Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2016, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
Open Day is the university's annual public relations exercise which is staged to impress the citizens of Wellington with the importance and intellectual value of the university. Parties of school kids, Mums and Dads, businessmen and politicians troop up the hill and spend the day wondering at the latest computer or the erudite obscurity of some lecturer. They go away puzzled but confident that their student son or daughter is not wasting their time and money.
The object of Open Day is not to encourage people to question the university's purpose in society. The university exists to train the next generation of bosses; the lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants and executives. Consequently its links are with government and business, not with working people. Very few academics or students ever question this role. Zoologists worry about the destruction of Lake Manapouri, not the cramped, souless environment of Porirua East. Sociologists study the internal dynamics of bureaucracies, not the degradation suffered by people forced to submit all the details of their personal lives to a civil servant for a means test. Economists make learned pronouncements about the state of the economy but never tell pensioners, for example, how to live on their benefits.
Visitors to the university on Open Day, or any other day, should expect students and staff to be able to justify their existence if only because they are supported by public money. Some relevant questions are: "How will the community benefit from your studies?" "Are you just learning how to tell the rest of us what to do?" "Did you go to work after leaving school or did you go straight to university?" If you bump into the Vice-Chancellor ask him why a report by an English efficiency expert, recommending that several senior administrative posts in the university be disbanded, has not yet been put into effect.
University administrators and many students still like to think that this place is an ivory tower, immune from public criticism. Until people start demanding answers from the university it will continue to exist in smug, self-satisfied insulation.
Salient was edited by Peter Franks and Roger Steele, typeset by Irene Kennedy and laid out by Bruce Robinson, Cheryl Dimond, Gyles Beckford. Neil Pearce, Graeme Collins, Jonathon Hughes and others, under Roger Steele's inspired leadership. Tom Proctor, David Tripe, Les Atkins, Les Slater and our man in the Pentagon wrote the stories. Don Franks drew the cartoons. Grub took the photos, and Lloyd Weeber dispatched copies to subscribers. Last week the incompetent Jenny Fillups forgot to give credits for front page photos to Hillary Watson and Mile Curtis. She also suggested that Lindsay Rea smokes — she doesn't.
All copy should be handed in to the editors, or left in the box outside the Salient Office no later than Wednesday evening, unless it is hot news. It should be typed or written in legible printing, double-spaced on one side of the paper only. If it is not the sub-editors will rewrite it and distort it completely.
is in the capable hands of Roger Green who can be contacted at Salient (phone 70-319, ext. 75 & 81) or at home 793-319.
should be thrust in the box outside the office, thrown on the floor or posted to Box 1347. If you can't say your piece in about 300 words then come and see us.
Printed by Wanganui Newspapers Ltd., P.O. Box 433 Wanganui, and published by the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Inc.. P.O. Box 196. Wellington.
Students walking past the Memorial Theatre Foyer this week may have noticed a sight unfamiliar at the university; kids, dozens of them, crawling among the photographs on display. The supplementary creche has started, slowly at first with only two children but by closing time at twelve there were fifteen children and quite a few grown-ups trying to cope with the chaos.
After several meetings to discuss what could be done to ease the great pressure on the main creche at Fairlie Terrace, the authorities agreed to let the children use the Foyer. It is comfortable and large, with more space than the original creche. In fact it is probably the most luxurious child-care centre in New Zealand with its lighting, heating, carpet, and other amenities.
The situation of the creche in the Foyer, central to most student activity, provides enormous potential for its development as an integral part of the campus. It will allow students interested in kids to come in and play with them or just hang around and watch what is going on. And of course it is ideal for essays on group theories, child development or whatever.
The creche is open for all children of students over two and costs nothing, thanks to a grant from the Student's Association. It is not set up in opposition to the Fairlie Terrace creche but is a supplement for those parents who were excluded from the other creche, or who cannot afford it or feel they can't get adequate time for study otherwise.
Everyone is welcome — the creche will be open every day from nine to twelve.
*
The last excuse for not using The Gym has been removed. It is now fully accessible from the Library and from the Union. There's a new, non-muddy crunch-path offering bewildering views over the earth-works.
Please note: the trip-through-the-Cemetery Route may now lead you astray, as it has so many so often in the past. It leads to recreational facilities only in the summer. You are invited to be more direct and make the full frontal approach to the Gym during the forthcoming ordeal by winter.
*
All clubs are hereby invited to attend a great and wonderful meeting of club representatives featuring an all-star lineup (see Agenda) and at which you will be initiated into the mysteries of grant applications if you are not already familiar with them! This world-shattering event will take place at 5.30pm on Wed. 11th April in the Board Room U.U.B. Come and be an electrifying influence on the Cultural Scene!!
*
Any student who has got a job in the government for the May holidays and who is interested in improving rates of pay for vacation work, contact Michael Law, Wellington Section, Public Service Association, Telephone 71-471
*
Through a motion passed at the A.G.M. the Students Association became ELF, the Education Liberation Front, the aims of which are outlined below. A report of the A.G.M. appears on page 11.
The universities and schools are dead. What is needed is a movement to chop them down.
Be an ELF!
How does a new true education system emerge out of the old system of mis-education?
Like a toadstool upon a rotting trunk. What we can use from the old system we will use. Learning belongs to the people: when the student rejects the institution she or he is in a position to use the material of the university outside its institutional structure. She can use the ease of access available in a college to equipment and materials to the people who learn of their own reality.
Instead of chatting up the right lecturer to help you climb the ladder, talk with the caretaker, typists, canteen-workers and maintenance staff etc. You will probably find them more interesting. Most academics are boring to talk to but discussion comes alive when confrontation takes place and you both discuss how you can go beyond your roles in the situation, e.g. physical, rearrangement of the chairs in the middle of a tutorial, or handing the tutor a reading list for the next week, or bringing along a 'low status' mate of yours (or a whole gang) to an elite sherry reception. Go and have lunch in the staff club!
Universities have lots of equipment which is exclusively owned and often underused. For example: photocopiers, duplicators, projectors, cameras, tape recorders, typewriters, mechanical, electrical, electronic and chemical laboratories. There's nothing you can steal from the university that wasn't made by the people and stolen from the people in the first place. But don't build up a private collection of ripped-off gear. That's a purely selfish unchristian action. If you steal, steal things back for the people.
How do elves survive in our competitive degree factories? They play the game. That doesn't mean they compete — they cheat. Elves know that assessment is shit and energy can't be wasted on it. It is necessary to organise some good honest cheating. Why write new essays when it's all been done before? Good elves organise essay pools from last year's work; stereotyped questions deserve stereotyped answers.
Cheating is necessary to survive on. It's a counter — cheat; cheating against the system that cheats you. But don't drift into it. It must be a conscious decision because it must be a political decision. It gives you breathing space, and that is its only worth. This leads to the second step — collective work. This means refusing to be assessed as an individual; refusing to turn in individual work. All assignments will be a collective effort and must be assessed as such.
To get a good degree? What for? Why should you depend on the judgement of your professors only? Why shouldn't we care equally what our friends and neighbours think about it?
To get a good job? What do you want a job for? Who says it's good? For money?
For Security? But you can't tame life and button it up in advance. You'll find you lose more than you gain if you try. Our real security should be through making a community of people who care, not in dead-end ruts with a pension.
To get training and help in society? Enough scientific knowledge already exists to solve all the problems of the world like starvation. This hasn't happened because the imperialist countries and their ruling groups in the poor countries would lose by it. Likewise, within God-zone it is the ruling class which decides which techniques and technologies will be introduced. So why do you think you'll be able to help society when working for a system. If you want to help people — do it directly and forget about an official career. It's only the system which worries about qualifications.
To have a good time? Sooner or later you will probably find that the life of being a 'student' is rather shallow. It is not fundamentally satisfying. Underneath the carefree image, you will find isolation, boredom and fear.
Because you are really interested in some subject? O.K. but we think there is no such thing as 'pure' learning. All knowledge is either useful to the rulers or to those being oppressed. You will probably find that there are certain questions you are not supposed to ask in your subject. For example, if you are doing medicine, you will be discouraged from asking why the course starts with physics, moves on to corpses, and goes on to bits of bodies, never touching the whole person because of the doctor's authority role relationship with an isolated 'patient' or 'case'. Every subject has its forbidden questions. If you take our intellectual work seriously, you will find that very often the emperor has no clothes, the elaborate theories are based on a trick.
Moreover, perhaps you will come to question the whole idea of a specialised academic sector apart from life, apart from the community. Life throws up its own problems for everybody, not just 'students'. These problems require as much tough thinking as the set-piece problems of the established disciplines. And they are not just intellectual problems. They stem from real problems people feel and involve practical work, struggle and experimentation with alternatives. To suggest that learning only happens in a college is to persuade people not at college that they can't learn, and therefore they can't solve their problems.
Or are you here to grow and discover yourself? We do not deny that you have the chance to do this to some extent. But it won't come from mixing only with a narrow range of people. You won't develop intellectually if you are caught in an academic wordgame. You won't develop emotionally if you are caught in a narrow series of inauthentic games with other people. Real thinking and real learning are inseparable from life and the goals you set yourself. It is precisely because we want to encourage you to find youself, your own self, that we want you to question and go beyond the limited role of student.
High Commissioner to Australia (Mr A T Yendell) will quit Australia four months before his term expires in August — and he says it's because he can't stand the Canberra climate. Mr Yendell said in Brisbane today his early departure had nothing to do with New Zealand's change of Government.—NZPA.
Arthur Yendall, the New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia, has been a thorn in the side of both the National and Labour Parties but the cold Canberra weather finally drove him from this vital diplomatic post.
Before the
But Munro refused to co-operate. He decided that if he couldn't get into the Cabinet he would stay in Parliament to remind Holyoake of his knowledge of foreign affairs. Poor old Art Yendall was left out in the cold and decided to apply some pressure. If the Government didn't give him a job, he fumed, he would resign from the various party posts he held, including Chairman of the Waikato Division and Dominion Vice-President.
So Yendall was with the Canberra post. The Labour Party protested loudly because Yendall had attacked it in very extravagant terms shortly before his appointment. As "Hansard" faithfully records:
"Hon. H. Watt (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) — I move, That having regard to the increasing need for balanced and impartial representation in the post of High Commissioner to Australia and further in view of the partisan, intemperate, inaccurate, and undiplomatic opinions expressed by the person appointed to the post, in his annual report to the Waikato Division of the National Party, this House calls upon the Prime Minister to replace the appointee with someone with necessary training and personality to serve all New Zealanders".
When the Labour Government was elected last November many people thought Yendall would be one of the first Tory political appointees to go. But having pressured his sinecure out of the National Party so painstakingly Yendall didn't go easily. He tried to liase between the two Labour Governments, typically hanging on to his job despite the principles involved.-
Last month the inevitable happened. There appeared a short announcement in both the local papers on March 28th that Yendall was coming home because of the rigours of Canberra's weather. Considering the importance both Labour Government's have attached to Australian — New Zealand relations it is surprising that Mr Kirk left Yendall in Canberra to represent his government for its first four months in office.
With Yendall's departure there are
With the appointments of ex-Labour Ministers, Terry McCombs to London and Phil Holloway to Rome, Big Norm has indicated that he will continue the old policy of making political appointments to diplomatic missions. But why hasn't he sacked Halstead and Eyre?
Alas and alack, politics' virile new broom, the Values Party, has caught the Parliamentary Pox and is now on the way to rupturing itself as well. When Karori's fresh-mouthed clean cut hippies gathered for their annual earnest discussion earlier this year it was with the feeling that the yoghurt could hit the fan — there was plotting afoot. Its origin was sunny Nelson's growing Peace and Love community which had decided, during the off season between planting and harvesting, that Busker Brunt must be axed. And it was done with infinite guile. Anyone with any values, they argued, knew that leadership was a manifestation of power. For that reason the position in the Party must be abolished. Nothing against you personally, Tony.
