PEGS AND POINTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 September 1922, Page 3

PEGS AND POINTS.

RECENT utterances of red POLITICIANS. LOYALTY. “When members of the Labour Party 1 took the oath as members of Parliament, they pronounced to the people of New Zealand where they stood.” —H. E. Holland, M.P. If the taking of the oath was the whole of the evidence then' Mr. Holland Would be right. When the members of his party close their Conferences by singing the Red Flag, but never the National Anthem; when they refused to sign an address of welcome to the Prince of Wales; when they support a paper which scurrilously attacks the Royal Family and abuses the British Empire; when they use the Red Flag or revolution as their sole emblem, ana never the Union Jack; the question is—where do they stand? “He was prepared to subscribe to the Red Flag” E. J. Howard, M.P. We know of no statement of Mr. Howard’s wherein he says definitely that he is prepared to subscribe to the National Flag before all others. That is the point. v ALLIANCE OF LABOUR. “The Alliance of Labour is purely an industrial body and not political.” Alliance Advocates. From the first the Welfore League hos contended that the Alliance is a political body and its objective marks it as such. Thus says the “Ataorliand Worker,” August 30th. 1922: “We have no objection to Sir Robert Stout’s assertion that the Alliance of Labour is a political body out to get greater political power, for while thp present objective of the Alliance remains that is actually the case, and there is nothing to be gained by camouflaging it. The question then stands—have the P. and T. Officers been misled an to the real character of the “Alliance”? REVOLUTION. “It was not a motion in favour of revolution that he had supported, but in favour of revolutionary industrial and political action.” H. E. Holland, M.P. A man who can thus sophistically play with words requires very careful watching. Are we to understand that Mr. Holland is in favour of the cause (revolutionary action), but not the effect (revolution) ? Such subtlety is dangerous in the extreme. “Revolution did not imply the use of physical force.”—H. E. Holland M.P. Then why does he balk at endorsing revolution? Is it not a known fact that though “revolution” in the abstract does not imply the use of physical force yet historically revolution and violence have been closely associated. The question is, for what purpose does Mr. Holland seek to present revolution as “safe going” whilst at the same time endorsing revolutionary industrial and political action? Advice is—watch out. CONFISCATION. “He repudiated the idea that his party stood for confiscation. The charge was a foolish lie.”—H. E. Holland, M.P. I When Mr. Holland made the above statement he did not pause to examine the meaning of the term which is used. From time to time the members of his party ask—“why do the critics not deal with our party platform?’ Well, in this instance we take the land policy in sub douse 3 of that platform. It sets out:— (1) That the State shall fix the value of the owners interest in hi 6 holding. (2) That the State abolish the own er’s right to dispose of his land by sale or transference, save to itself. (3) That the owner shall have the right to surrender on the value fixed by the purchaser. If that is not a policy of confiscation we are open to learn what other word covers the indictment. It is a policy which would enable a Socialist Government to ruthlessly destroy the private rights of individual Citizens. The people are still asked to regard a party of such principle as just an ordinary political party seeking merely democratic reforms. When will they learn to look facts squarely in the face.? DEMOCRACY. “The Government must muzzle the Welfare League and others agitating leagues Which have foisted themselves on the country.”—H. E. Holland, M.P. In those few words are summarised the Reds idea of democracy. It is the philosophy of Spadgers Lane—“lf anybody differs from you throw a brick at them.” If there is one profession that the Red Party makes more than any other it is that of being democratic and yet it is the most utter sham. If it had its own way its political thugs would howl down every person, who dared to pronounce any views contrary to its own set dogmas. ‘ Just think vyhat shrieks of “victimisation” would rend the air from the Howard Party aid anyone suggest that the Government, in the interests- of industrial peace, should muzzle the Socialist Party and its agitators. The M elf are League is not concerned for itself. It i<s at the ■same time much concerned to find that throughout New Zealand many are so blind to actual facts as to accept as a democratic party, simply because of its professions, a revolutionary party that denies the rights of personal liberty to others; that supports proportional representation and plural voting as it may suit its purpose of gaining power: that follows the line of intimidation, bullying and eoersion whereever it can succeed and which hypocritically aims at creating a Marxian Socialist State akin to Soviet Russia under cpver of upholding the traditions of the Liberal Statesmen Ballance and Seddon. Here is not democracy but the same vile subtlety as is counselled by the Russian Communists to gain power of dictatorship by any profession which will bind the people and enable the Red Party to become Dictator. Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.