CENSORSHIP CRITICISED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 783, 2 October 1929, Page 7

CENSORSHIP CRITICISED

labour on banning of

BOOKS SYSTEM DEFENDED ,/ai St’.VS Parliamentary ReporterJ PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Wed The House is nothing if not versatile in its expressions of opinion. After disquisition on the subject of Nauru phosphates and scenery preservation, it spent from 11.30 till past midnight on a literary discussion, raised by the item of £IOO on the Estimates for the Customs Department for the payment of the services of the chairman and members of the Censorship Appeal BoardLabour members were against iho board in its operations upon sociological, historical, and economic works, while Government and Reform mem bers were for the board in its operations. The subject was brought up by Mr. p. Fraser (Wellington Central >, who pointed out that the Government wants money to pay £IOO for the services of a board which was of no benefit to the country, and could have its opinion overridden by a magistrate. He also said that the case of the police seizing literature recently in Wellington was absurd, for the seized collection consisted of works that any ichoolboy with a good knowledge of literature and current affairs would not have interfered with, but then, he added, dryly, the police could not be expected to be familiar with the latest sociological and economic works. He asked whether the board was worth the candle. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Napier) also wanted to know the functions of the board. He did not believe in censorship except in regard to pornographic literature. He believed, with Milton, that the truth is never wasted in an open encounter. The Rev. C. L. Carr (Timaru) also objected to the board, and said its operations made truth in regard to New Zealand seem to be crying and wandering about looking for a habitation.

POLICE SHOULD PROSECUTE Mr. Fraser returned to the point urging, in the interests of economy, that in times of financial difficulty £IOO should be saved by the abolition of the board. He did not reflect on the personnel of the board, but thought that books should be allowed to enter the country and the police prosecute those who sold indecent literature.

This point of view was hotly contested by Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs), -who asked, in view of Mr. Fraser's suggestion, who was going to he the censor if the police wero to prosecute. They would be the censors. He was strongly in favour of the board. The Minister of Customs, the Hon. W. B. Taverner, was surprised that so small a grant should have raised so much eloquence. He also was surprised at Mr. Fraser’s viewpoint. The board was doing its work well, and if it were in doubt about a publication it referred it to him. (Labour laughter.) Mr. Fraser said that the Labour Party was not against the section of the Act relating to indecent publications, although if it were strictly applied many classes would be prevented from entering the country. In regard to other works, the party was against suppression. If the Minister was the last man to judge of the merits of a book, why not let him judge in the first place and save the expense of the board? He was prepared to say that most people would not take the Minister as the last authority on literature. He himself was a better judge of what he should read than the Minister. Even with the assttance of the Minister, £IOO was being wasted.

APPEAL BOARD S FUNCTIONS The Hon. W. D. Stewart (Dunedin West) said that he must reply to Mr. Fraser, as the board originated under him as a Minister of Customs. Mr. Fraser: The evil that men do lives after them. Mr. Stewart said that under the Customs Act the Customs Department had to deal with indecent literature and certain other classes of literature. Every year there had been complaints from the House and the public about some obscure customs clerk beiDg the judge of what the public should read. In any case the books went to the Crown Solicitor's office. He had suggested that the best way of dealing with the difficulty was the appointment of an appeal board consisting of the Parliamentary librarian, the public librarian at Wellington, and a representative of the booksellers. Mr. H. E. Holland: No representative of the readers.

Mr. Stewart said that the librarian was. Magistrates disagreed on the fitness of books or otherwise for circulation, and booksellers did not know where they were. The board, however, could only be one of appeal. It could not oversee all books entering the country. In event of an appeal it replied, in 99 cases out of a hundred, that it thought the book Quite all right. If anyone disagreed with the opinion of the board he could get a copy of the book and appeal ”6 a magistrate. Nobody's rights were infringed, iudeed people were given a better chance now. Mr. H. E. Holland said that Mr. Stewart was making out a case for obscene literature, whereas Labour was disagreeing with the restrictions on sociological, economic, scientific and historical works. Was there anything more stupid than banning Kirkpatrick’s "War, What For?" a book which had been circulated in thousands, years before the war. Mr. Holland had a copy. He also quoted the banning of Anstey's "Red Europe." There were thousands of similar books on the library shelves. He asked, regarding indecent literature, ‘‘Canterbury Tales.” what would be thought of Chaucer's Mr. Fraser: And Rabelais. Mr. Holland next mentioned "Jones's History of the Irish Rebellion,” which had been banned. Every Minister of the Crown, with intellectual qualifications for his position, must have read such books. Mr. Barnard: But they wouldn t suffer from it. (Laughter.) Mr. Stewart said that the restrictions did not apply to sociological and such works except where violence was advocated. Mr. Taverner quoted a long list of Russian political authors whose works were allowed in New Zealand.