It was a tense moment for our pristine politicos — you could have heard a punch 'n grow kit drop. Brunt, not without guile himself, saw through the plot, saw also that its mode of execution would be irresistibleto the exponents of the Sunsilk revolution. He went along with it, even conceeding charmingly that he'd grown distressingly fond of power — witness his initial opposition to the plan. Hare Krishna! Rational discourse had won the day — the long knife had been wielded against the concept rather than the man and he'd been a willing and incidental victim. Consciousness 111 retired to its farmlets well-satisfied.
Enter Wellington's Mr X. The Party would be needing a leader in the next election and who better, he thought, than yours truly. He began the spadework Brunt, however, knew it was coming, and as he fancied himself as the natural choice for leader next election, got in first with the 'spadework'. It wasn't long before Mr X found himself orbiting on the outskirts. Another gentle nudge and he was out — stripped of non-rank, Manapouri good-conduct medal and slide-rule. He retired to the city to get away from it all.
This is what happens, Brunt reasoned, when the position of leader is left unfilled — we can't afford to let any other ambitious young turks get fired up on mint tea and threaten the stability of the movement. To this end, it is rumoured, the entire Wellington Shadow Executive or whatever its called was gently ejected and the old war horse once again took up the orb and sceptre. Of course, it presented him with a problem. He's not sure how to announce his second meteoric rise to the public, especially in light of his statements at the Conference. We suggest he turn to nature for the answer — say, a forty day bicycle tour of the unpolluted wilderness. We're sure there he'll find a value he can point to when he makes his announcement. Peace and Love.
When the branch president of a political party comes to a university to seek recruits for his party, what aspect of the role of universities is he acknowledging? Is he seeing universities as the source of all learning and as places which encourage free and varied thinking, and where all attitudes are considered before a balanced decision is made? Is he thus seeing in university intellectuals people who can best outline the forms and policies that political society should adopt for itself?
This is what one would expect of the ordinary, run-of-the-mill New Zealand political party. Salient recently carried a report of the activities of the National Party in this field (29 March). But it came as rather a surprise, then, when the Wellington Branch Chairman of the Socialist Unity Party came to V.U.W. to recruit intellectuals to his "worker's party". How many worker-oriented university students can Jim Hoy expect to find here? And if one considers the groups with whom the S.U.P. has fraternal relations, it is doubtful that they really want worker-oriented intellectuals, anyway.
From what has been written recently in Salient and in other places on the role of universities in society, it should be apparent that universities are not full of working-class thought. All that is taught about the economic relations in society is taught from the bourgeois point of view. The language of university intellectualism is not the language of the worker (try getting a worker to read Marx). The university in our society has the role of producing the necessary technicians so that New Zealand can become a great and powerful country. Quite apart from all this, student learning is not practical learning anyway (even the Employer's Federation will tell you that). And any working class children that get to university soon become bourgeois.
It might be more appropriate to question the genuineness of the claim of the S.U.P. to be a worker's party. It is true that in this country the party is strong amongst industrial workers, but who are these industrial workers? They are the drivers, the freezing workers, and the watersiders, yes, but they are only the trade union leaders in these industries.
The groups with whom the S.U.P. has fraternal relations include the Russian and French Communist Parties, and again it is doubtful that either of these is a working class party. It is easy to understand the S.U.P. trying to recruit university students for technicians, if the New Zealand revolution is to be betrayed in the same way as the Russian revolution has been.
A consideration of the French Communist Party would probably be more useful for gaining an understanding of the S.U.P. Jim Hoy considered that the policy of the French Communist Party was the one way to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in France, the dictatorship of the proletariat being of course the one way to scientific socialism according to Marxist—Leninist thought. If the socialist-communist coalition had won the last election, there would by now exist the dictatorship of the proletariat. Unfortunately, it appears that something has been forgotten in this analysis: this is that the communists were only the minority party in the coalition.
It is rather unlikely anyway that the forces of Nato and the EEC would have allowed such a change of government to advance beyond traditional Western social-democracy. Yet Jim Hoy now predicts that there will be a left-wing victory leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat in
One of the results of the participation of the French Communist Party in the parliamentary system in this way, is that it cannot allow any revolutionary activity to occur in France lest its image be damaged. The French Communist Party imagines that they are the only true representative of the working class in France, and no-one else can be permitted to hold a revolution. This type of policy became particularly conspicuous during
This is an example of the policy attitude of the S.U.P., who condemn Maoists and Trotskyists (what a comparison) together as ultra-leftists. The same S.U.P. saw the Labour victory in the last election as an indication that the New Zealand worker truly desires socialism. It is really no wonder that they failed to get any recruits for their party — only condolences from a true Marxist— Leninist who came to listen but not to join.
Reason for no copy last week was that we decided to take a holiday, Tom Manning's letter to Salient didn't scare us off. This week we've expanded with special reports from our diplomatic correspondent and our hippy watcher.
Last week we read about the University co-operating with the Labour Department's investigations into the O.H.M.S. drive for false military service registrations. Since then news has come of something a little closer to home. Seems that one of Nationwide's female employees filled in a conscription registration form, just to stir things on a bit. Eventually the Labour Department, inundated with applications, got round to checking it. They rang up Don to ask if Mr - was working there. "No", said Don, ever keen to help the Government, "but I have a Miss — working for me", and sacked the girl a week later. Keep it up Don, with loyalty like that you'll be rewarded.
•
Turned up to the A.G.M. on Thursday. Haven't enjoyed myself so much for ages. Instead of having to help my right wing mates in fighting off the radicals, what did we get but a struggle between the radicals and the Trots. I gave it even scoring to both sides, but if this keeps up the rest of us have nothing to worry about. Let them tear themselves apart.
•
Great idea of the Labour Government to buy up 200 houses for the undernourished, but spare a thought for the 200 families that can't buy a house because the Government got in first. If they want to buy a house they'll have to pay a little more and so the vicious circle will continue. Houses get dearer and more people can't afford to buy them. The Government forces prices by buying up houses but doesn't build any new ones. Typical socialist economics. Best way to solve the housing shortage is to put more money into the building industry so everyone benefits, especially the workers who get more jobs.
•
The Council's got it all over the ordinary landlord, because it can cover up its incompetence by crying for cheap government loans. Not so they can build cheaper homes than private developers but merely so they can build at roughly the same cost (perhaps even a little higher) and call it "social welfare" for citizens. Best advice to George Porter and his mates is to improve the administration of what they already have and let the property boys do the developing themselves, at a cheaper cost in real terms. That way everyone would be happy (a) through cheaper flats and (b) through seeing rates spent wisely.
Any of you home owners ever wondered why your rates keep increasing? Well here's one reason. About two years ago Arthur Cornish bought the old bowling club site in Aro Street for about $150, 000. He applied to the City Council straight away and got permission to build a hotel. Then he gave up the idea and decided to sell the property. Two years later it was bought for $250,000 by the Commercial Travellers Club for their new building. But the city fathers woke up and said "we need this for Council Housing, mumble, mumble". So they stopped permission for the building and compulsorily bought off the C.T. Club for what they paid. The point to note is that two years previously the Council could have had the property for $ 150,000 saving $100,000. If this is going on all over the city our rates will skyrocket.
•
Latest to join the Trots is Scots College old boy Guy Salmon. Guy gave a talk to the Young Socialists last Friday night. After the show was over Values supporter Salmon was heard to say to Russel ('get your perspectives together') Johnson "Bye Russel, keep on with the Revolution!" Talk about right-wing phrase-mongering.
•
Never believed in the Old School Tie Network till I got to Vic. but Hutt Valley High seem to have a stranglehold up here. In hierarchical order — Peter Franks, co-editor of "Salient"; Wilson, Association President; Brian Hansen, ex-Law fac. President and now junior lecturer in law; Rob Campbell, ex student rep. on anything that's going and now junior lecturer in Economic History; Comrade Shaw, who doesn't appear to be left out of anything . . .
•
There has been much amusement among local cinema people over a small con at the expense of Kerridges — known to all as the most tight-fisted people in the business. It seems that a smooth-talking man gave his impressive credentials to the firm, which immediately gave him the post of assistant manager A week later, with the manager off sick, both the new recruit and $4000 disappeared. At the time we went to press, Kerridges still hadn't told the police, probably because they're too embarrassed.
•
It's good to see that our Minister of Police thinks for himself. Last week at an address at Karori Teachers Training College, Deputy Police Commissioner Watson said, and I quote. "I think that Marihuana is inextricably interwoven into the drug scene".
Fair enough you may say, we've known the cops have thought that for years, it's just part of the old pot users-progress-to-heroin myth. The cops have been saying things like that tor years. The big surprise for me was on Gallery last night when Connelly the Minister of Police was interviewed, and was asked his opinion of Marihuana. Guess what his opinion of Marihuana is? Mr Connelly thinks, and I quote, "I think Marihuana is inextricably interwoven into the drug scene".
Paula Ensor is 20, and like many other South African girls of her age, is thinking of getting married. This is not as easy as it sounds, because Miss Ensor is one of eight student leaders who have been banned by the Vorster Government under the Suppression of Communism Act.
Up to the time of her banning she was vice-president of the National Union of South African Students.
She is now prohibited from any further participation in the union's affairs, but that is not all.
Miss Ensor's banning notice also says she must not attend any social gatherings, and a social gathering, in the opinion of some eminent legal writers, is two persons.
If Miss Ensor meets her fiance-to-be, Mr Steve Jooste (president of the Students' Representative Council at the University of Cape Town) is she breaking her ban?
Some other authorities feel that three persons are needed to constitute a gathering, but even if two are enough Miss Ensor and Mr Jooste would be gathered for a common purpose, and this is a specific offence under the banning Act.
The presence of a minister of religion would almost certainly constitute an offence: all three would be gathered to ensure the proper performance of the marriage ceremony.
If Miss Ensor and Mr Jooste, once married, were to go to bed to have sexual intercourse they would be acting with a common purpose.
She could, presumably, be arrested and charged with breaking her banning order.
It could be argued that the State would not prosecute in such a case, or prevent a marriage being entered into, but the State's disposition would not be the point: Miss Ensor would be risking imprisonment. No provision is made for a fine.
The bans imposed on Miss Ensor and her seven colleagues, as well as on eight leaders of the South African Students' Organisation, the black consciousness movement, has served to focus public attention again on the Government's banning powers.
These 16 young people are only the latest in the long list of people who have been banned over the past 22 years. According to the latest available figures, there were 237 banned persons in South Africa on April 30 last year. Of these 28 were whites.
A banning order, it has been said, sentences a person to "civil and social death".
He need have committed no crime to be banned.
All the Minister of Justice has to do is to say that he is satisfied that the person concerned is engaging in activities which are furthering or are calculated to further achievement of any of the objects of communism.
The banned person need not be a communist. He can be anti-communist.
But if the Minister believes that, even unwittingly, he is assisting communism, he can be banned forthwith.
A banned person can be subjected to a variety of restrictions, but generally banning orders follow the same pattern.
They prohibit attendance at gatherings for one thing, including "any gathering at which the persons present also have social intercourse with one another".
This is probably the most crippling restriction in the whole armoury. This is "social death".
Many banned South Africans, faced with this limitation on their freedom, (banning orders usually last for five years, although some are for two or three years, and frequently are renewed when they lapse) have asked for exit permits and have left the country.
Even this is no longer automatically obtainable. The law says the Government must grant an exit permit to anyone who asks for it, and for many years exit permits in fact were always granted.
