied by a leading M'.P: of this country) that is giving-"cause for so much Avorry and mental torment to the military- authorities isHhe, notorious "Clause' 92." -'--•- --"- ■•"* v The admissions made by. •« departmental dotards on havo been one long series of contradiction* or evasions and of ignorant and imbecile exhibitions of prostituted ideas o£ man's liberty of conscience:;" ' What is Government going to do about it? What can they do in thofr hopelessness? What the interpretation? What tho "dirty" work to be substituted to the "non-combatants" ?~ Who's to do the drafting and-, selecting ? And having done so, 'who are tho parents of "dirty" principles tO'&llow their sons to assist towards the'' production of the finished < airtiele-*—the "fine art" of, violence, the, nwiAttal slaughter of our, fellows? '^Wha^t- -a*i insult that/-"men of violence", should be granted powors over me'ft'of■ 6thor convictions! •> '- ( ><**.•-' • And who are .they Avho' set selves over us, presuming, ~ tq, t graufc "exemptions" from tho, commission ol those acts which manyOf us choose to refrain from ? Are there men' £ino,ng us who are Avilling to hold'<the,wisfelvea responsible for the convictions <of others? Certainly not? Then, what irighfc have any body of men to . such. "claims"? Did any "laAv" ever' give them this "privilege" to 'b'esCtfw or withdraw?. None whatever.'- •* •"; And, so far as principle- is involved, a Government might just as well, and Avitii equal justification, presume to grant "exemptions" to those b r f ua Avho Avould refrain from participation in licensed brothels, were 'they 1 "established in this land! ' '--•<-< •>'•• When' one class of men takes' l upoii itself or is given the right'■ to* grant exemptions in matters of conscience, and another, class is silly enough to claim them (thinking that thereby they are receiving some pxivilege), the joint agreement to such dopr-aved biisiness is an open exhibition of ignorance concerning man's true relations. ■■ For whilst on the one hand it is Questionable whether any honest ma'u/'any but a tyrant, would claim control' over other men's opinions, it is equally questionable, on the other hand, whether any but a craven would put his into pawn or in other men's "keeping." And inasmuch that every man is the unlimited master of his oavii person, —and that none can truly be, either master or sovereign—it follows that one inseparable condition in every contract and engagement is the fsrea and voluntary cop.ssn. of all .persons therein bound. The law, therefore, which misplaces in the Lands of-some the poAvers to dictate what ethers shall do, in place of those deeds--in i which they disagree, is a usurpation >of tho essential immutable law" of human liberty and creates in itself ,the right of resistance. The duty of legislators should be that they be first to comply with the laAvs they frame. But when they one and' all deliberately ''exempt" themselves, and certain of their following,, from the operations of such laws (as. they have done in the infamous "Defence" Act) then such conduct:, shouldbo sufficient evidence and reason that all "compulsory" aspects; of; the law, so far as the common people are conrcerned, should be treated,-. With all the ridicule, contempt, criticism,-.sarcasm,, derision, and .condemnation:.-that'--it; so well desei-A-es. And may it .get; it all and rigorously applied.. • -;,.,.,