Mulrennan gains new-found friends

We have become increasingly concerned by the continued weakening of the effectiveness of SRC and individual members of the student body, because of petty argumenta between political factions. It is especially with regards to Patrick Mulrennan and his fellow Trotskyites that our concern lies.

The pettiness of the anti-Trot factions was demonstrated clearly to us in two different incidents. The first was an occasion when Maoists resisted the appointment of Patrick as a marshall on the recent anti-apartheid march. That people can be so narrow-minded as to consider that a person, because of his or her beliefs, will not be effective in any capacity even of the smallest influence, astounds me.

The other incident is more important as the anti-Trot feeling worked to the detriment of SRC and, therefore, student welfare. In the latest [unclear: eting] of SRC (Wed 23 March) Patrick Mulrennan attempted to move a procedural motion. The idea behind this was to table a motion in favour of another that was far more urgent. The first motion itself had been moved by Patrick, but nevertheless the procedural motion was voted out. A motion to extend the meeting to 2.10, moved by Patrick, was also rejected. To add insult to injury Patrick's original motion, concerning the re-registration of the Wellington Boilermakers' Association was also voted out. This would not have been so bad, if it was not evident that Patrick was not given a fair chance—neither by a specific body of the meeting, nor indeed, it appeared to us, by the chair. We cannot see how people who claim to be so concerned with Student Welfare and with fighting for oppressed peoples can themselves be narrow-minded enough to prevent an incredibly useful and hardworking member of the student body from working effectively.

This is a strange letter—mainly because the authors have failed to get their facts right. Only two people were responsible for the organisation of marshalls for the recent WAAP march, of which one was a long-time member of the Socialist Action League. All decisions on marshalls were made by those two, not your anonymous 'Maoists'. For the Varsity march, which was so small as to need very few marshalls, it was decided that members of the SAAM committee and the VUW SA executive were to be approached first. In addition, some marshalls for the main march, were present and lent a hand. Thus Patrick's offer on the day of the march was declined. So much for that conspiracy.

The other points about the SRC are equally misinformed. The more 'urgent' motion was only more urgent in the eyes of Mr Mulrennan and a few others, which is why his first procedural motion was opposed. The first two SRC's had had their time extended past 2 p.m. only to find that they lost their quorum. This time it was opposed.

The main reason that the motion on the Boilermakers was lost, was Patrick's 'political priorities', which resulted in him giving no factual details on the motion for SRC to make a decision, as he still wanted to consider his more 'urgent' motion before 2p.m. We understand this motion (which was supported by your villainous 'Maoists') is to be raised again at the next SRC.

Finally your opinions on Patrick Mulrennan's usefulness to this association are not shared by many with more experience of the antics of the SAL on campus. Perhaps you should investigate the history of 'poor' Patrick's political friends before you so naively jump to his defence.

—Ed.

Letter from a thinking democrat.

Having read your latest issue I decided to write you this letter. Being a simple-minded fuckwitted wanker from a very small hick town just north of the main sewer in that area and being of unsound mind and of dubious sexual status, I do solemnly swear to Almighty Dog that this here Oriental excuse for plastic toilet rolls (otherwise known as Salient) is the most biased, prejudiced bigoted, socialist, communist fucking leftist fucking crappy shithouse newspaper that I have ever, ever had to drop fucking turds on in my whole life! And I'm nearly two.

It was probably compiled by a rabble of bearded, brainless, braless Hart-supporting, Mao-slogan-shouting, plastic Marxist overstayers, who should be ejected from this fair democratic land. Along with Tom Skinner, Silly Billy Rowling, lizard Tizard, Bill "no it's the Government's fault" Anderson, Fuck wit Finlay, Doon Douglas and the rest of the National Drivers Union, Boilermakers, Watersiders, Cooks and Stewards and any other poms that are left!