Lately, however, a conflict of law has emerged, and the courts have held that the right to an exit permit does not override the restriction (to a given area for example) imposed by a banning order.
A banned person may not be quoted in a newspaper, or anywhere else. The Act says no speech, writing, utterance or statement of a banned person may be recorded, reproduced, printed, published or disseminated.
In his recent book "Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa", Professor A.S. Mathews writes: "Assuming that the word 'utterance' refers to noises as well as to words it will be illegal to play a recording of the gurgles made by the restricted person while being bathed as an infant".
This remark, which is made quite seriously, draws attention to the fact that any conceivable utterance, statement, etc, whether political or not, whether momentous or trivial, comes under the silencing provision.
"The fact that the restricted person is a brilliant scientist whose addresses and publications will advance knowledge is legally irrelevant.
"Ministerial assent will be required for the transmission of his findings, and their publication without such consent is a criminal offence".
There are numerous other restrictions that can be imposed on banned persons. They must notify the police of any change of address, for example, either residential or business. Often they must report regularly to the police, failure to do so rendering them liable to imprisonment.
Then, in addition to confining an individual to a certain area, a banning order can also exclude him from specified areas or places. Usually, these prohibited areas include African townships (if the banned person is not an African himself), factory premises, any place where publications are prepared or printed (such as newspaper or printing works), any educational institution, any harbour, any court (unless the banned person is concerned in a case as an accused witness etc.) and so on.
The Minister may grant exemptions from these prohibitions — for example, to allow a student to continue his studies or a factory worker to continue his employment — but the exemptions are not necessarily granted.
Another form of banning, is to impose 12-hour or 24-hour house arrest. A 12-hour house arrest order usually confines the person to his house from 6pm to 6am, during which period he may receive no visitors, while over the weekend he is confined to his house from 2pm on Saturdays to 6am on Monday mornings. A 24-hour house arrest order confines him to his house day and night.
A banning order, of course, effectively prevents a banned person from taking part in the activities of any organisation, not only a political organisation. It also prohibits one banned person from communicating with another banned person.
Severe as these banning orders are, they can be imposed without any evidence whatever being produced of unlawful activity by the person concerned. They are arbitary punishments against which there is no appeal.
182, Killing unborn child—
Cf.
183. Procuring abortion by drug or instrument—
Cf.
184. Procuring abortion by other means—
Cf.
185. Female procuring her own miscarriage—Every woman or girl is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years who with intent to procure miscarriage, whether she is with child or not,—
Cf.
186 Supplying means of procuring abortion—Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years who unlawfully supplies or procures any poison or any drug or any noxious thing, or any instrument or other thing, whether of a like nature or not, believing that it is intended to be unlawfully used to procure miscarriage.
Cf.
187. Effectiveness of means used immaterial—The provisions of sections 183 to 186 of this Act shall apply whether or not the poison, drug, thing, instrument, or means administered, taken, used, supplied, or procured was in fact capable of procuring miscarriage.
Under the present law concerning abortion in New Zealand, no woman can have her pregnancy terminated unless her life is in danger. The law does not allow abortion for victims of rape or incest, for probable foetal deformity (e.g. after German measles), for the inability of a woman to cope as a mother, for a woman of unsound mind or for under-sixteen-year-olds. Though the law considers danger to a woman's life the only ground for abortion, doctors sometimes interpret this as including her mental and physical health. In effect then, if a woman can present a clear case (to the right doctor) that she is likely to go insane if forced to give birth to an unwanted child, she might succeed in getting an abortion at a cost of $200-400. The cost is made up to gain approval for the abortion, and the fees of private hospitals, where fewer questions are asked.
Only a tiny proportion of the abortions carried out in this country are legal. The rest, estimated at between 6,000 and 12,000 per year, are obtained illegally, at great risk to women's health. They are often performed in appalling and degrading situations, in spite of harsh penalties provided for under the law (i.e. up to 14 years imprisonment for the abortionist — the same maximum penalty as for rape, and up to 7 years for a woman who attempts to abort herself).
If women did not genuinely want abortions, they would not risk their lives and liberty to such an extent. Of all the reasons for abortion, the desire of women to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is the most common, and the least recognised in the laws of most countries throughout the world. In Britain, where the law was reformed in
Despite what some opponents say, abortion is a simple procedure which does not require hospitalisation, provided it is done early. The earlier an abortion can be obtained, the more easily it is done — and with much greater safety. Death rates from abortion are considerably higher in countries with cumbersome regulations than in those countries where abortion is readily available. In Czechoslovakia, 140,000 abortions were performed between
Abortion is not the only means of birth control women have difficulty in obtaining. The safest contraceptives are too costly for many, and moralistic doctors and chemists often refuse young or unmarried women who need contraceptives. All contraceptives must be made easily available and free to anyone wanting to use them. Since many unwanted pregnancies occur through sheer ignorance of the way our bodies work and of how to prevent conception, sex education should begin at a very early age, as an integral part of the education system.
If women choose to be sterilised, doctors should not have the right to refuse them the operation for other than strictly medical reasons, if indeed there are any. On the other hand, no doctor should be permitted to sterilise women against their will (for instance, as a condition for agreeing to perform an abortion).
People sometimes say that contraception, sterilisation, or even abstinence are better than abortion and offer them as alternatives. None of these are of any use at all to the woman who is already pregnant. In fact, to such women, the only alternative to abortion is compulsory pregnancy and childbirth. Enforced labour — used as a punishment for accidental conception.
Those who find natural human sexuality distasteful, and who call for abstinence, are quite unrealistic. Besides, even if women try to abstain from sex, our system of "justice" gives men the power to take legal action against their wives to obtain resumption of conjugal rights! Victorian morality does not recognise the rights of women to unhindered and satisfying sexual relationships.
Anti-abortionists claim to have children's interests at heart, but it is far more responsible and human to prevent the birth of an unwanted child than it is to bring it into the world regardless of its future and the feelings of its mother. Every possible measure should be taken to ensure that women who want children are not faced with economic or social deprivation. Yet even with such conditions available there will still be women who want to end a pregnancy they did not intend.
Opponents of abortion, though they claim it is murder, seldom go as far as to say that no abortions should be allowed. They usually consider that in some cases the woman's interests come first. Pushed to the extreme, they will concede the right to decide about abortion to doctors, psychiatrists, husbands, parents, but never to women themselves. To them, women are incapable of making their own moral decisions.
It is control of our bodies, control of our lives, that we want. The abortion laws are the most blatant denial of that control. These laws should be repealed, abolished so that women can make a free choice. No doctor, no priest, no government, no man, no-one at all should be able to over-ride a woman's decision to end her pregnancy. It is her body and her right to decide. Any law which prevents that decision from being carried out safely, and in the best conditions, is totally unjust.
When I became active in the Women's Liberation Movement it soon grew clear to me why a women's right to abortion is so central to the liberation of women. While we are biologically oppressed — forced to have children — our existence as the oppressed sex will forever continue. It is only with the repeal of the abortion laws, when women at long last will be granted our basic right to choose whether or not to have children, that we can move confidently towards liberation.
Many Catholic women like myself, realising this, find themselves in contradiction with the dogma preached by the Catholic Church. An examination of the history of the church's position and the reasons for such soon solves this dilemma. I now see the Catholic Church as being very much a part of a society which places women in the home, forcing us to take part in the 'joys of motherhood'.
Pope Paul stated on 6th December last year: "True women's liberation does not lie in a formalistitic or material equality with the other sex, but in the recognition of that which is specific in the feminine personality — the ability of a woman to be a mother".
Even more interesting is the history of the church's position on birth control and abortion which goes back many hundreds of years. In early Rome, contraception was practically unknown. However abortion was known and accepted as a means of birth control. The fetus was not considered a separate human being but simply a part of the woman's body. Abortion was punished if the woman did not have her husband's consent. But the punishment was for wifely disobedience, not for the act of abortion.
Very early in the Christian era abortion began to appear in a different light. The early Christians were warned: "Thou shalt not slay the child by abortions". Abortion was equated with murder. Soon debates arose from this ruling. Jerome and Augustine, major figures in the development of Christian Ethics, had read Aristotle and become interested in his distinction between the 'souled' and the 'unsouled' fetus. They reasoned that if the unsouled fetus is aborted then it isn't murder.
Aristotle believed that the male fetus was endowed with a soul 40 days after conception, and a female got hers after 80 days. Jerome, Augustine and Thomas Acquinas accepted Aristotle's thesis. They decided abortions were permissable for a male fetus until the 40th day after conception, and until the 80th day for a female fetus. The fact that no-one knew how to determine the sex of a fetus did not seem to bother them. The church fathers in their uncertainty were always careful to maintain a certain ambiguity on these questions.
However in
All this sounds confusing and contradictory, because it is just that. The point is that the church has only recently made up its mind on the question of abortion. It wasn't until the mid-19th century that Pius 9th finally eliminated the churches distinction between souled and unsouled fetuses. Church penalties for abortion were made uniform. This policy has continued through to the present time. In
The church regulations for abortion are clearly much stricter than those for self-defence, war or execution. The church justifies beforehand any policeman who kills in in time of war, and any government that executes in error. But it condemns beforehand any woman who has an abortion. Extenuating circumstances hold for policemen, soldiers and governments, but not for women.
Obviously what held together the Church's conflicting opinions on abortion was its determination to find the most effective way to control women — what else can one deduce from such a history. If abortions were permissable at certain times, it was because the hierarchy said so; if abortions were ruled out at other times, it was by the hierarchy's decree. The hierarchy has delegated to itself the power to determine just what women can do. The Catholic Church in denying women control of their bodies, has been successful in making women accept the narrow role of mothers and housekeepers, thus ensuring the continuation of the patriarchal society. The church hierarchy held women in contempt long before Thomas Acquinas described us as "misbegotten males", and having brushed aside all these apologies for women's oppression I believe the church has nothing but contempt for us today. I found it particularly encouraging to read this statement some time ago by Patricia Brown, co-chairwoman of a coalition of Catholic Women's Organisations in New York. She said:
"The bishops are underestimating the intensity of Catholic women's feeling because they regard women as a threat. The authority of the church rests on an anti-woman basis".
Today not only in America but in Ireland, France and Italy, Catholic women are demonstrating with their sisters for the repeal of the abortion laws. They realise as I have done that the Catholic Church has no right to impose its particular moral beliefs on others, and that it is time for all women to unite against this form of oppression by the state and the Catholic Church and to gain for ourselves the right to control our bodies by repealing all Abortion Laws.
The Jan 22 US Supreme Court decision declaring abortion legal is a historic victory for women and for the women's liberation movement. It is the most significant legal step forward in the fight for women's emancipation since women won the right to vote.
With this 7 to 2 decision, the highest court in the United States has in effect declared that abortion is a woman's constitutional right through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. All the state laws that restrict the right to abortion under medically safe conditions before the 24th week are now unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's decision is based on the constitutional guarantee of a right to privacy. The constitution does not explicitly mention this right, but the court has ruled that such a right does exist under the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty.
According to the ruling, abortion is only illegal after the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, when the foetus could be viable. The court limited restrictions on abortion between the 12th and 24th weeks to those that concern the safety of the conditions under which abortions are performed. For the first 12 weeks no restrictions on abortion are allowed whatsoever.
In recognising the right of women to choose to terminate pregnancy — even though it qualified that right after 24 weeks — the court decision reflected the impact of the women's liberation movement. The feminist movement, in spearheading the abortion rights struggle, took the abortion issue out of the realm of population control and made it a question of women's right to control their own reproductive lives. By declaring illegal laws that compromise this right, for example, laws that say women can have abortions only if their health is in danger, or that require women to get the approval of a hospital board before getting an abortion, the court concurred with the concept of the woman's right to choose.
