Rule Britannia?

Debate on British Freedom

An enjoyable feature of the debate last Friday on "That Freedom in the British Empire is a Hollow Pretense" was the versatility of the arguments brought to bear on the subject. Messrs. Scotney and Freeman supported the affirmative, while Miss Stock and Mr. Andrews were for the negative.

A point that caused much dispute between the two parties was the question of a basis of discussion. Britain has mare freedom than Germany. Russia, or Italy, therefore freedom is to be found in Britain. Mr. Freeman would not admit of such an argument. The standard by which the amount of freedom was to be judged should be absolute. The relative freedom of other countries does not make a country free. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The old question of arguing from isolated instances was again brought up. The movers quoted frequently to show that there was little or no freedom of speech in Britain, and in reply to their opponents' charges of taking an unscientific approach, retorted that to come to a reasonable decision on any matter, one must of necessity, select the relevant evidence from the confusion of irrelevant evidence.

An important aspect these days is the economic aspect. People have the right of access to the means of production and also the means of participating in the cultural life of the community, which would include, of course, means of self-expression and the opportunities for the development of personality Does this state of affairs obtain in the British Empire. Mr. Scotney very convincingly showed that it did not, while the negative were unable to refute his arguments on that point. In England, the owners, comprising 11.5 per cent, of the population, had a monopoly of the means of production and are thus able to dictate to the majority how they are to live. The majority, having to make a living, have to order their lives at the commands of the few, while a large percentage in extreme poverty die yearly from malnutrition.

One speaker for the negative admitted all this, but still maintained that freedom was not dead in the British Empire. Bad as things are, the people still have the power to choose a government who will rectify the situation. New Zealand's labour Government was instanced and its redress of social injustices stressed.

However, there are still other aspects of the British Empire worth serious enquiry. The negative scored strongly in pointing out that in the British Empire, there was intellectual freedom. A man can think what he likes, say what he likes, believe what he likes, or form societies to put his ideals into effect. Considering a man as a bundle of complexes which must be sublimated somehow or other, individuality is of prime importance in one's psychological life. And by its very nature, individuality demands that to a certain degree a man should have to form his own ideals and control his own actions, without dictation as to those ideals or actions. This is precisely what the British Empire does. There is complete religious, intellectual and civil freedom in the British Empire.

But docs this apply to all the British Empire? Mr. Scotney says No. He harked back to the ancient Greek State, where the slaves comprised the majority of the population, ruled over by a few citizens who among themselves formed a democracy. A dictatorship and democracy co-existed. He maintained that the British Empire is not ruled for the benefit of the majority. On the contrary, it is ruled in the interests of the white minority. Whatever freedom the whites may have, the vast coloured majority have none at all.

This led to India. Are the Indians suffering an injustice, or do they merely resent the presence of an alien? Are they being exploited by European capitalists who fear to grant them self government from fear of losing trade, or are the British the benefactors of India, the strong hand that keeps all the warring elements from mutual destruction? Honours were even on this point, good arguments being advanced from both sides. Is the Indian nationalist movement the product of a few agitators, or are the people behind it?

On one hand we have the usual atrocity stories of imprisonments without trial, firing on crowds, etc.; while on the other hand, we are told that the average Indian desires nothing more than a peaceful life, which he knows he won't get if the British abandon India to her own devices.

The most ingenious argument of the evening came from Mr. Holmes, who said that the revolts against British authority throughout the Empire, proved the existence of freedom, because if there was no freedom they would not be allowed to revolt.

The audience by a small majority decided in favour of the motion.

The judge, Professor Gordon, placed the speakers as follows:—Messrs. Andrews, Scotney, Aimers, Freeman and Miss Stock.