Why the fuck our beloved Rob has not already done so before is above me, but he must do so soon. If something is not done soon I and all my mates (Himille, Goering, Barman and Air Commodore Gill), will take matters into our own hands and personally take up the sabotage contract open on that vast propaganda machine, Wanganui Newspapers Ltd, and its main headquarters, the Salient office.

So beware Punks—me and my band of four are out for your shit upon skins.

Get 'Right' or 'Get Out.'

Another Pro-Apartheid Supporter.

The idea of democracy, majority rule, one-man, one-vote sounds very appealing and even feasible. Indeed there are many pressure groups in our society who either out of infantile stupidity or communist-inspired self-interest would have us believe that majority rule is the panacaea for all our society's problems. However such triteness is more revealing of the gullibility of the perpetrators of such socialist drivel than of any meaningful solution to the problem.

One needs to appreciate that the white man's character is not a simple one. The white population is not a homogenous one. There is division and sub-division according to ancestral background. Thus one cannot speak of a white man, per se—for the population is a mixture of Irish Swiss, German, English. Scots, Norwegian, Welsh, each with their own sub-tribal groupings. Thus it becomes meaningless to speak of equality for the white man. One cannot expect such diverse peoples to suddenly co-exist peacefully when given self-rule after their long history of violence and dispute. Separate development is the only answer—any other proposal should be seen for what it is—communist propaganda.

Rejoinder to Apartheid.

page 18

The Leaders and the Led

As an overseas student, I cannot but express my disenchantment of the voting trend at the recent SRC election of an Overseas Officer. It is not difficult to see that overseas students here in the campus are a minority, and can be easily out-voted by their New Zealand counterparts anytime. In most matters or motions, that is perfectly legitimate and certainly right. But where the interests of overseas students are concerned, as in the election of an Overseas Officer it is highly questionable whether New Zealand students are adequately qualified to assess an overseas student candidate, especially in relation to the feelings, and opinion of overseas students.

This quote, expresses, I believe, for most of the overseas students, their position here both socially, and to lesser extent politically.

Too often in the past have I witnessed VUWSA giving support to certain select overseas students, to join their elitist clique, merely because these students are, aside from Robert Pui, socially entertaining and articulate on the public stage. We have seen too many of such characters in our home country, and I dare say we are getting extremely tired of them. Such kind of people are generally socially a class, away from the majority of the people. How much have these VUWSA pakeha supported overseas student 'leaders' tried to associate with the bulk of the ordinary overseas students? (How well do they know their views, interests, and priorities?) On the contrary however, they view with condescension their fellow overseas students, and prefer to promote their own personal ego and social life amongst the pakeha students, at the expense of fellow overseas students. Of course, a racial trend can be observed, but it would not be a fair statement, in view of the individuals who are just not like that.

So it is with great distaste to hear overseas student 'leaders' malign overseas students as generally socially and politically apathetic. Overseas students are not apathetic. They do not follow blindly like sheep, the callings of a 'leader' of doubted qualities. They question like anyone else, the character of that person, his motives, his sincerity, his dedication, his beliefs, his social associations etc. Social apathy? No, and certainly not instruments of such 'politicized' people.

This act of VUWSA giving support to individuals who happened to be more attuned to their values and beliefs, in my opinion, serves only as a symbolic lack of genuine concern for overseas students' interests. People elected or appointed as representatives of overseas students, should come from the 'grass-roots' of the population; people who have been accepted by their own people as worth to look after their interests; Sometimes, I think VUWSA or NZUSA are just a bunch of hypocrites. Perhaps that is a bit strong, but how can it be helped if they keep on sanctimoniously praising China, Vietnam, the Thai, Singaporean and Malaysian Student Movements many miles away while they cannot even relate to the opinions of overseas students right here in the campus. Maybe 'gooks' are less capable of formulating their own views or knowing what is good for themselves. In any case, VUWSA may perhaps like to undertake some symbolic act to reassure us this is not so.