The court denied the anti-abortion argument that the foetus has a "right to life", saying that "the word 'person' as used in the fourteenth Amendment, of the U.S. constitution does not include the unborn".
It further declared: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. . . There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth".
While the Supreme Court did, in large part, rule in accordance with the demands put forward by the women's liberation movement, it did not call for the complete abolition of all abortion laws. In every State where reactionary laws now exist, the question will be raised of whether to replace these with new laws.
The abortion rights movement should clearly put forward the concept that no laws concerning abortion are needed. Abortion is basically a medical procedure — no different in this respect from an appendectomy — and should not be regulated by the laws.
In
Early this year it was decided to change
A panel on abortion was organised on
From the actions on International
On February 5, in a signed manifesto for the "Freedom of abortion" 331 French doctors caused a stir by revealing publicly that they had performed abortions. Their admission entails the risk of penalties up to ten years in prison and fines as big as $14,000. In theory they could also be barred from medical practice.
"The publication of the manifesto left the Medical Society nonplussed", observed Rouge the weekly Communist League newspaper. "Nothing like this had ever been done to it before". In face of the threat of reprisals against the signatories, Rouge called on its readers to "begin now to plan our response and to frustrate any repressive moves by the powers that be and by the Society through organising the broadest possible support".
"For several months now, and particularly since the Bobigny trial everyone has been able to see that, as far as questions of sexuality and abortion are concerned, France is one of the last remaining countries still in the Middle Ages. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of secret abortions and the tragic consequences they bring public authorities and the Board of the Medical Society persist in not taking this reality into account, they put off indefinitely any change in the existing legislation. "Nevertheless, when a woman has decided to interupt a pregancy she does so in spite of the law and the personal convictions of her doctor. Depending on her financial means she can gel an abortion in complete safety abroad, and even in France, or else she is forced to seek a secret abortion at the risk of her life. There are dozens of such deaths every year. Every year thousands of women fall victim in this way to tragic complications (perforations, haemorraging, infections etc.) and expose themselves to the possibility of prosecution. "Doctors, who know about these risks objectively share in responsibility for these deaths. Many of them have become aware of this and their attitude has evolved. The position of the Medical Society's board is not the position of all doctors, upon whom it cannot foist its own moral rules. "France, 'the country of Liberty' does not give women the liberty to control their own bodies. Sexual education is non-existent, the law or contraception is not applied, couples are deprived information permitting them to achieve sexual equilibrium and choose the moment they wish to bring a child into the world. The National Family Planning Programme has just been refused recognition as a useful, non-profit organisation, which prevents it from receiving any subsidies. "We believe that all individuals must be in a position to be responsible for their own bodies and their own health, as well as to benefit from all progress in scientific knowledge we want:
"The decision to have an abortion must be left entirely up to the woman. We reject any commission being set up that forces her to justify her choice, that retains the notion of guilt, and that allows secret abortions to continue (as the experience in foreign countries shows that it would). "Abortion, just like any other medical and surgical operation must be reimbursed by social security. "Modern methods, which have made abortion into a simple act involving no risks, must he put within reach of everybody so that women can interupt their pregnancies under the best Medical and Psychological conditions. "Freedom of abortion means that the decision to have or to perform one must be made on the basis of nothing but one's own moral or religious convictions. "The undersigned doctors state that they perform abortions or do what they can to help obtain them outside of any considerations of financial gain, and that they solemnly pledge to answer collectively for their action before all judicial or Medical Authority, as well as before public opinion".Rouge noted that abortion has rapidly developed into an important issue in France. The campaign around the Bobigny trial thoroughly altered the way in which this question is viewed. It abruptly revealed the increasing tendency to view abortion as a commonplace matter that is of concern to everyone and ended the shameful silence that used to surround it. The radicalisation of women around this question has greatly increased the pressure on doctors and left greater urgency to demands for the right to have an abortion without feeling ashamed, in the kind of conditions enjoyed by those who are able to go abroad to get one". The following is a translation of the doctors' manifesto: —
On Friday April 13 woman and man all over ew Zealand are marching to call on tho government to repeal the abortion laws.
The Woman's Abortion Action Committee believes that holding marches is an important way to express opposition to the present aboron laws, and to involve as many people as possibla in the demand to 'repeat the abortion aws — a woman's right to choose'. These marches may be small at this stage, but we blieve that they will help to publicise our aims. bring the issue of abortion out into the open and bild the pro-abortion movement.
Although marches are not the only activities chat the Woman's Abortion Action Committee is involved in, a march is a focus around which we can build a broad educational programme, while at the same time bringing as many people as possible into action around our demands.
There are of course a number of people who claim that they are sick of marching. Perhaps it is valuable to ask these people who exactly is sick of marching? Obviously not the majority of New Zealanders who have not even marched yet, especially not around the abortion issue. The people who are sick of marching are those few who have already marched and cannot see past their personal feelings to the thousands of other people who we have not yet reached.
We urge all those who believe that the abortion laws are unjust because they deny a woman the right to control her own body, to join us on the march on April 13 and publicly demonstrate their opposition to the present abortion laws and demand with us
'Repeal of the abortion laws'
'Free, easily available contraception'
'Voluntary sterilisation'.
What Is It? Not just one pill but a five day course of oestrogen pills to be taken soon after intercourse to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
How Does it Work? Very large doses of oestrogen hormone prevent implantation of the fertilised ovum into the fining of the uterus.
Isn't That an Abortion? Don't ask awkward questions. There is no precise definition of abortion and authorities can't agree on when human life begins. Rest assured that it is considered by the medical profession to be a method of contraception, not a method of abortion. Hence the medical term, Post-Coital Contraception, to you, the "Morning After" Pill.
When Should it be Used? You ought to be using better methods than this. It's strictly an emergency method.
What Sort of Emergency?
You Said Soon after Intercourse. How Soon? Preferably within 24 hours and no later than 72 hours. Read that again. It's probably the most important sentence.
What if the Emergency Occurs on Friday Night? You may find it bard to get a doctor in the weekend but you've got until Monday night to get a prescription and start treatment. If you're eligible to use the Student Health Service, there's always a doctor on call in the weekends for emergencies.
Can't You Just Go to a Chemist for the Pills? No. You need a prescription from a doctor.
How Much Will it Cost? Nothing. It is available free of charge, on prescription.
What If i Can't Get an Appointment with My Doctor? Tell the nurse or receplionist that it is an emergency and that you need the "morning after" pill. If you are a student and your own doctor can't see you, explain your problem to the nurse-receptionist at the Student Health Service. Ditto if you have a doctor who doesn't prescribe the "morning after" pill.
Aren't There Some Sort of Injections that Do the Same Thing? Yes. Some doctors do give injections but if you can swallow pills, why not? They're just as effective provided you take them.
Doesn't Oestrogen Cause Cancer and Blood Clots? Yes it may, but not in a short five day crash course like this. Ralph Nader's associates warned everyone about this but it has recently been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for use in emergency as a post-coital contraceptive.
What about Side Effects? These are more unpleasant than dangerous. The commonest side effect is nausea in about 50% of cases and sometimes there is vomiting. Breast tenderness and headache may occur in a smaller proportion of cases. The next period may be out of timing and it might be heavier than usual, but you'll be glad it's arrived. Usually there is very little alteration of the menstrual cycle.
Why Shouldn't it be Used as a Once-a-Month Method? It's pretty effective. In the medical literature there are now over 5,000 cases and virtually no pregnancies as long as treatment has been given early enough and in high enought dosage.
How Long Has it been Used? The first work in humans was done by Morris and associates at Yale University in
The aim of contraception is to prevent unwanted babies. Any girl who has sexual intercourse for a period of 12 months without using any contraceptive has nearly a 70% chance of becoming pregnant. This is too high a risk to take for any girl or woman who does not want a baby.
There are a number of different contraceptives and methods of contraception. They vary in convenience and, above all, in effectiveness. Methods of contraception in common use are:-
The douche is a large rubber bulb which can be filled with water or solution which is squirted up the vagina through a rubber spout. The water is supposed to wash away some of the semen, thus preventing pregnancy. The effectiveness of the douche is very low. Of 100 women who rely on the douche alone for one year, 31 are likely to become pregnant.
The rhythm method is based on the fact that ordinarily only once a month does a woman produce a ripe egg which can be fertilised by the male sperm and then develop into a baby. There is a period of no more than 24 hours during which the ripe egg remains alive and can be fertilised. If the fertilisation does not take place in the 24-hour period, the egg breaks apart and disappears.
This method must also take into account the fact that the male sperm can live for about 4 days after intercourse and still be able to fertilise an egg. Therefore, there is a period of between 5 and 11 days in the middle of the menstrual cycle when women cannot have intercourse. This length of time depends on how regular the woman's periods are.
To operate this method successfully, both the man and the woman must act responsibly and a lot of checking and research must be done before they embark on love-making. The main disadvantage of this method, however, is that it is by no means 100% effective. Out of 100 women who use this method for a full year, 24 will become pregnant anyway. This is a higher failure rate than any other method except the douche.
There are several chemical compounds which in low concentrations can quickly immobilise sperm beyond recovery, yet do not cause irritation of the vagina, or other structures. Preparations of these compounds are placed in the vagina before intercourse and should prevent the sperm entering the cervix and fertilising the egg.
All spermicides should be used with a mechanical barrier, e.g. diaphragm, cap or condom.
There are 4 types of spermicidal contraceptives available in New Zealand:-
Consumer Council tests have shown that only some of these products are reliable. They are:—
Do not use any products that are not recommended here. All four of the above categories are not safe unless used in conjunction with a diaphragm or condom.
One way of preventing the sperm from entering the woman, even without the use of a condom, is for the man to withdraw his penis just before he ejaculates. Withdrawal is Not an effective technique. One reason is that the slightest mistake in timing permits a certain amount of semen to be deposited in the woman before withdrawal. Even a drop is sufficient to cause pregnancy. Of every 100 couples who practise withdrawal for a full year, 18 are likely to become pregnant.
The condom (also called French letter, sheath) is probably second to the Pill as the most commonly used contraceptive in New Zealand. Condoms are made of thin rubber latex. They cover the penis to stop sperm entering the vagina. They are meant to be used only once.
All except two of the condoms available in New Zealand have been tested by the Consumer Council and have passed. Silvertex Regular and SilvertexChiffon have not been tested, though they carry the British Standards mark of approval. Those that passed the tests were:— Durex Fetherlite, Durex Gossamer, Durex Nuform, Durex protectives.
Condoms do occasionally leak or burst and it is therefore safer to use them with a spermicide.
The diaphragm or cap is a mechanical barrier placed in the vagina to prevent sperm entering the womb. There are diaphragms, caps, and vault caps. They consist of a soft rubber dome with a circular metal spring enclosed in its rim. The diaphragm or cap is inserted by squeezing it sideways and sliding it along the back wall of the vagina until it rests behind the neck of the uterus. The front is pushed back behind the pelvic bone and the expanded ring keeps it in place. These devices must be fitted by a doctor as the sape and size of the women vary greatly.
The woman must act responsibly while using the diaphragm and make sure that she uses a chemical spermicide as well. Out of 100 women who rely on it for a full year, about 12 are likely to become pregnant.
All diaphragms and caps on the New Zealand market have passed the Consumer Council tests. They are:-
Durex, Lam-Butt, Ortho, Dumas Cap, Vimule Pessary.
Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) are inserted into the uterus (-womb) to prevent conception. They come in many shapes and materials, but today plastic is most common. They measure about one inch in diameter, but are compressible and are pushed through a small tube inserted in the cervix. Once inside, they spring back into their original shape. The process is simple and ordinarily painless. A doctor experienced in their use should insert or remove them. Once in position, they can remain for many years, or can be removed at any time that the woman wants a baby. It is not advisable to wear one if you are very young or over 45 years of age. It is of course necessary to get a doctor or a trained Family Planning person to insert the IUD.
