LABOUR’S ANTI-MILITARY POLICY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 717, 17 July 1929, Page 1

LABOUR’S ANTI-MILITARY POLICY

“Repeal Compulsory Trailling ,,

CAMPAIGN AGAINST LAW

r opposing- compulsory training for war the Labour Party contends that the system now operating in the Dominion is wasteful, unnecessary, unjust, harmful to a large section of the youth of the Dominion, and repugnant to all methods that should be used for the protection or building of New Zealand or the British Commonwealth.”

This statement is issued by the National Executive of the Labour Party in a circular setting forth its opposition to the compulsory clauses of the Defence Act, and the particular application of the penal clauses to two divinity students of the Presbyterian Church. It states that, through Mr. W. J. Jordan, M.P., the Labour Party has introduced a Bill to Parliament providing for a repeal of the law which compulsorily enforces the youth of the Dominion to undergo military training. It is contended that the system is wasteful in that the money allocated is ill-spent and with the time occupied and the material used, could be more fruitfully employed in other directions, as the methods adopted for individual training will, under the natural development of military science, be obsolete before they can be applied. DENIED EXEMPTION “The existing law makes provision for the exemption from training of certain persons who are conscientiously opposed to war; but the validity of the opposition is determined by the recorded theological belief of the particular church to which the objector may happen to belong,” states the Party. “It appears that the objection can only be conscientious when held, not only by the youth affected, but by the church to which his father or grandfather adhered. A member of the Society of Friends or Seventh Day Adventists may obtain exemption; but members of the Anglican, Presbyterian, other churches, or youths who are not adherents to any denomination are denied a like privilege, and the ultimate decision as to the conscientious nature of the objection is left to a stipendiary magistrate. “A particular application of the law is illustrated by the persecution of two student members of the Presbyterian Church, which culminated in their sentence by oil Auckland magistrate to a fine of five pounds and deprivation of the rights of citizenship for ten years, and ultimate imprisonment unless the fine is paid. “The impossibility of determining the validity or otherwise of an expressed conscientious objection is agreed to by all scientists who have studied the problem. No tests can verify its authenticity or otherwise. The individual alone knows the motives which determine his action, and if his expressed opinion is that the training for war purposes is harmful, his statement should be accepted. Justice and the law are not always synonymous terms, but the first principle of the just administration is its equal application to

all. To test an individual conscience by special theological beliefs and the judgment of a magistrate is an entire negation of this principle. REORGANISATION OF DEFENCE “The only apology offered for continuance of the compulsory provisions

in the Act is that it provides a physical training that is not obtainable from other sources, but if one half of the money now expended on military training was devoted to the provision of gymnasia, playing grounds and the promotion and organisation of healthy outdoor games under ideal conditions, the resultant improvement in virility and individuality (physical and mental) would far exceed anything that is obtained under the present system. “Tho natural development of intercourse between the nations of the world renders imperative the abolition of every policy that leads to war, and the promotion of every possible facility that will lead to its abolition. Conscription has ever been an active agent in promoting the war spirit, and its abolition will be the first step toward a wiser and ultimately more effective defence policy,” concludes the circular.

CABINET’S DECISION

COMMENT IN HOUSE (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. When the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, announced to the House of Representatives yesterday his decision on the request of the Labour deputation which waited on him concerning Messrs. A. M. Miller and A. M. Richards, the two young Auckland conscientious objectors, there was some interjection and criticism of his answer. He said that an amendment would be made to the Act to provide for Presbyterian divinity students applying for exemption. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton): Or anybody else. The Prime Minister: Not anybody else. Reform Voices: You will wreck the whole defence system. The Prime Minister: No, we will not. He pointed out that there was a difference in the Presbyterian Church on the subject. Divinity students only would be exempted. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston): Shirkers! They have the best of the deal at last. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central), vehemently: You kept a respectable distance out of it! Mr. Speaker called for order. The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland: Will Miller’s wages still be garnished. There is an attachment order on them. Sir Joseph Ward: Whatever the decision of the court was, it must stand. Mr. Holland: The Prime Minister knows the position of Miller’s family, I expect. Sir Joseph Ward: We can't interfere with the decision of the court. Mr. Holland: He is supporting the family. His father is dying.