Questionaire Questioned.

The editorial in your last issue states that the Peace questionaire "avoids the danger of vagueness" but, to me, it appears that the answers depend too much on supposition, and I contend that it is ill-framed and badly constructed.

I have no doubt as to my answer to question A 1, but A 2 contains a rather misleading phrase, viz., "no matter what the cause or occasion." After due thought I have come to the conclusion that I should be insane to support Great Britain blindly. For instance, I can conceive the possibility of a radical British Government to whose policy I did not conform, assisting in an attempt to establish Communism in Germany. In these circumstances I would most certainly not enter such a war.

Questions A 3 and A 4 depend entirely on the interpretation of the phrase "League of Nations." does it mean a truly representative League or the present group of nations from which three of the most powerful are absent. I decline to commit myself to answering this question until such a serious doubt is removed.

Admittedly questions B 1 and B 2 are straightforward, yet in B 3 we are again faced by a most important alternative which revolves round the meaning of "peace time." Does it mean a world in which every nation is living in amity with its neighbours or does it mean to-day's troublous peace time with its threat of imminent war?

To my mind question B 4 immediately gives rise to the question "what sort of war?" Until this is definitely answered I cannot express an opinion.

While admitting that the third part of the questionaire is the least vague I still criticise. Before answering C 1, I must know what substitute is offered for capitalism. It is conceivable that with the overthrow of Capitalism with no practical or definite substitue in view we may be involved in chaos.

To any intelligent person the evils of fanaticism are obvious, yet we are asked to give "yes" or "no" answers to question, the majority of which, only a fanatical pacifist could answer one way and a fanatical jingoist the other. I am like most people a pacifist, but take the liberty of considering myself between the extremes and consequently capable of expressing the opinion of the general student. As such I fully appreciate the importance of obtaining such a consensus but I demand that there should not be the slightest doubt that it is the opinion of the collective whole. As the questions are now framed the student will query the majority, and we shall obtain a consensus of a few extremists either one way or the other. That will defeat the objects of the ballot, and I cannot see how this is to be avoided unless the Committee responsible for drafting the questionaire will elucidate the debatable issues I have indicated. Within two months of the exams the students' difficulties are great enough without needlessly increasing them.

—C. R. Hutton.