These devices are effective but how they prevent conception is not fully understood. The IUD can be expelled without the woman's knowledge during a heavy period. It is advisable to check yourself or be checked after each period.
The great advantage of the IUD is that it is easy and cheap to get, and that once in place it requires no further attention.
Types of IUD in use at the moment are:— Lippe's Loop, Saf-T-Coil, Antigon, Szontagh, Beospir.
The pill is probably the most effective method of contraception for young women, as it is virtually 100% effective, provided you remember to take it. There is still a great deal that is not known about the pill, how it works and how it affects women.
There are three basic types on the market:-combined, sequential, and continuous. Of these three the combined is the most effective. In the last few years, the results of a number of investigations have been published and it's now certain that there is a link between pill-taking and some types of thrombosis. If you go on through life without having children, you have to weigh the growing risk of thrombosis with your need for an utterly reliable contraceptive. The risk is not very high; about one or two in every 100,000 under 35 get thrombosis.
Some women suffer side effects of the pill, such as weight gain, nausea, vaginal discharge, depression.
There is a large list of combined pills available in New Zealand. They cost approximately $1-$1.50 a packet.
It is important that you see a doctor before going on the pill so that he can prescribe the right one for you.
The injection for women consists of synthetic progesterone and testing has shown that this injection is effective for about 6 months. In New Zealand, 3 monthly injections are being used. The obvious advantage of the injection is that you do not need to remember to take a pill or use any other method.
In some cases, side effects of this method can cause some discomfort, such as spotting (that is, spots of blood between periods). Some women may retain fluid in the body. The injection is naturally available through a doctor only.
Surgical sterilisation is virtually permanent and is only for people who are dissatisfied with other methods of contraception and are fully convinced that they will have no future desire for children.
For a man, it is a minor operation, but for a woman it's more involved. Sterilisation does not reduce desire — in the man the only difference is that the semen does not contain sperm. In women, menstruation continues but no egg passes into the fallopian tubes.
Though not illegal in New Zealand, sterilisation is not carried out as a normal procedure in general hospitals. In private hospitals, the cost ranges from $60-$ 100.
The Wellington Women's Abortion Action Committe is handling the publicity which is going out for the march nationally. This has been a mammoth task, the marches in all centres having built so well. The cost of organising this march is well past $300.
Items as follows:
We urge you to give generously to cover the cost of all our activities. Donations can be sent to Women's Abortion Action Committee, P.O. Box 2501, Wellington
For all those interested in the Women's Aortion Action Committee, there will be a meeting on Wednesday 18th Aprit and $ 1 donations will add your name to our mailing list, keeping you informed on all our activities.
A party has been organised after the march in the Lounge and Smoking Room at 8.30pm.
Admission: $1, beer will be supplied. All welcome.
Everyone is welcome to participate in these activities. Your help is vital in helping us show the government that the abortion laws are a gross injustice. We Need Your Help!
A programme of organised cheating, disruption of the capping ceremonies and organisation of an Exam Resisters' Union was adopted by the Students Association at its Annual General Meeting last week. This policy was advocated by the Education Liberation Front (ELF), one of whose exponents has already started to attack the university structure by disrupting term examinations.
Although much of the meeting was wasted by the Young Socialists' petty fringe politics, students did adopt several important proposals to strengthen their social commitment.
Students spend a quarter of their year away from the university in vacation jobs. They compete for work as individuals, not as an organised group. In key industries like the freezing works, students have often been used by companies as scab labour during disputes. In the public service students are used as a source of cheap labour and paid extremely low wages.
The AGM decided that in future the Association would negotiate with employers and unions to see that students most in need of work get it, and to prevent any future use of student labour by employers to break strikes. Debate on this motion showed up the middle class prejudice of many students towards workers and their ignorance of the fact that co-operation with trade unions would mean more holiday jobs for students.
The Tenants' Protection Association, which has been extremely successful in organising exploited tenants to fight landlords, was granted $200. However few students showed any real interest in actively working for the T.P.A.
Another proposal which attracted little interest was a decision to introduce Equal Pay into the student catering operation in one year instead of the five years allowed under the Equal Pay Act. The AGM did not face up to the question of whether or not it should let a subsidiary of I.T.T., the American monopoly which is notorious for exploiting workers in the Third World, run its cafeteria inefficiently.
The main debate centred around political strategy, and whether money should be given to groups using tactics which have no popular base of support, e.g. marching for the repeal of the abortion laws. A majority of students felt that a march would be a totally inefficient method of agitating against the present laws. One Executive member suggested that a doctor be found to perform an abortion in the Student Union Building and the police invited to stop it. The Executive was given $100 to spend on activities aimed at repeal of the abortion laws.
The highlight of the meeting came about 10.30 when there was still about 120 students present. When the general business came to an end a group of students demanded to know when a motion proposing a $1,000 donation to H.A.R.T. would be discussed. It turned out that they had actually believed a notice in Salient appealing to students to stop a donation to H.A.R.T. The donation was proposed but quickly shelved. A few right-wingers demanded an explanation from the editors of Salient but the meeting concluded, amid much hilarity, by passing a motion of confidence in them.
Terry Lewis O'Neil, 19, gardener's labourer pleaded not guilty recently before Mr Scully S.M. on a charge of inciting disorder.
For the prosecution. Constable Merrick stated that O'Neill was pushing and jumping up and down in a crowd that the police were trying to control, waving his arms above his head and shouting encouragement to the crowd. Constable Merrick was unable to recall the words used by O'Neil. Counsel for the defendant suggested that his client could have shouted "Leave the police alone for all you knew" Counsel also suggested that O'Neil could have merely been trying to see what was going on. Merrick denied this and stated that the defendant was having an obvious effect upon the crowd, although he could not give any example of this. Merrick admitted having arrested O'Neil before "a few times", but denied holding a grudge against him.
O'Neil stated that he had left a hotel with some friends and that the party was walking through the crowd to get to their car. He heard a man in front of him yell something and was suddenly grabbed from behind by Constable Merrick. Merrick escorted him to the police van without speaking to him apart from exclaiming "Not you again — here we go again". Terry O'Neil's statement was confirmed by two witnesses, his sister Deborah O'Neil and a housewife Pamela Scott. Both witnesses stated that the defendant had neither jumped, shouted or waved his arms. Both witnesses similarly stated that the police evidence was totally incorrect.
Summing up, counsel for the defendant pointed out that no disorder had been shown to have resulted from the incident. At no stage had there been resistance or physical involvement on the part of O'Neil The defendant had gone quietly and had not attempted to call on the crowd or cause disturbance during arrest.
Mr Scully took no time at all to deliberate the facts further. His final pronouncement was delivered rapidly, with a smile of satisfaction.
"The police evidence was said to be a lie. I'm in the position of deciding credibility, and, taking all matters into account I'm satisfied that the police evidence is correct". The smile lingered for a moment and then shut off completely.
"The duty of the police is getting more and more arduous — anyone getting in the way must be severely dealt with. Fined $100 and court costs".
It is a common practice among magistrates to be reluctant to consider that a policeman may have lied in court. Earlier this year in the case of Jesus Christ V. the Police, Mr Scully made a similar decision, with similar comments. In neither instance did he bother to explain the reason for his decision. Under our present legal system he is not required to.
It gets bloody difficult thinking up attractive covers for Salient, which will inspire students to seize the paper and read it avidly. Late Monday night we were still wracking our brains for an idea for this issue when some bright spark remembered that Thursday is the International Day of Solidarity with the Brazilian People and Students.
Brazil may seem remote to many students. But the struggle there and in many other Third World countries should remind people here of their privileged position and international obligations to the exploited people of the world. The cover also refers to the brutality of the South African regime and the suffering of banned students, see story on page 6. Our man in Rio de Janiero writes:
Since 1964 the people of Brazil have suffered under the vicious military dictatorship of General Medici. In September 1972 Amnesty International released a report on the widespread torture of political prisoners carried out by the Brazilian police and military.
One particularly notorious torture used is the "pan de arara". This involves tying a prisoner's wrists and ankles together and suspending him above the floor by an iron bar under his knees, leaving his naked body doubled over as electric shocks and other tortures are administered.
Through its "aid for public safety" programme the United States Agency for International Development (A.I.D.) gives training and financial support to the Brazilian police. American advisors in Brazil teach the local police the latest and most sophisticated police "techniques".
Brazilian students have been in the forefront of the struggle to free their country from General Medici's fascist dictatorship and the foreign monopolies which rob the people of their wealth. Throughout Latin America students have joined the masses in fighting U.S. and Western imperialism and struggling for national independence and socialism.
The Brazilian dictatorship doesn't have an embassy in Wellington. But ring up the U.S. Embassy (phone 41-076) and ask why the American Government provides military and police training for the Medici regime to eliminate its opposition.
"All In A Good Cause"
As the hydra headed myrmidons of godless student dom spread their darkling shapes over all that is good and pure in this land it is reassuring to know that among the legions there number still a few who will help in a Good Cause, right? Next Thursday in the 3rd floor lounge between 12 and 2 a meeting will be held to organise ways to help Intellectually Handicapped Children, Home of Compassion and similar places. We can arrange either to go out to work and play with or entertain these people, or arrange, individually with groups to take them on outings. If you can't make Thursday's meeting contact Nicola, the Welfare Officer via the Student Travel Office or at home 797-411.
We know nineteen out of twenty, including the Man in the Street might ignore this appeal but you, of course..........
The major problem facing a reviewer of the Bette Midler album. The divine Miss M, is where to begin. This difficulty arises because of the extensive variety of styles that she encompasses, so I'll fill you in on her background first and then move on to her album.
Miss Midler first started singing in a Turkish Bath. More precisely, the homosexual-frequented Continental Baths in New York where she proved so popular that fully-clothed onlookers started turning up, and from there it was only a short step to becoming the new darling of the New York underground.
Appearances on the David Frost Show and Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" followed — the latter drew attention to her and Rolling Stone ran a seven page article on her, not exactly normal procedure for a relative unknown. That paper's senior contributing editor, Ralph Gleason, put her into Perspectives as the possible beginning of a new era in popular music. The other breakthroughs he used to illustrate his point were those made by Bob Dylan and John Contrane. Get the picture?
There are equal amounts of camp and nostalgia blended into Miss Midler's style — but there's much more to her than outward appearances would have us believe. Her record is a curious mixture — from the ragtime Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy to the best version yet of Leon Russell's and Delaney Bramlett's Superstar. Her rendering of Friends leaves Frank Zappa far behind in the schizophrenia stakes, but for my money the stand out track is Leader of the Pack in which the backing musicians play through several rapid changes like speed freaks with the Devil on their tail. After Bette Midler, you can toss your Carly Simon and Carole King recordings in the rubbish tin. The divine Miss M is indeed on her way.
The Richard Supa, Bulldog and the Cheech and Chong records are interesting, and even entertaining in patches. Apart from that, they're not very good. Supa is a lightweight in a commercial acoustic mould who is more successful singing other people's material than his own. Unhappily, the self-penned songs make up seven of the nine tracks and in these he's tried too hard to make 'significant' by cramming them full of unrelated images.
Behind him the Atlanta Rhythm section lay down a polished, professional backing and dial's alt that can be said about it. The end result is an album to listen to with half an ear while you're in another room brewing up a pot of tea.
