HOW WICKED!

NZ Truth, Issue 1188, 6 September 1928, Page 6

HOW WICKED!

Hysterical Monologue By (St.) Peter

Peter Fraser, Labor's legislative

licentiate for the parish of Wellington Central, has donned mitre and robe whilst he seeks to expurgate the supposed nastiness from the systems of New Zealand

"■, pressmen. ,; . ■ - "TROM his own puritanical, prayer - book of political palaver he has cut a few leaves which he blissfully imagines will be sweet and effective for his flock at election time. For, yes, it is election year, and even if Peter's idea is not original; even if it WAS cast aside by the House of Representatives last session, it does show that the man who brings the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill before the House, is an individual possessed of sound moral stamina.

But does it?

Whilst the political whetstone is whirling round,, one's olfactory organs detect the smell of grinding axe-blades, whilst dinning upon the ear- drums come a thousand whispers of "A means to an end ... A means to an end •»

The proposals involved m this measure incorporate .the suppression of all matter calculated to injure the delicate fibre of public, morality, including the non-publication of evidence m divorce cases and indefe'ent matter m cases of a graver nature, .■•■•,-

To the puritanical , bias of Eraser's mind, it could not occur that -New Zealand journalists have rigorously .screened the nauseating details, which often are adduced m the prosecution of some wretch on charges of an unsavory nature, from the public win.d.ow of newspapers.

Labor Member Fraser is suffering the disability of an extraordinarily large mote* if he fails to apprehend the. failure of a measure, similar to his own proposal, m England.

Is he aware of the attitude of New Zealand lawyers at a conference of legal men, 'held m Christchurch during the Easter vacation of 1928? ■'*

DETERRENT PUBLICITY

No doubt he is, but m his rather subtle wisdom he refrains from drawling both sides di the picture, m case, •maybe, the House is m too strong a position to judge which is the more correct example of political draughtsmanship. , At this conference a remit was introduced m respect of restrictions m publication of evidence m divorce cases, urging the advisability of removing the discretionary powers of journalists-.

The kernel of the situation -was somewhat appositely laid bare by Lawyer W. E. Leicester, when he said:

"Were evidence suppressed m petitions brought on the grounds of misconduct, there is no doubt that such a procedure would lead to collusive divorce.

"There has , ; beeh an increase m divorce cases m England since the law for prohibition of newspapers publishing such evidence came' into effect. . m "In some instances, British newspapers are becoming concerned and are asking whether some of the petitions granted, would have been granted if publicity had been given to the •evidence."

The remit was 'negatived, a testimonial to the forbearance of the newspaper men of New Zealand, being unconsciously subscribed by the legal profession, whose members, more than any other " element of our community, are surely standing at a vantage point of clear observation upon the needs of society. ' ' .

Maybe, (Saint) Peter will hold his sheets of mewling moralizing m his hands for many sessions to come on the principle that Sidey was not 'the only- man to ply his ' howitzers for numberless years;' but m view of. the manner m which* the legal men assessed the value of such meretricious legislation, it seems unlikely that the views of our politicians will diverge from that of the lawyers.