“Cohabiting”

Problem in Cook Islands

Letter to the Editor

IN your issue of March there appears an article “Co-Habiting” and you have thought wise to append an Editorial note, criticising the New Zealand Government for permitting the enforcement of the law against such behaviour. Apparently you are not sufficiently conversant with the matter, otherwise you would, most likely, have refrained from expressing an opinion.

Unless the full facts are known it is fre quently unsafe to pass an opinion. Being included in the Cook Islands, Niue is under the jurisdiction of New Zealand and is, therefore, covered by your note. Since I can only presume as far as other Adminis trations are concerned, I will confine my remarks to this Island.

In our case the New Zealand Govern ment had absolutely nothing to do with the passing of the enactment, beyond, of course, approving. It is purely and simply an Ordinance passed by the local native Council and is an expression of the desire of the people to keep under control, as far as is possible, immorality. Therefore co habiting was placed on the “black” list.

In so far as is possible, it is the duty of the police officers to see that the law is carried out. If they fail to do so they are very soon reminded of their duty by the Elders of the Island.

In spite of the inference, contained in your note, that the Polynesian is rather free and easy as far as morals are con cerned, history proves otherwise, as fol lows: — Previous to the advent of the Mis sionaries the penalty, in the first place, for immorality was death. Later, the penalty took another turn and must surely have made intending offenders look before they leapt! Offenders were encircled by a crowd of warriors with long poles and tossed into the air, caught again on the end of the poles as they came down and tossed again and again. Death, surely, was pre ferable to this form of torture for those who lived to tell the tale were cripples for the remainder of their lives. Then came the Missionaries and the more civilised and humane method of the stocks was used.

Later still these were replaced by still fur ther humane methods and offenders were compelled to clear, from weeds and rub bish, certain specified portions of road and village green. When the New Zealand Government took over the jurisdiction of the Island this law was embodied in the local Ordinances and justice was meted out accordingly. In 1915 the Cook Islands Act came into force but no provision was made

for immorality—other than, of course, adultery of married persons—and so there was a period of freedom. The young folk certainly took full advantage of this period of freedom and things became so bad that the Elders clamoured for action to be taken and it was taken in the manner I have already mentioned. You will, therefore, readily see that it was the desire of the people that immorality be kept under con trol and that it is not the New Zealand Government which is trying to impose on the native our idea of Victorian morality.

Rather than call the law ridiculous one should laud the principle of it for, in care fully studying the history of immorality

here, it clearly shows that, instead of assisting - to keep the people moral, the white man, with his civilised law and humane ideas, has tended to lower the standard in spite of the efforts of the Elders to the contrary.

As much as many Europeans may con sider that the law is a ridiculous one, the fact still remains that these people wish it to be exercised and that, I consider, settles all argument. Also, since there can not be one law for the white man and another for the brown, then no distinctions must be made. When an Englishman takes up his residence in Italy, say, he must obey the laws of that country. Therefore why should not a white man also be made to obey the laws of the brown when living in the brown man’s country? If he is not prepared to take his gruel without squeal ing then he should not be in the country.

I am, etc.,

Niue, 24/6/’34.

Fair Play.