Bulldog is yet another group in a heavy bag, which includes among its members two former Rascals, Dino Danelli and Gene Cornish. The group's distinctive feature is its vocalist, Billy Hocher. His rasping voice saves the album from complete mediocrity. The music has already been heard a hundred times before, but they manage to put their message across more effectively when they slow the pace down as in Good Times are coming and Have a nice day where a lyric about closing one's eyes, locking doors and not needing sound solutions any longer is wistfully coupled with delicate acoustic guitar work.
Cheech (a Chicano) and Chong, an American Chinese, are head comedians who expand the basic premise that hippies are boring when they're stoned over two sides of vinyl. They're right, but after 40 minutes of "yeah, man" and "far out, man" they're in pretty much the same shape themselves. After repeated listening the only cuts that still hold up are Tripping in Court, (self-explanatory, I trust), and a radio advertisement for Acapulco Gold Filters.
John Donoghue's first solo LP, The Spirit of Pelorus Jack, produced in Wellington by Terence O'Neill-Joyce, is a pleasant surprise. I was reminded to notice it by a friend. It does contain some minor flaws: the bass lacks definition, the vocal harmonies are a little shaky and the lyrics could have been worked on a little longer. Bearing that in mind, it's certainly one of the best local products released for some time and well up to the standard of most overseas releases.
Donoghue is a rarity among New Zealand singers in that he possesses a distinctive voice. Rarer still, it's retained its distinctive stamp through recording, something we can attribute to a sympathetic producer. He's moved away from mirroring overseas trends into a relaxed and much more comfortable niche somewhere between Elton John and Cat Stevens. It works.
Ten Years After have been around for just about ten years, a commendable feat in itself, and their music has benefitted from the experience. The group are all competent rock musicians and play as a well balanced whole, the obvious leading spirit of Alvin Lee (lead guitar, vocals and song-writer) not totally over-riding the others.
Their first album (about Cricklewood Green, The signs of change first noticeable in Shhhh are most obvious in Stonehenge, and are continued in their most recent released Space in Time. However, the human and instrumental variations of Stonehenge have given way to more studiobred sound variations which at times unfortunately do not blend with the actual songs themselves. And while these individual songs are good in themselves there is some mixing of styles which, with the introduction pieces mentioned, breaks up both the flow and over-all unity of the album.
A Space in Time is excellently produced, the quality of the sound and the separation match the tightness of the group to give a very clean and strong sound. Not only has the reliable moog synthesiser been used but one track even has an introduction of falling waves. Unfortunately these touches appear as superficial dress-ups to what is basically a good blues/rock group who lack that extra bit of originality and inspiration which would make them a big-time group, without the frills. While Ten Years After have traded in intensity and power for a progressive note they can not get away from what they are' best at — straight forward, unpretentious rock.
The only song from the group as a whole is Uncle Jam and this perhaps is a pointer where the group could eventually go in that this track echoes the fine jazz pieces in Stonehenge. Jazz however is not as open a field as rock and popular tastes must be appeased to some degree.
The change in appeal from the straight rock to the head market is no doubt sincere, but Ten Years After have not yet quite mastered the new style — maybe their next album will.
Judee Sill is going to hate this record, it's so good that she'll probably spend the rest of her career trying to match the wit and intelligence of these songs. She's probably the finest female songwriter since Joni Mitchell, but her songs are not that kind of personal inquisition, nor does she use the recording booth as a confessional. Not that she hasn't had the experiences. She's been a heroin addict, a prostitute and an armed robber though by her own account that was a complete bomb. Seems she walked into the More, mean and nervous as hell, pulled out her gun and yelled "O.K. motherstickers — this is a fuckup".
With all that behind her, and with help from guys like Steve Stills she's making it as a pop singer. She writes witty, whimsical songs about tor example her attempts to find something real in spiritualism "but magic rings just turned my finger green, and my Mystic Rose has died.. I sat here wailing for God and a train, to the astral plane". But take the time to listen to this yourself before EMI delete it, and watch out for her next album, which last I heard was to be called "So you think you're A Rock 'n' Roll Singer, You Two-Bit Gnot".
Cartas Santana is one mean guy. At Altamont even before the Angels started their rough stuff he stopped his set to snarl at the crowd "I don't play no be-ins and I don't play no love-ins, and I sure as hell don't play no fuck-ins, so that couple out front that's balling gonna stop right now". They did.
In the Woodstock movie his facial expressions ran the gamut from sullen mean to agonised mean, and in the film Fillmore one of the less engaging moments has Carlos money hassling with the redoubtable Bill Graham. And winning. So don't take the quasi-mystical aliusions on the cover and track titles of this one too seriously. It's the same old Santana, a few electronic and Faster touches have been added but basically the same Latin bag they do so well. The material is better than the last LP with fewer vocals than ever, thank God. This record also sees the virtual retirement of the Carlos Santana Guitar Lick, that one riff he has repeated with mantra-like regularity on every track he has ever recorded. If you want to hear the best before deciding, try the last two cuts on side one.
From the Art Novveau cover we can see this is 'no ordinary' record. So you've never heard of Bette Midler — The Divine Miss M? Well witness her debut. The variety of material on this record is surprising but the choke is consistently good.
The album starts with her single Do you want to dance and she sings this pop classic with a sensitivity and simplicity that the original never had. The Shangri-las' marvel Leader of the Pack is featured and naturally it's: "Bette is that Jimmy's ring you're wearing"? She tings Chapel of Love a song from the same era which is also great fun. So much for sixties' nostalgia.
Am I Blue, a melancholy bluet finishes this first side and it is a ballad worthy of Barbara Streisand. Indeed, comparisons with Streisand seem easy to make; Friends begins and ends side two and from what I read, this song is to Bene Midler what People is to Streisand.
Delta Dawn is the high-point of the album and this ballad shows this woman's vocal talent better than any other song. It tells a strange Tennessee Williams-ish story with the lyric: "She was forty-one and her daddy still called her baby".
Another high-point is a faultless imitation of the honeyed harmonies of the Andrew Sisters on Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, a superb combination of nostalgia, novelty and camp.
Bette Midler made her second entrance at New York's Philharmonic Hall at midnight, last New Year's Eve as the New Year Baby, clad in diapers with a huge silver safety-pin and a vinyl sash. "A star is born" — indeed? This type of crap is great fun and doesn't Camp work by making what was once vulgar, delightfully trendy? Anyway it's glorious publicity. I don't really care for that but I don't suppose Miss M. can either. The important thing is the music and this it a fine record and Bette Midler deserves to be a star.
Combine the influences of Spooky Tooth and Johnny Hallyday with the previously dormant talents of Tim Rose and you have an album that seems to keep on growing. Being Tim Rose' first album, one would expect to find that things weren't quite together with the group, but most of the difficulties have been capably overcome with some good production by Gary Wright, ex Spooky Tooth. Besides producing the album, Wright wrote some of the songs as well as playing organ and piano on all tracks. Tracks such as Cryin' Shame, Cotton Growing Man and It takes a little longer, all written by Wright, end up sounding like cuts from the last Spooky Tooth album, and even the tracks written by Rose have the same lyrical and musical flavour.
Only 3 cuts on the album are actually written by Rose, while he includes rather orchestrated and heavy versions of Hide your love away and If were a Carpenter. Rose' voice is a little harsh in parts, it tended to grate at first, but it fits in well with the tone of the album.
Wanted: people who have had dealings with the Rent Review Regulations, or have ideas about the Rent Appeal Bill. NZUSA is to make submissions to the Labour Committee of the House of Representatives on the Bill, and wants as many suggestions as possible.
Ring John Blincoe (NZUSA Accommodation Officer), 758833 or 758714, or leave a note in the VUWSA office.
In an unexpected exhibition of deference to taste, the Lido is now showing a much praised film entitled 'The Conformist'. Bernado Bertolucci's only real success prior to 'Last Tango in Paris'. But, in spite of the list of complimentary reviews this clever little melodrama can boast, it left me quite uncertain of what all the fuss is about.
Based on Alberto Moravia's uncharacteristically earnest novel of the same name, "The Conformist' is a solid story featuring two traditionally Italian playfellows, politics and vice. Its protagonist, and the conformist of the piece is Marcello Iorly, a member of Mussorini's SS assigned to the elimination of anti-facist provocateurs, and sufferer of existential malaise. Confused by his own amorality, and contemptuous of the inevitable alienation from everyday society his professional role involves, he marries an inane petit-bourgeois in order to surround himself in 'normality' (his phrase not mine).
However, the central incident of the film, a mission involving the assassination of Iorly's former philosophy lecturer, with whose wife he forms a predictable sexual liaison, brings about the expected moral crisis of lorly's situation. The assassination is completed with the full participation of his scatterbrained wife, a thought which strikes him only when the lecturer has suffered a gruesome death in the hands of some extraordinarily clumsy SS henchmen, and which takes him on to realise that his conventional marriage has been no more than a front for his perfidious political intrigues. In his conformity he finds only moral deceit; but of course there is no turning back at this point, and so he awaits release from this dilemma with a pained but stoic acceptance. Convincingly told by Bertolucci, this rather traumatic tale has feasibility, but unfortunately. Bertolucci treats it as a truism, and fails to explore the conclusion he draws as well as he explores his protagonist's motives for taking on conformity in the first place.
This is not a truly serious objection however. What is more troublesome is the failure of Bertolucci's attempts to find a style suitable for his brainchild. For while Bertolucci is visually stylish, he is quite unsure of the style he can use best. Consequently the film looks like the work of a thieving magpie. With whole scenes lifted from his many mentors. A snatch of Visconti precedes an imitation of Fellini which in turn gives way to something from Orson Welles. This would not be so bad were Bertolucci to improve upon the originals, but sadly no such luck. Everything looks very untidy; and this applies to the actors in particular. The usually impeccable Jean Louis Trimigant in the title role has to run the gamut of petty gangsterism, liberal intellectualism, romantic heroism and touching bewilderment, all of which is a little loo much for him, and his co-stars (who include Dominique Sandra and Stephanie Audran) seem just as unable to cope with Bertolucci's fluctuating presentation of his characters. The package is wrapped and sealed with some gratuitously tricky photography from Viltorio Storaro — irritating as it often is, there are several chilling moment to restore the balance, but one could hardly call it 'good' photography.
This is not a denial of Bertolucci's talent, which one can see bursting out of nearly every scene — it is rather a suggestion that this is not the emergence of a major director, but an impressive apprentice piece. 'Last Tango in Paris' may well be another story, but this one remains good without being very good.
For something to avoid, an early Peter Bogdanovich film entitled 'Targets' is a must. Made up of two loosely connected histories, that of Byron Orlock, the doyen of horror movies, and his retirement from show business, and that of a psychopathic youngster who shoots at anything vaguely human, this film must be a firm favorite to take the prize for the worst-movie-ever. Mr Orlock's story, supposedly poignant, because Boris Karloff took this as his last part, seems to have been dragged out of a trash can containing reject scripts for 'Bracken's World': the story of the psychopath is marginally worse, offering not a moment of plausible behaviour, nor a semblance of understanding what is involved in psychopathic rampages.
All this is done in the name of social conscience (the film purports to be a condemnation of U.S. gun laws) but how Mr Orlock is involved is beyond me, other than that Orlock's mock violence might be an incitement for deranged adolescents . . . I don't believe it however. The final shoot out in a drive-in movie lot has a measure of tension, and is mercifully tree of the inane chatter Orlock and cohorts have been mumbling for the previous hour: but the memory of Karloff's passing eyes and the psychopath's ludicrous all-Americanism that form the basis of the lead up just kill any chance the scene might have.
To supplement the comment on the University Administration giving information about students to the Labour Department to assist their administration of Military Service, we wish to point out the Student Counselling Service may well be playing an important role in supplying information about students, particularly overseas students, to the authorities. One has the impression that the Counselling Service is very keen on the issue of overseas students but there is no efficient check whether information about students has not been channelled to the Labour Department which has close contacts with the Student Counselling Service.
