Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 40 No. 23. September 12 1977

Letters

Letters

Letters header

Leo Durden replies

Dear David,

In reply to 'David G. Macpherson's' letter in Salient of 5 September, "Rejoinder to Leo Durden" that my existence is as real and as permanent as the State of Israel; I exist now and I shall exist forever.

As for being told that I am a hyprocrite—I resent this outright lie. At the beginning of his letter, 'D.G. Macpherson shows that he doesn't know who I am, but then goes on to label me a hyprocrite, If he knew me better, he would know that I attend almost every SRC etc. and vote possibly very much in the same way as he does on most issues. He is talking about my condemnation of the purchase of the IATA agency by NZUSA while I support the State of Israel. Where is the conflict?

The racial discrimination in South Africa is something that I feel very strongly about since, being a Jew, I know what discrimination is. We have had 2,000 years of being discriminated against. Hence I feel empathy with all peoples around the world who are being discriminated against. I know that 'David G. Macpherson would ask why I am discriminating against the Palestine people by supporting Israel. I do support the State of Israel, however imperfect it may be but do not think that its absorption in a democratic secular state of Palestine would lessen discrimination on either side.

There are many aspects of Israel society and political policies that I do not agree with (for instance, Israel's trading associations with South Africa) but I do not see this as a valid reason to destroy the State of Israel. We do not agree with all of the New Zealand government's policies but we certainly do not advocate that the state of New Zealand be destroyed and that all immigrants to New Zealand go back to their countries of origin, leaving New Zealand to the Maoris, or do we, 'David G. Macpherson '? If so, shall I drive you to the airport tomorrow?

I support self-determination for all peoples, be they Palestinian, Jordanian or Jewish, so where is the hypocrisy in supporting my own people's national existence on its ancestral homeland?

Shalom,

Leo Durden.

Expanding our Boarders

Dear Salient,

Israel and Palestine is one subject on which I part company with what seems to be VUW student policy. Grant Simpson's article on the recent debate reminds me to make these points, as a non-Jew who has however visited Israel, Jordon, Egypt and neighbouring countries on two occasions (about five months in ail).

1. Does Israel have an historical right to the place? It seems to me they have a lot better right to it than Europeans in NZ have to New Zealand. They are Semitic people, in roughly the area of their origin. Since arriving they have worked extremely hard to turn it from a rather arid, infertile, part-swampy area into an economically viable state with orchards and fishponds and factories and towns and so on (in marked contrast to its Arab neighbours). They didn't shove the Palestinians out—Israel still has lots of Arabs living there (quite an achievement when one considers that any Arab is a potential enemy if at any time the Arabs should try another attack). It is a successful milti-cultural society, with notices printed in Hebrew alongside the Arabic.
2. Has Israel "increased her territory by use of military force"? Not quite. Israel had been forced to defend her territory by use of military force—from the first days of the state of Israel. What was she supposed to do—keep putting up with Arab aggression and merely defending existing borders no matter how little this deterred the Arabs? It may be noted here that the borders Israel had before she took over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Sinai Desert and part of Jerusalem were very difficult and impractical to defend. The Golan Heights when held by the Syrians were a perfect place to look down on Israel settlements and take pot shots at them—which is what happened. Or to make night raids from. The West Bank replaced a long and strategically difficult border with a shorter and easier one. So did Sinai. In the case of Sinai, it may be remembered by people like me (a little older than most students) that it was the use of Sharm el Sheikh (at the entrance to the Gulf of Aquaba/Eilat, Israel's southern sea frontier) by the Arabs to attack Israeli shipping that sparked off one bout of the fighting.

The Palestinians are on the surface an attractive lot—a noble people fighting for their heritage. One has to respect them. Unfortunately, there is also a lot of whinging and sitting on backsides hoping for help going on when you actually get over there and take a look.

Yours sincerely,

Lindy Milnes.

(This is a brief reply to the two points Lindy Milnes raises in her letter.

