Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1939. LIMITS ON CRITICISM?

Wairarapa Times-Age, 16 November 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1939. LIMITS ON CRITICISM?

AN intimation by the Prime Minister (Mr Savage), in an interview with the official organ of the Labour Party, that freedom of speech and freedom of the Press must not be abused is well calculated to bring a wry smile to the faces of a good many New Zealanders. Without digging into the past, however, or instituting comparisons that might, be embarrassing, it ]S possible to agree unreservedly with Mr Savage that: What was an offence during the; fast war is an oHence during the present war. - ’ There can be and should be no question, in this country, of tolerating any advocacy of violence or unconstitutional action, much less of allowing anyone to proceed to action ol that. kind. Any attempt to limit fair criticism would also, however, be an outrage upon democracy and one upon which it may be hoped the electors oj: New Zealand would visit, appropriate and exemplary penalties. 11. may not he out 01. place to add that the determination of what, is and what is not fair criticism, should such a determination be necessary, nia\ more wisely be left to judges and magistrates than to politicians. Mr Savage’s observations in the interview mentioned are so general and sweeping that it is dillieult in places to see what he is getting at. lie is reported, for instance, as asking whether it was “a fair thing,” that when thousands of young men had offered their services for the defence of the British Commonwealth and were prepared to serve abroad, other people should take up an opposite view and do everything they could to destroy the efforts of the Government to assist the Mother Country? To this only one answer is possible, but who are the people •. who are taking up an opposite view and doing everything they can “to destroy the efforts of Hie Government to assist, the Mother Country ?” Not surely the members of Parliament who are warned by the Prime Minister that even they are not going to be allowed to “step on it” as they think fit, and not the newspapers whose leading columns, Mr Savage avers, are being “openly used to discredit everything the Government is doing. Members of Parliament, Opposition as well as Government, and the Press of the Dominion appear to be of one mind in declaring for and endeavouring to assist as best they may a loyally united war effort. Amongst those who are thus united there undoubtedly are many who find serious fault with some aspects of the Govern- > raent’s policy and methods and who are intent on doing everything they can to have what is at fault rectified. In this there is neither sedition nor disloyalty, but on the contrary a desire and determination to impart maximum power and effect to the war effort, of the Dominion. Particularly at a time like tin' present, party politics and wrangling ought to be set aside by all parties. But an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism and Ihe discussion on their merits of questions of national and more than national import would be a crime worse than sedition as that is commonly understood. k _ . . The existing political atmosphere in this country is by no means what could be desired. There is evidence of mutual mistrust and dissatisfaction entertained by opposed sections. The remedy, no doubt, is to invite free and frank eo-operation, on the broadest basis that can be attained, in coping with a. war emergency in which our national future is involved. The greatest possible success in establishing eo-operation on these lines certainly would supply no justification, however, for attempting to curb and limit fair criticism and discussion directed to the improvement and strengthening of our national war effort. Inevitably baffling and complex problems are involved in the shaping of our war effort and in preparing to meet, the conditions that will arise when the war is over. The essential interests of the whole community demand that, there should he an open and unhampered consideration and discussion of these problems in an atmosphere of democratic freedom. An attempt to limit discussion of this kind, on the ground that it involves or may involve criticism of those meantime in charge of Hie ■ machinery of government or on any other ground, could only » be regarded, if it had to be taken seriously, as an intolerable attack on fundamental democratic rights.