Last year I wrote this poem about #AnzacDay . This year for #AnzacDay2020 I thought I'd do something a little different: diving back into my postgrad essay on Civil Liberties and the War Regulations in NZ during WWI - a chance to see what life was like in NZ during WWI. 1/? https://twitter.com/James_Rowland92/status/1121144490419298306

One thing I found interesting is that the New Zealand Home Front hasn't really been written about in much detail - they were a few articles/books that informed my essay, but mostly I just looked at the War Regulations that were being passed to see how Kiwis were living in WWI.

Let's be clear from the start - even though the direct danger to New Zealand was very limited, Kiwis were restricted a lot. We hear that people died in the wars to save our freedom, but for Kiwis at the time, they lost a lot. Especially if you were an immigrant as well.

The War Regulations Act 1914 came into effect in November 1914, and basically allowed the Governor in Council to make any regulation he wanted to. The Act said itself that any War Regulations were not invalid even if they conflicted with normal laws.

I'm sure that @StrictlyObiter would be delighted to learn that Cooper J was citing Batman in Semple et al v O'Donovan and Dwyer that "in older days, at moments of supreme necessity, the Romans, a people who reverenced law, handed over control to a Dictator".

The point that was being made here by Cooper J was essentially that the War Regulations were a combined between a dictatorship and the status quo. It allowed New Zealand to continue its legal system while also providing the authoritarian powers it needed.

If you'd allow me a little bit of commentary, I would just point out that the nearest "threat" to New Zealand was German Samoa, which had like 20 men garrisoned there and had already been taken three months before the War Regulations Act. Did the NZ govt really need these powers?

Anyway! Let's dive into what these powers were. In my essay I divided these up into: general laws, immigrants, and censorship. I'll follow that. It is weird to reread this essay while sitting here in Level 4 lockdown. I clearly thought similar restrictions were impossible in 2016

If you were suspected of breaching the War Regulations (let's call them WR from now on) then you could be arrested without warrant. Also, if you approached an armed guard and disregarded a warning, you could be fired upon. Just to give a sense of the "vibe" in NZ by Nov 1914.

By 15 November 1915, any man over 15 years old could not leave NZ without a permit (which was only valid for a month). Interestingly, this was before conscription - unfortunately I only have my penultimate draft saved on my PC so I have a "why?" in highlight and can't tell you.

And, in the opposite direction, by 4 December 1916, thew Attorney-General had the power to ban people from entering New Zealand if they were "disaffected or disloyal people injurious to the public safety". I don't recall ever finding a Judge challenging any such decision.

This is pretty high level stuff. But there's also some almost petty restrictions too. Under the 21 August 1916 regulations, women couldn't enter or remain in a bar after 6pm. I'll leave that to others to suggest this might be a new way to celebrate #AnzacDay in the future.

From 21 December 1916, again despite any pressing threat to New Zealand itself, the Police had the power to ban the use of any place for meetings which would be "injurious to the public safety". You could also be charged for letting your property be used for such a meeting.

Now, though, I'm going to come to the bit that I found particularly overbearing and shocking. What the WR did with regards to immigrants. Hold onto your hats - this isn't the New Zealand you were necessarily expecting.

Straight from the off, let's be clear, this wasn't necessarily the government imposing discrimination and prejudice on a "classless/immigrant" society. You can see in the newspapers from the time that suspicion and paranoia were reigning supreme.

There is a letter to the Nelson Colonialist that said naturalised citizens were "the more dangerous to our safety" because they weren't being watched and were therefore better spies. Andrew Francis's title of his book probably get its right: To Be British We Must Be Anti-German.

But let's look at the law! Common law that should see all people treated as equals! Well, for the first year of WWI, "enemy aliens" could be imprisoned for 4 times as long as anyone for breaching the same WR (1 year vs 3 months). This was later amended in 1915 for 1 year for all.

We'll also throw some sexism in with our xenophobia. You see, "an enemy alien" included the wife of an enemy alien. It didn't include the husband of an enemy alien. It's worth thinking about that for a second - "enemy aliens" would face incredible restrictions. Who was covered?

A Māori who had married a German farmer, who might have moved to New Zealand when he was 2 years old, was an "enemy alien." A man recently arrived from Scotland who had married a German woman was not an "enemy alien".

Strangely, there might have been some squabbling about this because the govt. removed reference to "wives"" in July 1915, only to then reinsert in July 1916. Talk about doubling down.

So what was life like for an enemy alien - who may have been natural citizens, may have even lived in New Zealand all their lives? Well, if you were a citizen and suspected to breach a WR, you were brought in front of a magistrate. As an "enemy alien"? Detained by the military.

By December 1914, all enemy aliens had to report to the nearest police station for registration. If they wanted to travel more than 20 miles from home, they had to tell the Police. No communicating with family in an enemy country. No changing your name unless you were marrying.

By the end of 1915, enemy aliens couldn't leave New Zealand without permission, they couldn't work as teachers, and they could be detained by the military for merely being "suspected of being disaffected and dangerous."

In 1917, we saw the Registration of Aliens Act and Revocation of Naturalisation Act. This meant -all- immigrants, not just enemy aliens, had to register with the Police and also could have their citizenship revoked.

Oh, also, if you so happen to buy a nice piece of land during WWI and you were an enemy alien, the Supreme (read High) Court had the power to forfeit that land. It's worth pointing out that by 1917 surely there was no threat to New Zealand to demand any of these powers.

I realise this is getting long - far longer than I intended and several people have probably now unfollowed me to stop the spam - so I'll just lightly touch upon censorship during WWI. You basically could not report on any troop or ship movements in New Zealand.

Also by December 1914, the Postmaster-General had the power to stop the delivery of mail if it was "of a nature injurious to the public safety". The clear subtext to that, I think, is that Kiwis' letters were being read, and if found undesirable, not being delivered.

This isn't all academic either. I found at least one reference to the Southland Times being charged with breaching the WR for publishing a soldier's letter home, which referenced certain troop movements. These regulations were being enforced.

By July 1915, it was illegal to basically publish anything that was negative toward the war, including any disaffection in respect to it. Again, we are told so often that the soldiers died to save our rights, and yet for Kiwis at the time, their rights were actively curtailed.

By February 1916, the govt. had given up all idea of subtly. They simply said that the military had the power to prohibit newspapers from publishing on any matter as long as it was related to the war. This was extended to moving pictures and books. Total information control.

And as I've said, these weren't academic powers never to be used. In Gill v Hollis, the Court took the view that the WRs had to be "enforced strictly if they are to be effective."

Chapman J in Semple v O'Donovan said "people may be allowed to have their own opinion", thanks for permission, Your Honour, "but they should consider in these times whether there is any danger in dosing of inculcating something more than their opinions".

In the same judgment, Cooper J states it without the subtext: "those of us who cannot see their way to assisting its working [the govt's war response], can at least refrain from applying sabotage to the machinery."

Okay. I'm done. Over. But I thought it was important that today, while you reflect about the soldiers fighting, you also take some time to reflect about the people who remained at home and their lives too. And whether our rhetoric always live up to the reality.

Oh. I lied! One final thought! Rereading my old essay, I think it's woefully silent on any potential Treaty reading/specific Māori perspective. If there's any history majors reading this right now - maybe that's something for you to look at in the future!