As an overseas student, I look with interest to the activities of our new Overseas Officer, James Movick. Like any other person, I would like to extend my congratulations to him. However, that is not to say that he will be approved to do things anyway he desires. Rest assured there will be criticisms if he exhibits any indication that he is in the office for reasons no other than his own personal interests, ego etc., while maintaining the facade of representing overseas students. Certainly, I am going to demand more than mere public appearances, speeches and exhortation for the $50 honararium he receives.

Sounding Off

Last week you published a letter regarding the sound system in the Memorial Theatre. While one can sympathise with those who found it difficult to hear the Stones music, the fault lies not with the sound system in the Theatre, but with the sound-track on the film. One of the continuing major problems with the films is that we have no control over the quality of the film print. This problem is made worse by films that are not made by the big monopoly film companies which have all the latest equipment.

The Rolling Stones film and the Fillmore film that followed the next day, were made by amateurs who were out to keep the price down—accordingly the quality of the soundtrack was inferior. Further, many of the films that we receive look as if they have been through a coffee grinder and then stuck together again. While attempts are made to present the films in the best possible condition, this is not always possible.

Where films are of poor quality then people are warned, and in some cases the film is shown for free. Hopefully 'Your Souls Destoyed' will continue to enjoy and attend the films that Studass puts on.

A Moving Experience

We would like to express our most heart (mouth, stomach and toe)-felt gratitude to an almost-illiterate who bothered to lift two fingers (this time with a pen between them!) for our benefit.

He informed us in a very raggety note scrunched beneath the car windscreen wipers on Thursday March 24 9p.m. (approx.), that we were both "alcoholic cunts." Of this fact we had hitherto been sadly unaware.

It seems a pity that our knowledgable Saviour hasn't more active ways of occupying his time if alcohol and cunts are what he's interested in, but we are, of course exceedingly grateful to him for enlightening us as to our own most lamentable state of affairs. We would venture to suggest he send any further literary attempts to 'Salient' or to our friend Patricia, both of whom could do with a bit of a jerk.

I want to go to the movies...

I want to see Dr Strangelove, and The War Game. I really do. I would be prepared to pay ordinary cinema prices to see Dr Strangelove and The War Game. You really don't have to tell me they're incredible movies and well worth seeing in fact it would do me a lot of good to see Dr Strangelove and The War Game. (It might even turn me into a reactionary little anti-nuclear dynamo.) But I can't, as I'm an ordinary kind of student (the $37 variety) and my time-table is covered with Blue Ink on Thursday 2.15 onwards. What are the possibilities for Sunday nights?(like Massey.)

I'm feeling intensely irritated at the not-so-recent blow-up of the Students' Arts Council; having felt just a little suspicious of the way in which Bruce Kirkland was directing the Student Entertainments. Also the state of the SRC leaves me with a sensation of being ankle deep in seawater, watching those brown things with long tails fastening on their life jackets and leaping overboard.

But as a full-time student holding down three part-time jobs, and selfishly letting my priorites of finishing a degree and eating at the same time override my guilt at my inaction in student affairs, I can't see any solution. Sorry.

Questions on Country Joe.

It is interesting to note the differences between the Country Joe McDonald concert held in the Student Union Building on Saturday March 5, and his appearance in Palmerston North the following night.

The venue for his Vic. concert was our own illustrious Student Union edifice which although it may be the spiritual place for the capital's intelligentsia does not strike me as the ideal place for a concert. The support act may have been locally renowned, but certainly not nationally—and the price, $3.50. although well below normal concert prices was not as cheap as it perhaps could have been.

In contrast, the Palmerston North concert organised by the Massey University Students' Association, was held at the Palmy Opera House—more suitable for such concerts acoustically and seating wise. The support band was the Wellington group Heartbreakers—presently at the height of their new-found popularity. And the price? $3.00.

Neither the venue nor the support act would have cost the MUSA a pittance and yet the VUSA avoid such 'extravagant' cost by hosting Mr McDonald Esq. their own buildings with a local support (if that) and yet still manage to charge more.