Will the Counselling Service destroy the personal file if any of their 'patients' request it to do so? It is understandable that no one would like his or her personal file held by others who may pass it to Security Service. The Student Counselling Service should agree to destroy the personal file when requested. It is unreasonable to withhold other personal files if the students concerned do not feel happy about it.
It should also be pointed out that there is no evidence to prove that the Student Counselling Service has destroyed, after the interview, the application for Lee Foundation Awards as promised. Overseas students are very annoyed at the actual function of the service which continues for years to build up its file about students.
There is a potential danger in that the Student Counselling Service tends to exert its power and influence by interferring in every aspect of students' lives. Overseas students are usually forced to meet the 'experts' of the Counselling Service when problems with student permits arise, even if the students have no intention of consulting or seeking advice. Why is the Student Counselling Service allowed to decide on various important issues of the student future? What is the actual power of the Student Counselling Service in relation to the University authorities?
It is believed that the activities of the Student Counselling Service also present a threat to the academic staff whose teaching work and relations with students are likely to be checked. The 'experts' of the Counselling Service seem to know too much about the petty stories of the academic staff who may be unaware of prejudice against them collected by the experts from students under the pretext of counselling.
One of the aims of the Student Counselling Service is to divert the rebellious tendency of the students against the Establishment; to defend the reactionary policy of the Government such as the racist immigration regulations; to calm down or to check the anger and spark of student unrest. The Student Counselling Service should be under the control of the VUWSA which supervises the welfare of the students. The Student Counselling Service functions as a tool of the establishment and should be seriously investigated and questioned.
On the day of the AGM of the Students Association I was approached by a member of the Women's Abortion Action Committee with a request that I sign a form sponsoring the April 13th march for the repeal of abortion laws. It was emphasised that as wide a list of sponsors as possible was being sought and that I would be signing strictly as an individual not as an executive member. I signed as I am in favour of changing the laws and consider the march would not be counter-productive.
That evening I spoke at the AGM against the Association giving $50 to the Women's Abortion Action Committee for the purposes of this march. My feeling was that if money was to be donated to a cause then it should be spent efficiently in attempting to obtain the stated aims. Last year's march was not efficient, it cost $15 to put each marcher on the road. There is no reason to believe that this year's march will make any better economic sense. I also suggested that other means of action to repeal the laws be taken.
The following day I was again approached by this same individual who wanted to return my endorsement form on the grounds that I was "unaware of what sponsorship means" and that she didn't want "half-hearted support". I assume this was a reaction against my stated views though the Women's Abortion Action Committee was well aware that I believed their march inefficient before they asked me to sign their form.
I wonder first of all how and who makes a decision to weed out undesirable sponsors once their names have finished being used as bargaining points at Student's Association meetings and secondly whether a similar exclusion policy will exist during the march itself,
I refer to the letter from David G. Crayford, concerning "Jellimeat", in your issue of March 29th I would like to quote the following passage (from "Cock", Felix, Jellimeat, etc. ended up with a form of feline beriberi due to the massive inadequacies of Watties canned crap".
Perhaps Mr Crayford will investigate the possibilities of buying fresh meat for his cats.
In her own words Jacqueline McCluggage seeks to ". . . educate around the issues of abortion".
As she is not aware of, or callously ignores, the basic issue of "When does human life Start". I quote the following statement from the proceedings of the First International Conference on Abortion — Washington,
I trust that this proven medical fact will be well publicised by Miss McCluggage and her Committee.
This year we are very fortunate indeed to have a graduate from the University of Malaysia to teach us "Bahasa Malaysia". The class will be held every Saturday from 10.00-11.00am in Room RB 109 — starting April 14. It is open to all, Malaysians and friends. Admission free. Registration commences on 14 April.
Les Slater (Salient, March 7) advises solemnly that my book Everyone wants to be fuehrer is written "in the best tradition of VUW social science value-neutrality-and-all-that-crap". I wasn't aware that there was such a tradition and if there is I'm damn certain I don't write in it. Slater's review provides grounds for the view that he writes in a much older tradition: VUW crap. I haven't missed it.
PS. Everyone wants to be fuehrer is $3.95 in Australia and $4.65 in New Zealand, despite having been supplied to Alister Taylor at a cut rate so that he could keep his retail price down. The more things change, the more they are the same.
I am writing to you this letter to condemn your childish somewhat cowardly habit of writing 'brilliant and witty' comments under Letters to the Editor. Unless a letter contains statements which are factually wrong the Editor should not attack the individual's ideas or ideology. Many justified attacks on the newspaper monopolies of New Zealand have been launched by Salient. Yet the main argument against newspaper monopolies is that they suppress freedom of speech; and yet by cowardly attacks on the views of contributors you stifle the freedom of expression that you supposedly support. By following this crude form of thought control you only succeed in convicing Salient readers that you are doing exactly what the Do and other monopolistic 'thought barons' do; that is Salient all contributions to the newspaper to favour Your ideas and opinions. Surely this newspaper could lead the way to True freedom of expression by allowing people to express their opinions and letting Salient readers decide for themselves on the value of the opinions expressed.
[In our last issue we added comments to three letters. One to amplify, another to answer a question, and the third to point out that the letter was abridged. At least we print our letters intact or acknowledge abridgement: K.S. Allan evidently doesn't know that the dailies abridge letters to alter their meaning, and often they simply decline to print letters. Some of our letters cry out for replies that apathetic students wilt never give. If K.S. Allan expects us to write letters to ourselves to reply, then he or she is indeed the wanker that his/her letter suggests. We do admit that students could have made up their own minds that K.S, Allan's letter is tinyminded and sanctimonious, but occasionally we can't resist giving the knife another twist.—Eds
Women for Equality is planning to compile a book on Women's Liberation, Poetry, plays, fiction, articles, reviews, criticism, experimental writing, photos, art etc. would all be welcome. Anyone interested in contributing please send material to Women for Equality, P. O. Box 39071, Auckland West.
I note that the Student Union plans to host a social of the Federation of Labour Conferenec on the evening of May 1st (Mayday). This seems to indicate confusion about the nature of the FOL leadership. The trade union leaders, with few exceptions, are the willing helpers of imperialism, at can be easily shown.
The trade union leadership in NZ owes, its present form and content to compulsory unionism, by which the state compells workers to fund unions whose existence is dependent on state approval. The trade union leaders are therefore paid salaries and expenses by the favour of the state, and like all people in this position (e.g. university teachers and administrators) recognise (with very few exceptions) an unwritten obligation to support the capitalist state and those social forces whom the capitalist state serves, that is imperialism and local capitalism.
Recently the Hutt Valley motorworkers' agreement was renegotiated. On the one side of the negotiating table were the 4 motor companies, three American owned and one British owned. On the other tide were the trade union leaders of the Combined Unions, a committee of 14 unions with members in the motor industry.
At a 4000 strong mast stopwork meeting on Wednesday 28th March, the rank and file overwhelmingly rejected the Companies' offer of a 5.43% pay rise, and there was a strong demand by the rank and file for a full 11% pay rise, and a readiness to take direct action to get it.
The trade union leaders of the Combined Unions got a chance for further negotiations, and on Saturday 31st March, without further reference to the workers, accepted a 7.25% pay rise, an increase of only 1.82% over the rejected offer, thus guaranteeing no interruption of production and avoiding loss of profits to the companies and assuring continued profits at the old rate.
Whose side were the Combined Union leaders on in this case? The workers or the imperialists'? Who benefits by their activities?
The Combined Unions include most of the leading unions and union officials in the Wellington region, and will be a large and typical contingent at the FOL Conference and social. In the light of the strong and commendable stand taken by the student body in the recent past against imperialism, it would seem consistent for the Student Union to terminate its association with the FOL Conference social. The true significance of Mayday would come out if students were to host the rank and file workers, not their sell-out leadership.
I've received a lot of criticism for my belief in Yippie! tactics, so I will take the opportunity to explain my reasons. Too many people, I think, have interpreted Yippie! as a movement rather than the myth it is.
Yippies are publicity freaks. The criticism that a lot of Yippies are jetsetting teenyboppers is quite valid, and would be bad if the Yippies were a movement. Yippies are a group spreading the myth of revolution. Publicity is the lifeblood of the movement (which probably explains why the movement in New Zealand is so small) which is where Yippies are effective.
Often movement press statements don't get printed. But in the states a handful of Yippies invaded the stock exchange without any warning and got front page news. Also a lot of kids in America have been introduced to movement activities and groups through their prior involvement with Yip (Youth International Party). Not to mention radicalised by the policeman's truncheon.
Tactics such as these have worked here in New Zealand. After a week or less of very poor publicity we still managed to get 500 kids to go to parliament on Nov. 5th. Admittedly the press (after being fooled by Jesus Christ and the 'Youth For Jesus' Rally) didn't print our press statements, but we bad no trouble getting amused shopkeepers to put our 'Meet Jesus Christ and Mickey Mouse' posters in their windows.
At parliament, at least half of the people that I met there had not been involved in demos of other activities before.
Yippies are not an end — they are a means to an end and a bloody important one. Viva the myth!
"In a revolution one wins or dies" — Major Earnesto Che Guevara.
"Dash — a revolution in washing powder" — from a TV commercial.
The article published in Salient No.6 (4th April) entitled rather over-dramatically 'Assault in Lecture Room' is more or less accurate in its reporting of the facts of the event, although the tone is reminiscent of 'Truth' or 'The Sunday News', but it neglects to consider the developments which followed Robert Reid's outburst.
The class was indeed consulted on whether they would like to continue with the test scheduled for that day (and agreed upon at the beginning of the year) and voting was much along the lines indicated in the previous article, except that with 45 in the class the count would have been more like 42-3 and not 20-3 as suggested. What was not mentioned was that they agreed to hear Robert's 'guerrilla lecture' on a future date, namely the following Monday, and it was after this that Robert left; hopefully, aware of the fact that he had misjudged the mood of his audience and that to continue would have been to impose his own ideas on the rest of the class against their better judgement. The 'assault' referred to was rather overstated and Robert was persuaded to leave by peaceful and "democratic" means.
Our illustrious Vice-President was indeed given a chance to speak and, although his sociological analysis of the situation was rather garbled (as it was also when it appeared in Salient) the sentiments behind his outburst — that tests alienate students, and that insufficient allowance for discussion (i.e. in tutorials) had been made when the course was planned — were clear and accepted by those present.
Discussions of the changes to be made was led by the two lecturers referred to by Robert and in the course of two orderly meetings of the whole class suitable changes were made to the structure of the remainder of the course. While Robert's histrionic guerrilla tactics served a very useful function in drawing attention to these shortcomings at no stage was there any evidence of a reluctance on the part of the lecturers to meet students wishes which would have necessitated such tactics.
The "proletariat of student workers" may indeed have many enemies Robert but they are not in the Sociology Department.
On 28 March Anneke Vooren-Hesp was contacted and told she had failed to meet the first year requirements for the two year Diploma in Social Science course, which is the only university qualification in New Zealand in social work. Anneke, a M.A. graduate in psycho-linguistics, failed the first year course, ostensibly for academic reasons only.
One wonders whether any of the staff members responsible for her expulsion have asked themselves why only Anneke failed academically, when her past qualifications would lead one to suspect that she is perhaps better academically qualified than most of her classmates. The question of whether or not the work that Anneke passed in to be marked is of a "pass" or "fail" level is not relevant. Anneke had rightly questioned the whole "game" of university scholarship, a term used by Professor McCreary, who is in charge of the Diploma course. Anneke questioned the role of assessment, the power position of her teachers, the course content of her papers and constantly tried to introduce the subject of the political nature of social work into the classroom. None of these questions were adequately debated in her courses because of the repressive nature of some of her teachers and fellow-students.
