Support for Watersiders

The first motion to arise stated that the Associatior support the Maritime workers in their principled stand against nuclear warships, and that we urge the Government to get rid of the Truxtun and forbid any others to come here. Lindy Cassidy, who moved the motion, said that we had to look at the implications of involving ourselves in US foreign policy, and that we should consider the possibility and the consequences of a nuclear confrontation, or a nuclear accident.

Mr George Goddard of the Waterside Workers Union then took up an invitation to speak to the meeting. He wasn't trying to pressure us into anything, and said it would be good, of course, if we supported the motion, but if we didn't he wouldn't be unduly distressed. Not unduly distressed! He obviously didn't realise he was talking to members of the second most powerful pressure group in the country!

He said that members of the unions were concerned for the safety of the citizens of Wellington, and to show the support being received he quoted the number of telegrams that had been sent. The score? 365 for, 2 against.

The unions had planned to strike if a nuclear-warship arrived - the presence of the Truxtun, he said, was not a matter for panic or irrational action. They were not going to let the Government make their minds up for them. At the risk of being labelled right wing, reactionary, fascist, and all those other words, I can't help wondering how many of the striking workers really do have their own strong feelings about the Truxtun's visit.

Mr Goddard then produced a supporting quotation from a book, about how fascist propaganda promotes the idea that the world's problems can be resolved without a struggle or confrontation. The idea was that because of our reverence for the written word, a quotation from a book would carry more weight than a speech. This, of course, is the whole philosophy behind SRC reports, If you read about it, you're more likely to believe it than if you actually see it happening.

A couple of other speakers supported the motion, but the most noticeable facet of the discussion was the lack of articulate opposition. Instead there was a succession of jeers and illogical interjections from the floor, dashing any hopes of a constructive debate. In the end the motion was passed.