I believe this is the first campus tour actually arranged by the individual student unions rather than the Universities Arts Council and so in Wellington at least I am curious to see just who is ripping who off!!!

Cafe Complaint again.

Not only is the food in the cafe fucking atrocious, but the shit-house service just makes me so pissed off I now go to the trouble of having my lunch down-town.

Yesterday I was served by an uncouth youth seemed more interested in his cigarette than serving customers. Besides cigarette ash being dropped in my fruit juice and on my savouries, his foul mouth and the throwing of my sundae on the counter, he managed to charge me only twenty cents too much

Well if this is what the Union Management calls good service it's about time they pull their fingers out of their arse oles and provide a service that we deserve (I mean $37 Student Association Fees.)

Alfonso again.

Please I beg of you—please agree to Alfonso Fanelli taking over the cafe!

After drooling over his proposed menu, with my tongue hanging out and my eyes wet with anticipation of what Could Be, surely you would not be so unkind as to give the thumbs down on his suggestions! Even the prices can't be faulted! Quality,—reasonably priced, can't be—must not be put down. Home made soups, vitamin packed delicious foods at our finger tips Cannot be ignored! Attractive surroundings with Wine yet! Oh mamma mia—gimme dat, gimme dat, gimme dat t'ing!

My titillated taste buds are crying out for it! Just one suggestion—please "go easy" on the garlic, Mr Fanelli, and for the strong garlic eater perhaps you could have "Kingsize" Garlic Prawns—about 8 for $2.00 with genuine hot garlic sauce European style—hopefully served with a Thick slice of Un Buttered homemade wheaten crispy brown bread yum!

Oh, Alfonso Fanelli—"please come home" (with apologies to John Goldfarb.)

'Pro-apartheid' draws comment.

In reply to Mr Lowes attempt at dispelling the one sided version of events in Africa, I would like to disagree with his comments on the situation in Africa and the inconsistencies he sees in the Anti-apartheid movement in N.Z.

Firstly, what must be understood is that the present African nations were formed as a result if colonialism and so their economic, political, and social structures are presently distorted for the benefit of foreign capital.

South Africa and Rhodesia are the worst examples of imperialist oppression Africa, which is manifested in a system of violence called Apartheid. The contribution of tribalism is another form of division which is employed to divide nations, the best examples of which is the Bantustans in South Africa. For while the Black population in South Africa has increasingly become proletarianised, it is only in the Bantustans that tribalism is forced to continue.

So the issue for us fundamentally in N.Z. is to oppose imperialism by anyone in Africa and to defend the right of national independence. The mechanism of sport boycotts and the like, is the only significant manner in which N.Z. can fight Anglo-American imperialism in Rhodesia and South Africa and its lackeys. The fascist Government of South Africa can be exposed and condemned

Wherever imperialism occurs in Africa, we should expose it, but South Africa and Rhodesia are special cases. They are effectively the last 'colonies' remaining on the African continent—it is our duty to support their struggle for independence.

Oppressive dictatorship whenever it occurs in Africa is the result of the oppression of foreign capital. When imperialism is eradicated, it is only time until the oppressed people, not just the Blacks, gain control of their nation. In fact many Black African leaders have said that white people will always have a part to play as equals in the majority ruled South Africa.

To oppose imperialism on all fronts is the matter of importance, and so the demand to withdraw visas for South African sportsmen coming to N.Z. is an important one. But as Mr Lowe accuses, we have never demanded the withdrawal of N.Z.ers right to travel, even to South Africa.

Reader supports Salient's stand.

I read with interest your front page article in the 4th issue of Salient on the performance of the Executive to date. As one only now concerned on the periphery of student politics, I would say it was probably a fair statement.

The major difficulties on Execs, are the members who are more concerned about making a name for themselves than in serving the interests of students. They have little or no concern for the policies decided upon by SRC. For example, I noticed that only two Exec, members went on the student march for Sharpeville Day—Lindy Cassidy and Kevin Swann, and I suspect the majority of Exec, did not go on the main march.

