Untitled

White Ribbon, Volume 23, Issue 269, 19 November 1917, Page 7

(To the Editor.) Madam,—The W.I.L. has instructed me to write an appeal lor help in a matter which will awaken sympathetic feeling, On July -6, the Government saw fit secretly' to place upon one of the outgoing transports a section of the conscientious and religious objectors who had been in military detention. The men’s relatives were not notified of their departure, so no preparations could be made for their needs on the voyage, nor farewells. The men were cold that they were to be taken to Somes Island, presumably to prevent protest prior to getting the men on board the transport, and the surprise at the deceit is said to have broken some of them down. One person reported that they “cried like women”; another less tastefully said that they went off “squealing like pigs,” and his method would be to put them with their barks against a wall and shoot them. If this latter account represents the spirit in whit h these men have been deported, what is likely to be their treatment? Mr Isitt, M.P., who is in no way averse to Britain’s war policy, writes on August ,4: “1 do not approve of the action of the National Govern, ment with conscientious objectors. I never have, but 1 appealed in vain for any help from my brother-members, and my opinion is that nothing can be done inside the House. . . . The Churches should take the matter up.” Outside opinion is only awakening slowly, owing to the silence of the Press upon the deportation. Few as yet know that there has been such, and some are almost incredulous that such a thing should have taken place. Approaching the matter from a material standpoint, one asks, what is the use of such a piece of tyranny? Shipping space is needel for material help for Britain, not for the purpose of dumping more mouths to feed upon a country which is finding extreme difficulty in feeding its own popuplation, and which has its ow n thousands o? conscientious objectors filling its gaols. Why, too, should New Zealand be put to this useless expense when economy is so urgently needed ? Sir James Allen excuses action by the hope that the men will, “on reconsideration, see it is their duty to comply with the laws of the land.” But these men have already been tested by detention treatment, and there is no reason to suppose they will ever be available for military purposes. Also, if the reason is what Sir J. Allen states, why the secrecy Why not have lalowed the parents *he

usual opportunity for farewell, instead of leaving it to accident to reveal the facts Is not the inference a sinister one? From the moral point of view, and to you, as Christian women, this will appear the more, is it not a wrong thing to force any man’s conscience to compel him to perform an act by which he feels that he denies the religion which guides his life? Some answer with the sophistical phrase, “It is the first duty of a citizen to obey the law.” To those who know the detailed history of Britain, or any other country, such a statement is not an argument. Much of the “freedom” of our land has had its birth in conscientious revolt of men and women in past ages. Many of the names we honour to-day are those of men who have in their time faced imprisonment, and even death, rather than obey laws which were not in accordance with the highest dictates of their consciences. Jesus was a lawbreaker. Penn, Sir Thomas More, Bunyan, Hampden, Ridley, Hooper, and thousands of others who are shining lights to later generations were, in their day, conscientious objectors. Protestants, Catholics, Churchmen and Dissenters have each at some date been conscientious objectors 1.0 manmade and temporar ylaws. M.in-made law is not as a law of Nature or of God. It is a law to be camined and amended where it is unwise or presses too hardly on innocent people, and we ask you to join with us and other bodies in attempting to amend the Military Service Act <0 that it shall not be the means of taking men from useful civilian employments ,and throwing them into gaols, detention camps, or —above all sending them as prisoners thousands of miles away from home to serve no purpose hut the gratificatoin of a regretably vindictive spirit. Other intended deportations are rumoured, and wiU probably take place unless there is a strong protest from outside. L. M. PIPF.R (Mrs), Cor. Sec., W.I.L.

To the Editor ) Dear Sister,—ln the Oxford report appearing in the September number of the “White Ribbon” it was stated that £25 had bet n forwarded to ihose injured in the London air raid. May 1 explain that this money was raised and sent, not by the W.CT.IL, but by the “V” Branch? The members of the “V” Branch spent much time and trouble in training the L.T.L. boys and girls to take part in a concert. which proved a great success, the aforesaid sum being raised and fonvardedto the fund. Thanking you in anticipation for allowng me to make this explanation. Yours in the work, A. H. CAVER HILL, Hon. Treat*. Oxford, October 2nd, 1917.

(To the Editor.) Dear Madam, —Might 1, as .» further contribution to the discussion re differentiation in education, suggest that girls who are leaving either the primary or secondary schools, intend taking up domestic work, or who are not taking up any definite work, might bi* required to take a course of domestic training, and to pass an examination which would be .1 guarantee that they were < apable domestic workers. Such .1 scheme would not in any way handicap qualifying for any definite work, and it would be a distinct gain to many who otherwise would learn nothing thoroughly. It would, at any rate, be a good beginning, and couM be extended later on if found desirable. It would of course mean that mistresses employing such girls would have to allow them time to attend their classes, and also that they should give them opportunity to practice what they were learning. It would also mean in time more capable domestic help. Thanking you in anticipation. —l am, etc., JESSIE FIELD