"Cohabiting"

Ridiculous and Archaic Cook Island Law Should be Thrown Out

From Our Own Correspondent rwrT MANGAIA, Dec., 1945. rjIHE old Blue Laws continue to be en- X forced, on this isle, after a tem porary slackening. The native popu lation still make no resistance to being dragged, with their opposite numbers, before a Court of Morals, and, after ans wering humilitating questions, to being fined (or, in default, put to prison labour) for all extra-marital sexual relations.

But one never sees a wealthy European come before these Courts, even where flagrant cohabiting, evidenced by the visible proof of offspring, constitutes an even greater breach of the law than the “road walking” of the natives.

The islanders’ grievances are as fol lows: A “cohabiting” native couple, without illegitimate children, will be punished under this harsh law. A “poor” Euro pean, with or without illegitimate half caste children, will also be punished for relations with a native mistress—he might even be deported to NZ. A “rich” Euro pean (say, some “big” trader) will not even be summonsed, though his case may constitute a most flagrant breach of the Statute.

The natives declare that the law is, in Cl, a respecter of persons, but it all de pends, actually, upon the Resident Agent of an island.

If he is an honest fellow who does an impartial job, he will have a well-satisfied population, even if he punishes them.

But if an RA palliates one man’s breach of the law, while fining others for per haps lesser immorality, he must expect ultimate mutiny.

A recently deceased Cl official, on his island, resolutely refused to hear any “cohabiting” charges at all. Here. I think, lies the remedy for all the discon tent. Out with this archaic Statute; it is no law for Britons, and has been allowed to exist too long.