On every Exec. I have seen (and I have seen quite a few) there has always been three varieties of Exec, members. There are those who begin as well meaning incompetents (for example the lady who campaigned on the policy of getting a student pub—Execs, for the last 10 years have been attempting this and the only answer answer was we'll get one if there is a substantial change to the licensing laws,) and develop into cynical lazy bastards. I would say that Lindy Cassidy has been saddled with more than her fair share of these.

The next category are those Exec, members who do not agree with much of SRC policy, who consider they should work only in their own portfolio, and who attempt to disguise and conceal certain areas of their work from students, instead of being open and above board. The very nature of the style of their work, being mostly conspiratorial and manipulative, and having a fraudulent air of mystique around it, attracts the less well meaning of the first category and enables them to win majorities on various vital questions—e.g., the motion passed at the last meeting of the Exec, which gives Exec, members the right to intefere in the autonomy of Salient.

Then there are the hard working, politically aware and alive Exec, members, who make their time and energy available to the needs and concerns of students. On this Exec, only Lindy Cassidy and Kevin Swann appear to come close to this.

It seems to me that while most of the Salient article was fair and accurate, it did not bring out these divisions suffiviently, or make any forwcasts on how the Exec, would respond to the developing needs of the Students Association. Modestly, I believe I have corrected this omission.

I would now like to comment on the letter in Salient no. 5 headed "Liberals Unite" and signed by a large number of people, few of whom I suspect have read all of the essay on Liberalism from which they quoted. In their attempt to defend certain members of the Exec, they have failed to consider them in an all-round political manner; They do not consider the article as a whole, nor do they make any substantial criticisms of its political analysis. Instead of refuting the article they descend to villifying the Editor and Workers of Salient.

The idea about accepting criticism, which perhaps these well developed Marxist Leninists could pass onto the two Exec, members they defend is that criticism should not be accepted with with arrogance, but with humility, sorting out the unjust from the just criticism, changing those things which are wrong, strengthening those aspects which are correct. I have yet to see any sign of this, and indeed the two Exec, memebrs they feel so strongly about—Neil Gray and Gerald Sharrock, voted for the Exec, motion previously mentioned in this letter. Perhaps the writers of the letter would care to revise their judgement in light of this action.

To the Editor of Salient, I say, keep it up! Salient must not only be separate from the Exec., it must be seen to be separate.

page 19

Letter from a fucking wanker.

Perhaps one of the most interesting; words in the English language today is the word 'Fuck.' It is the magical word, which just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love. 'Fuck' takes its name from the German word 'Friken' which means 'O Strike.'

In language, 'Fuck' falls into many grammatical categories—it can be used as a verb, both transitive (John fucked Mary) and intransitive (Mary was fucked by John.)

As an adverb (mary is fucking well interested in John.)

And as a noun (Mary is a fine fuck.)

Also an adjective (Mary is fucking beautiful.) As you can see, there are not many words with the same versatility as the word 'Fuck.'

Besides the sexual meaning, there are also the following:

Fraud—I got fucked at the used car lot.

Ignorance—Fucked if I know.

Trouble—I guess Pm fucked now.

Agression—Fuck you.

Difficulty—I can't understand this fucking mess.

Displeasure—What the fuck is going on here?

Suspicion—What the fuck are you doing?

Enjoyment—This is fucking great.

Request—Get the fuck out of here!

Hostility—I'm going to knock your fucking head off.

Surprise—Well I'll be fucked!

Exasperation For fuck's sake!

Incompetence—What a fuck up!

I know you can think of many more uses, but with all these how can anyone be offended when you say 'Fuck?' We can use this unique word more often in our daily speech.

It adds to your prestige Say it loud and clear 'Fuck You!'

Leeches disunite!

