THE CENSORSHIP.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 September 1921, Page 3

THE CENSORSHIP.

ANOTHER. LABOR PROTEST. ADMISSION OF LITERATURE. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Sept. 28, The censorship was mentioned again in the House of Representatives to-day. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart, replying to a question put by Mi’. H. E. Holland (Buller), said that the question us to whether any particular book or magazine offended against the rule laid down by the Government against the advocacy of violence had to be adjudicated upon by some officer. The fact that certain books had been admitted to Australia and stopped in New Zealand indicated merely a difference of opinion in applying the rule. He was willing to submit these publications tq the censor for further consideration, Mr. Holliuid made a warm protest against the maintenance of the censorship. He was sure that all members of the House had read "Red Europe”. If this book, which at present was prohibited, could be placed in the hands of every person in New Zealand, and if the people could be relied upon to read it and understand it, the Government would not bo safe at the next general election. Some of the publications banned by the censor did not advocate violence at all. They were banned because they did not suit the opinions of certain people in this country.

The Minister observed that a curious feature of the question and the discussion was that Mr. Holland had not made it clear whether he personally wished. literature advocating violence to be permitted to come into the country and be circulated.

Mr. Holland contended that the literature he had referred to did not advocate violence.

Mr. Stewart pressed the point. He said that, assuming the literature did advocate violence, he gathered from the extract that the member for Buller had read that he believed it was the right of any person to take steps to advocate the upsetting of legally constituted authority. Mr. Holland retorted that the words he had quoted were those of a Lord of Appeal, Lord Carson, whom the Government would favor.

Mr. Stewart replied that Sir Edward Carson as a politician and Sir Edward Carson as a judge were two different men. He was going to quote an authority that he supposed the member would recognise—the authority of a member of the New Zealand Labor Party, Mr. Sullivan, who had stated that the Government was justified in deliberately excluding from the country such literature as urged people to lawlessness and rebellion, and had declared that he bad no wish at all to permit the circulation of literature advocating violence, lawlessness and sedition.

Mr. Holland: "But we are talking about literature that does not advocate violence.” Mr. Stewart: "We must establish the general principle first. If we are not agreed on the general principle, it is no use our discussing its application to a particular book.”

Mr. Holland said he was willing to discuss with the Minister the question the latter had raised. Mr. Stewart said that the member would not agree on the generail principle. Not only was that so, but it appeared that the Labor Party itself, when it came into power, intended to establish a censorship far more rigorous than that complained of now—it was apparently going to censor patriotic school literature, which, it claimed, was distorting history. Mr. Holland alleged that the Minister was misrepresenting the Party. He asked whether the Government was prep an*-I to prohibit all books which advocated violence.

Mr. Stewart replied that every rule must be applied with discretion and according to the exigencies of the case.

Mr. Holland: "You would have to take five hundred books off the shelves of the library here.”

Mr. Stewari said that the books had been adjudicated upon at the time oi the war. Since the war the matter had been reconsidered, and Sir Francis Bell had made a statement of what he considered a reasonable rule. This rule had apparently been agreed with by Mr. Sullivan. Some of the books under discussion might have been barrod before the rule was re-stated, and the Government was quite willing to give reconsideration to them under ’ the new rule.