. . . Likelihood . . .

From indications already, what is likely to happen? Something like this. First (and remember what we said above about presenting all sides of the argument) it is very doubtful whether anyone who opposes conscription will get a chance to be heard. It is obvious already that if one wishes to support it, space is overflowing in any paper to report opinions. But we believe that the Council which opposes conscription—to which our Stud. Asa, is affiliated—has sent a great deal of material to papers which has never been printed. If this is so, it is unlikely that many people in this country will ever hear any arguments against conscription. Can you visualise Mr. Fraser having an open debate on the merits of the case over a national linkup of all stations? Can you imagine any paper headlining the views of an opponent of conscription? Does this look like 'presenting the whole case to the voters?"

This feature is bad enough. It is the sort of thing which is mentioned sanctimoniously when the papers talk of "stifling free discussion" and of "farcical elections" in other countries. It alone would be enough to make a mockery of the whole idea of a referendum. But there is something which is even more liable to explode the myth of the 'free and democratic franchise.'