This country is in need of an undertaker to bury all the dead minds and consciences left behind when the cries of Africa were ignored. Don't wait for us Africa—we're in comfy chairs. Only black people died in Soweto (and it didn't cost us a cent)—"But who gives a damn if it don't pay the rent." Ignoring the cries of Africa—not marching makes you a supporter of the oppression of the Black people of Southern Africa, i.e. inertia equates supporting oppression. People have an obligation to demonstrate against what's happening in South Africa and Rhodesia. The ridiculous attitude, almost one of condescending to demonstrate on ignoring the call to demonstrate, must go. We live in a 'wealthy' 'safe' country, but that must not be used as a permit to ignore what happens to our brothers in other countries. It has too long been used as an argument by New Zealanders to avoid responsibility. 'I'm not my brother's keeper.'

Wake up! Get up out of the 'comfortable' mindless bed you've been sleeping in. For this system to exist requires unquestioning, unthinking, egocentric people—Victoria is infested by the like. These people are the enemies of Africa and the third world. They are the leeches who feed off and weaken the struggling third world.

"The most dangerous foe to truth and freedom in our midst is the compact majority. Yes the damned compact, liberal majority."

—Henrik Ibsen.

Exec actions condemned

At the last Exec meeting a motion was passed, the gist of which was that any Exec member be allowed into the Salient office for the express purpose of perusing the final copy, presumably wit with the power to veto, should they be offended by any of the content.

The exact wording of this motion is unavailable to us (according to certain members of the Exec) even though we had earlier been told by an Extremely Reliable Source that we could in fact have a copy of the motion.

The motives which prompted both the motion and the sudden back-tracking pose a serious threat to students' freedom of access to the workings of their own association and to the very democracy of the association itself.

It is vital for the maintenance of the strength and unity of the Students' Association, that those in a position to do so, exercise their power responsibly and with the welfare of all students foremost in their decisions.

The consequences arising from the abuse of power are far-reaching and do not cease with the passing of a single generation. It is therefore with concern for all students at Victoria now, and those coming after, that the conduct of certain Exec members be viewed with the condemnation it deserves.

Questions, questions.

1.	What is happening at the Bookcentre?
2.	How much is Salient losing each issue?

A Student's Right to Know.

(I suggest you ask the Company Secretary, Mr Steve Underwood for an answer to your first question.

The answer to your second question is about $77 per issue.-Ed)

The Case of the Pub.

In last year's Executive election I did not vote for Catherine Patterson for the very reason that she intended setting up a pub on campus. Thus it is heartening to see that she has not fulfilled her election promise. I feel that people should drink when it will not interfere with their work, and a pub on campus, apart from after 5 p.m. say, will be couterproductive to say the least.

Robinson does return

I feel that it is now time to look back on the debate within the Anti-apartheid movement on the orientation of the recent march on Sharpeville Day. I will leave aside the question of the development from opposition to sporting contacts to solidarity with the oppressed people in South Africa as this has already been covered adequately. One comment on the March has already been offered.

A recent 'Socialist Action' has reported that the March was headed by a 'sizeable contingent' of Polynesians and Blacks. This is simply not true.

Hardly any Polynesians turned up to the March. The Black contingent depended largely on Vic overseas students and at the front it hardly extended to the first two rows in a four-to-a-row March. The concept of the March being led by a significant section of 'Polynesians Against Racism' was not realised.

(Both the meeting to reintroduce 'black' into the main slogan and the social after the March had larger contingents of Polynesians and overseas students.)

The inclusion of the words 'Black' and 'blacks' in the main slogan had not made 'blacks' in NZ identify with the aims of the March.

This is not to say that Polynesians etc should not have been leafletted etc. but merely to expose, as the falsities they were, the arguments by the Socialist Action League and its supporters that the revised slogan would attract 'blacks' to the March. The big promises had come to nothing.

Of course, the debate over the inclusion of 'black' in the main Waap slogan had alienated a number of supporters of the Wellington Anti-Apartheid Plenary. Why then were they alienated? Even the compromise slogan 'Black Majority Rule/South Africa, let the oppressed people decide' would have avoided much of this problem.