If a student cannot ask the questions which she thinks are worth asking then whether or not the answers she gives are academically satisfactory to her teacher, is hardly relevant. Has a teacher the right to demand to ask the questions? If she has, then she not only rejects the traditional ideal of education, which is to bring out, develop or extract from the student her ideas, but also she acknowledges accepting a positivistic concept of knowledge, that there are certain correct answers to all questions of social work which the student must learn and repeat to his teacher. The teacher then rejects the idea that the questions may covertly contain assumptions, values and attitudes which are more important than the overt question.
Universally, the radical social work student finds that the content of his/her argument is reduced to the level of their personal psychological inadequacy. Should a student be critical of social work or fight authority, what she says is ignored and she is defined as "acting out some deep-seated problem of the psyche" (Pakeman (ed) "Counter Course" p.250). This tool was used against Anneke by staff members.
Students of V.U.W. should be interested in this case firstly because at some stage a decision affecting their life may be made by a social worker and cases such as these point to what social workers are truly like, and secondly it illustrates the limits to which a person can fight within the system before its own rules turn against the individual.
For some of the strongest supporters of the individualistic ethic in our society, some teachers of social work at V.U.W. have shown little respect or empathy for the individual integrity, personal courage and positive deviant attitudes of Anneke Vooren-Hesp.
Last Wednesday I attended a meeting in the Union Hall, at which a speaker from the Socialist Unity Party described Peter Rotherman as being "ultra-left". Later that day, at a Hart meeting, Mike Law described the same Peter Rotherman as a "Right-wing agent". Perhaps you could clear up the confusion surrounding this particular Trot for me. Just what is Peter Rotherman.
Playing university politics must be really fun. It would be really neat to be able to stand up at meetings and speak on every crucial issue, with the knowledge and logic of so many of our university demi-gods. But alas, with my meagre qualifications my voice would be lost — drowned in the whining of my intellectual superiors. They would know I had not done Political Science 1. They would know I wasn't a member of "Hart" or "Socialist Action" or the "Anarchists". They would realise I haven't read "The Manifesto" or the works of Lenin. They would recollect I wasn't at Harewood or in the Sharpeville demonstration or outside the N.Z. Rugby Football Union meeting. Also I am ashamed to say not one member of the Executive would know me. And just between you and me I'm not too sure exactly who they are themselves. I have a sneaky suspicion the President is that blond guy who is in desperate need of a hair clip.
Why, with my qualifications, or should I say lack of qualifications, am not lit to even rub shoulders with this university elite, let alone attempt to meddle in their political game. The responsibility of acting in favour of the student body as a whole must weigh very heavily on the shoulders of these super humans. Hardest of all must be the renunciation of all personal aspirations to help foster the social, economic, moral and political needs of all students. It is common knowledge that if it wasn't for their moral obligations they would prefer to spend their time constructively some other way.
On second thoughts maybe university politics isn't that much fun after all. Even if I was equipped to join in, the inherent hardships would deter me from participating. Therefore I think my backseat is the safest place for me, especially if the runaway vehicle I am on should accidently crash.
How very noble that Mr Tony Brown should think that bearing an unwanted illegitimate child should be a fulfilling and dignifying experience. I sympathize with him that he, as a male, will never have the opportunity of fulfilling himself in this manner.
Has Mr Brown considered what high plains of fulfilment followers of his faith might rise to by denying themselves safe legal abortions if they had a free choice; rather than being forced by the present laws to the same decision.
Although the writer of the article "The Dominion above all for Vorster", Mr Franks rubbishes the "Dominion", he has such a touching faith in the Australian press that we are expected to believe articles by unnamed people in unnamed Australian papers suggesting that the experiences of Francis James in China should not be taken "too seriously".
P.S. After three and a half pages of garbage on what your friends in Christchurch got up to, what can we expect this week?
(Why do you describe it as 'garbage'? — Eds)
I have watched with interest the criticisms of both you and Mr Franks which have appeared in the letter columns of Salient. However, while browsing through some old Association files I came across a letter from the President of the
My apologies for this long delay in contacting you which was caused by misunderstanding as to who was to write. Your letter of apology regarding the incident in the first floor men's toilets was received and accepted by the Executive. You are warned, however, that any further incidence of stupid behaviour will be most severely dealt with.
Sir, this staggering revelation farces me to the conclusion that Mr Franks has duped you into producing a critical, political newspaper. He has done this in order to divert the attention away from the important question which every student will want to ask — what really did happen in the first floor toilet in
Mr Steele, having it now revealed to you that your co-editor is no Marxist, but is in fact a mere toilet prankster will you reverse the priorities of your newspaper and learn to accept that boys will be boys whether they live under capitalism or communism?
(Peter Franks replies: At last students know what their President has been doing so far this year, "browsing through some old Association files" instead of implementing his election promises. What happened on the fateful night in May 1970 was that I made a suicidal, foolhardy yet courageous attempt to strike out against the tyrannical Bryson/Knox/Phelps clique which then ruled this Association. This despotic gang would have cruelly punished me but for the speedy mobilisation of thousands of students in support. History absolved me, and I believe my adventurist act helped pave the way for amiable Graeme Collins' succession to the seat of student power.)
Like the mole the Trotskyist trails dirt and suffers from acute myopia. Hector MacNeill is no exception. He makes great play of the fact that the class composition of the Kronstadters in
Trotsky's apologists state that the Kronstadt sailors in
Regarding the rest of Mr MacNeill's soiled epistle, I can only express amazement at his capacity for deceit. Trotsky's signature as Red Army chief was affixed to all military orders relating to Kronstadt, and he happily spread stories of White generals leading the Commune, which even Stalin would have been hard put to better. The Kronstadters' determination to resist both Bolshevik attacks and capitalist offers of food etc. has been well documented by Ida Mett, Victor Serge, the anarchist Voline and many others.
If Mr MacNeill wants to smear Russia's most famous anarchist, Nestor Makhno, he should advance his facts. One line from Footman's "Civil War in Russia" (Fabers
In the interests of a world without servants,
The latest reports from Cambodia indicate that the pro-American government of the 'Khmer Republic' will be lucky to survive the month. The capital Phnom Penh is surrounded by the forces of the Royal Government of National Union which controls about 95% of the country.
In 1970 General Lou Nol, the head of the puppet government, led a successful C.I.A.-backed coup which overthrew the Head of State, Prince Norodom Sihanouk. The leftist forces rallied to Sihanouk and a united front of all Lon Nol's opponents was established. After three years of bitter struggle against the Americans, the South Vietnamese and the regime in Phnom Penh, it seems only a matter of time before Sihanouk resumes his position as Head of State of all Cambodia.
Wilfred Burchett lived in Phnom Penh for several years until he was forced to leave after the 1970 coup. He is a personal friend of Sihanouk and has just published a book narrated by him entitled "My War with the C.I.A." (Penguin). As one of the few westerners to have had close contact with Sihanouk he is able to comment authoritatively on Cambodian affairs. Salient asked Burchett for his assessment of Sihanouk's role in Cambodian politics since the country gained its independence in 1954.
I consider that Sihanouk played a very valuable role which will perhaps only become apparent when the history of the whole war is written. Through his policy of neutrality and independence Sihanouk kept Cambodia out of the Indochina war for a very long time. He resisted first of all very extreme pressures from the United States to put Cambodia inside S.E.A.T.O. that would have meant American bases, inside Cambodia, to outflank the revolutionary forces in South Vietnam. S.E.A.T.O. was set up to do just that. Sihanouk refused.
The Vietnamese would have been outflanked if Sihanouk had permitted the Americans to use Cambodia las a base.
What happened in Cambodia was an absolutely classic case in which the United States used every form of pressure, to bend a government to its will, but as long as Sihanouk was there they didn't succeed Even before Cambodia became independent the C.I.A. started, in the physical form of Allen Dulles, together with his brother John Foster and the State Department. Even before S.E.A.T.O. was formed they tried to put pressure on Sihanouk to allow the French to retain bases in Cambodia, to pursue the war against
He made his mistakes too. In the early stage he was only able to carry out these things because he had the wholehearted support of the left, which became known later as the Khmer Rouge. They wholeheartedly supported his foreign policy and supported all sorts of measures in his internal policy. When he kicked out the aid missions he found they were coming through the back door, through trade and through the banks. So he nationalised the banks and import-export. Of course this was very good and the left supported him. But it aroused very strong right-wing hostilily which eventually led to Lon Nol and Sink Matak carrying out their putsch in But he made his mistake in 1966 and 1967 by believing all sorts of plots which Lon Nol persuaded him were being hatched by the left against himself and the monarchy.
Sihanouk fell for some of these things. He admitted after-wards that he had made mistakes which had weakened his own forces and made it easier for Lon Nol to carry out his putsch. But he realised his mistakes very quickly, made a self-criticsim and then launched the appeal for national resistance, setting up a national united front, and liberation armed forces. The left immediately made their peace with him. They said "we're back to the old days so lei's forget the past and think of the present and the future". And it was a very important thing that Sihanouk lent his name and his prestige to the resistance movement in Cambodia.
Salient: How does Sihanouk see his own immediate future and that of Cambodia?
Well he thinks that in the future Cambodia will remain independent, which is a terribly important thing and he has had cast-iron guarantees on that subject from the Chinese, the North Vietnamese and the Provisional Revolutionary Government. He thinks that the very existence of the Resistance has pushed the country to the left. It's led to a radicalisation of public opinion. As Sihanouk expressed it to me, "President Nixon has performed the miracle of transforming our easy going passive, buddhist, non-violent peasants into very angry revolutionaries". Sihanouk's not against that, he welcomes that, he thinks that's a good thing. He doesn't think that the future is really with him or with the monarchy but with the young people, the people who carried out the Resistance.
He always used to refer to the Khmer Rouge, as "very pure, very patriotic people. Of course our ideas are not the same but I recognise that". He recognised that even when he was persecuting them. But now he has had contact with these people, now they are with his government in Peking, my feeling is that he has moved very much to their point of view. The great thing for Cambodia for centuries and centuries has been to survive as a nation, and the great quality of Sihanouk has been to recognise that and so to play historically the role of a patriot.
Sihanouk wanted to step down as head of slate as soon as the Lon Nol regime was overthrown and leave everything to the Resistance. But they appreciated his patriotic role, his great prestige among the masses of the Cambodian population, his great prestige abroad and his considerable diplomatic experience. So they sent one of the heads of the Resistance movement, one of the earliest to have left Phnom Penh for the resistance bases back in
Sihanouk and the whole Resistance Government will be on Cambodian soil very shortly, if they're not there already.
Salient: Will he play any further practical role in the overthrow of the Lon Nol regime?
Yes, because he's going to be on Cambodian soil very shortly if he's not already there. That part of the Royal Government of National Union which has been based in Peking is going to join up very shortly with that part of the government which is based in Cambodia itself, if they have not done so already. In other words the whole Resistance government will be based on Cambodian soil and Sihanouk will be with them, though probably not for very long because he has engagements abroad.
There is to be a summit meeting, at Head of State level, of non-aligned countries in Algeria in September, at which it is very likely that the Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia will be recognised by the great majority, if not all the non-aligned states. Sihanouk will be making visits to some Third World countries fairly soon to prepare for this and to gain support for his cause; and if he gets enough support at the non-aligned conference, the question of Cambodian representation at the United Nations will come up. He believes, and I believe, that it's easily possible the Royal Government will get at least a majority if not a two thirds majority, because of support from the Third World. Part of the reason for this support is the prestige and personal contacts Sihanouk has had over the years with a lot of the leaders of Third World countries, and non-aligned countries.