FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24405, 17 September 1940, Page 8

FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

PRESS, JUSTICE. SPEECH BRITAIN GIVES PROOF THREE INTERESTING INCIDENTS (From Our Own Correspondent) LONDON, Aug. 1.

Three recent incidents have proved conclusively that when the British people declare that they are fighting for freedom they mean just what they say. These incidents are an illuminating indication of the mood of Britain to-day—it will stand for no interference with its liberties.

In the first place, the Minister of Information. Mr Duff Cooper, let it be known that he was considering a system of compulsory instead of voluntary censorship of the press, and also that he was even contemplating a “ nartial ” censorship of opinion. Then Sir John Anderson, the Home Secretary, introduced an Emergency Powers Bill into the Commons. This pi'ovided for the establishment of war courts in War zones. Sir John said that there would be no preliminary committal for trial, that the courts would be of civilian character in which the ordinary rules of evidence would apply. There would be no jury and no appeal. Any sentence, including the death sentence, might be passed. The president would have two justices with local knowledge to assist him, but they would not be able to over-ride his judgment. Finally, there was the “ Silent Column.’’ The idea was that “Mr and Mrs Sensibles ” all over the country should band together to discourage rumours which might promote depression, despondency, and alarmism Anyone who was heard making “ defeatist ” remarks could be reported The idea, apparently, came either from Mr Duff Cooper or from IVIr Harold Nicholson, or both. Storm of Criticism

All three schemes met with a storm of criticism. Public opposition was so great that the ideas behind them were short-lived. In no uncertain terms the authorities were told that all the schemes were violent infringements of the freedom for which the country is declared to be fighting. The “ press gag threat,” as it was called, was stopped, but not before there had been many accounts of the result of compulsory censorship in. France, where an absurd system kept the public either uninformed or misinformed of the true state of affairs. In the Daily Mail, Mr G. Ward Price said bluntly: “If Mr Duff Cooper has misgivings about indiscretion in any quarter, let him look round among his political friends.” He added; “Many civil servants, whose ideal it is to exercise power from behind a curtain of anonymity, detest the press and resent on principle its freedom from control. . They are at liberty to detest it, but not to distrust it—for there is no organisation in which self-restraint. and discretion are more strictly exercised. “It is the second-rate people in our public life who want to curb and choke the press. The country is against all officious schemes of restriction They are superfluous and calculated only to build up the importance of the Minister of Information and his bureaucratic subordinates.” After many views of this nature had been expressed, Mr Nicholson told a public meeting:— “ I trust that no strain through which we may have to pass will lead any foolish people to imagine it will be necessary for us to suppress free comment and free criticism on the part oi the nress. We have devised a scheme which works fairly well, and which is called voluntary censorship We are not going to resort to compulsion. “Such a system would have been impossible without the ready co-opera-tion of the press, and I pay grateful tribute to the good sense, the patience, admirable temper and verv real intelligence with which the press has co-operated with the Ministry in this And so the press-gag threat died. A House Divided Sir John Anderson’s Bill was attacked before he had completed his announcement to an., irate House. ■ it divided the Commons for the first time since the new Churchill Government took office. While he was describing the nature of the work of the war courts, he was asked by Mr Hore Belisha: “If all these safeguards are to be prescribed, why is there not a word of it in the Bill? ” One observer said that members " got their dander up ” so touch at the “ queer, indirect, left-handed way ’ in which the Bill was introduced that Sir John was obliged to make amendments. He discussed the Bill privately with members representing all political parties. Subsequently, it was agreed that judges would review all death .sentences. It was the “Silent Column,” however, which raised the biggest controversy and worst temper concerning the three oroposals. It was declared that “Mr and Mrs Sensibles ” were becoming mere nosey-parkers. Absurd fines were imposed upon foolish people, some were gaoled. John Gordon, editor of the Sunday Express, wrote: “ There has broken out an epidemic of eavesdropping that has reached the dimensions of a monstrous outrage on our liberty Men and women of that obnoxious type who love to pry and poke their noses into their neighbours’ affairs are slinking up and down the streets with their ears flapping, hoping to hear an incautious word of conversation so that they may run off and tell the police. Pernicious Crusade "As a result of this pernicious crusade men and women are being hauled into police courts, charged with passing remarks much the same as those you can hear round any dinner table in London. Most of these people are decent, harmless citizens. Our magistrates, who can always be relied on to be stampeded into stupidities by every wave of passion, are inflicting sentences on these people that are nothing short of revolting cruelly. “We are rapidly reaching the stage when no one in the country will have freedom of conscience, except the conscientious objector. We may soon, if this goes on, have pur little children running to the police as they do in Germany to repeat the fireside conversations of their parents.” The sequel to the public outcry was that Mr Churchill was obliged to “ kill ” the “ Silent Column ” in the Commons. The idea, when put dowfl on paper, he said, did not appear so attractive as when it was discussed. If had passed into “ what is called in the United States 'innocuous desuetude.’” To warm approval, he added: “His Majesty’s Government have no desire to make crimes out of silly vapourings which are best dealt with on the spur of the moment by verbal responses from the more robust members of the community.” It was noted that Mr Duff Cooper "sat with flushed cheeks and folded arms, with a look of strain on his face.”

Though now dead —sentences in nearly 100 cases were reviewed—the mischief-making experiment cost. Britain £20,000 in advertising. It might eventually have cost £IOO,OO0 — which, as it was pointed out, would have paid for a squadron of fighter aircraft.

If these three incidents prove anything, it is that the British people are prepared to win the fight for freedom' not only outside their country, but also inside as well—particularly inside.