But at the first big meeting Andre (SAL) Raihman would accept no compromises. This is quite surprising as Mike (SAL) Treen who worked on the Auckland March wrote an article in CRACCUM No. 3 which told us that in Auckland they would marching under the slogan 'Majority Rule Now—let the oppressed decide.' Andre had found this slogan abhorrent in Wellington but Treen in Auckland did not even see fit to comment upon it. The word 'black' did not appear anywhere in the slogans described in Treen's article. But Auckland has a far larger Polynesian population than Wellington.

Since that first meeting it has become clear why the SAL in Wellington felt fit to pursue such a vehement and alienating offensive within Waap; Their childish tactics were solely aimed at gaining a 'victory' at the expense of the 'Maoists' and presumably to be seen as supporting Nga Tamatoa when doing this. (Andre is also a member of Nga Tamatoa and spoke as their representative at the crucial meeting.) Since then they have backtracked almost every day and are beginning to pretend that they really 'do' support 'let the oppressed people decide' but that there had been a better slogan......

This debate, which took up a whole meeting which would have been better devoted to organising to get more people on the March, is now being down-played. Not surprisingly—the SAL position is indefensible. In fact, their contribution to that meeting was solely one of splitting. But they only split themselves off from the rest of the Waap members.

This conclusion is reinforced by the actual history of the build-up to the March and the March itself.

Finally, I offer this as my last comment on this question which I feel is as important to the development of the left in Wellington as it is to the development of Waap.

page break

More Malaysian Letters.

Thoughts on MSA.

Concerning afalse letter—Editor apologises

The publication of a letter attributed to Patrick Mulrennan, Which I Did not Write, in the issue of Salient Vol 40 no. 5 is a serious matte.

I have [unclear: sooken] to the editor of Salient about the letter, and he said that he had full knowledge that I had not written it. Furthermore, he said that he published the letter deliberately as a way of informing students that Bruce Robinson would continue to present his side of the debate in Salient about the slogans used by the antiapartheid movement.

He claimed that my objection to the letter's publication was trivial. It occurs to me that if thinks that the matter is trivial, why didn't he bother to get my consent before publiching it?

However, I regard the case as far from trivial. The letter is a case of deliberate fraud, and as such is a direct infringement of the rights of students. It is not just the rights of one student that are under fire here, but the rights of all students. The old principle applies here as in so many other instances—an attack on one is an attack on all. If this instance goes unchallenged, then the way is opened for more widespread and even more damaging cases of fraud.

The publication of the letter is an act of intimidation towards a student club. Why is it an act of intimidation?

Because it seeks to take the control of public statements by, in this case, members of the Young Socialists, out of their own hands. The letter is a "test case" to see whether students will allow the editor of Salient to publish what he knows to be manufactured letters, and to restrict students' access to the pages of Salient in other ways.

The false letter results from and contributes to an atmosphere on campus where the Young Socialists face obstacles to their operating as any student club should be able to. Other instances of this atmosphere of intimidation arc: the ripping down of still-current leaflets that we post on noticeboards; the abrogation of our speaking rights at SRCs; the personal abuse that is regularly directed at members of the Young Socialists.

Again, this harrassment affects all students it sets a precedent for harrassment of any individual or group holding views that are counter to the "norm," and it substitutes personal abuse for political debate. Students have been quick to attack this among Parliamentary politicians—for example, the campaign of vilification against Colin Moyle—and we should make sure that it does not gain a hold on campus.

I consider that this forged letter is a very serious matter. It raises the whole question of whether Salient should be a democratic forum, open to all students, as I believe it must be, or the preserve of any particular ideology.

The guaranteeing of the rights of all students to a fair hearing in the pages of Salient in no way inhibits the editor from expressing her or his own views.

I believe that this infringement of democratic rights requires that an apology be published in Salient. Such an incident should never occur again.