1. No matter how hard people might work, that fact does not give the Jews historical right to Palestine. Many Jews are not Semitic—by and large, their racial characteristics conform to the predominant characteristics of the countries they come from. If the Arab states had been in injected with as much foreign capital as Israel has been, their economies, too, would have been flourishing. I grant that there are some Palestinains living with in the borders of Israel—but there are a hell of a lot more living in refugee camps in neighbouring states. Have you been to see these? Finally, South Africa also has public notices printed in languages of the different races—and that doesn't mean that the races are equal, just like in Israel the Palestinains rights are considerably less than those of Jewish people. (See Middle East Broadsheet for more on this).
2. It sounds like you, Lindy, imbibed a lot of official Israeli propaganda as to why Israel 'needed' to take over the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Sinai. Since when did having "a long and strategically difficult border" mean that a country had the right to invade and annex part of neighbouring countries? No amount of justification can hide the plain truth that Israel has increased its territory considerably by use of military force—nor is it prepared to give back this illegally-gained land. Nor can the truth be hidden that in each of the 1948. 1956 and 1967 wars it was Israel that actually attacked first, each time invading land that did not belong to it.

Lindy, the logic in your letter is appalling. While we appreciate your rationality (often unusual on this issue) we really do suggest that your points are confined to the facts - not to justifications of pleasant and illegal actions.

—Ed.)

P.J. Saxby writes

Dear Salient Editors,

Go on then, you bastards. Smear, smear, smear, smear. Smear me with your editorial and by printing the distortions and lies in recent letters about me (annonymous, of course, but I suspect written by your staff following their usual practice). Smear the Labour Party and its leader with your defeatist nonsense. Smear you own student representative with sneering reports and more distortions if they don't follow your pure political line. Smear organisations like Hart, the Peace Conference and students at other universities because they are not "democratic"—we know what that means, don't we? And if your Pink Cardigan Brigade manages to dispose of all its "enemies" where will your Students Association be? What will be left of it?

Yours,

P.J. Saxby.

And again on the Middle-East

Dear Salient,

AUGH!

It would be interesting to confirm that the interpretation you give to the Middle-East policy adopted at August Council was shared by the NZUSA National Executive. I mean that an important question is not resolved by the loosely-worded motion passed at Massey last month because it does not say whether a Palestine State should be created on the whole of the Israel/West Bank/Gaza area or only on part of it, or even somewhere else! If the interpretation in "Salient" is followed, then possibly NZUSA will vote to keep the Israeli students out of any international organisations (like the Asian Students Association) and allow the General Union of Palestine Students to represent 100,000 tertiary students in Israel. I hope Lisa Sacksen will clarify this point.

You know, but carefully omitted to explain, that only three campuses support the NZUSA policy to replace (according to your interpretation Israel with a Palestine State. Only Waikato, Massey and Victoria voted in favour; Auckland, Canterbury, Lincoln and Otago abstained because they had no mandate to support their motion. Students at these campuses either believe that the issue is irrelevant to them or that Israel's independence and self-determination should be preserved, or they are still undecided on the question. Anti-Zionist lobbies are at work in most of these campuses; despite them, most students do not support the dismantling of Israel (the President of Massey University Students Association openly expressed his contempt for the motion to me, even though Massey voted for the motion!)

I don't think that Victoria students are much different from other in this respect, as, past meetings of SRC would indicate! Perhaps next year the delegates to NZUSA Councils will decide to represent their students' support for Israel, instead of merely abstaining. I am optimistic that this will happen.

A whole host of corrections should be made to many recent Salient reports. I have space only for one or two from the various articles.

For a start, the topic of the debate at Arts Festival was not "that NZ should recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation". This topic is not possible for the Ambassador who cannot publicly campaign against or for a specific policy over the head of his host government. The topic was "that NZ should support the PLO" which allows various gradations of support to be discussed; I thought both speakers spoke capably on this topic from their different view points. Though mis-reported by the "Evening Post", the "recognition" motion was never advertised as being the motion under debate.

The Evening Post did at least report fairly carefully the Ambassador's precise definitions in describing the PLO as a fascist organisation. There was no attempt by him to use emotive descriptions without explaining why such terms could be applied, contrary to your report!

His description of Jordan as a "Palestine Arab State" is Justified by the PLO themselves, who say their goal after the conquest of Israel is the removal of the Jordanian Government and the "unification" of Palestine from the former "Zionist entity" and "Has hemite monarchy". Palestinians are now an integral part of Jordan—in the army, in government, in a society with the same values, language, religion and nationality. Are they asking (and can they ask?) that the Jewish character of much of Israel today should be destroyed to make it suitable as homeland for Palestinian Arabs? In any case, though 500,000 Palestinians left Israel in 1948, a similar number of Jews came to Israel from Arab States which expelled them after Israel's War of Independence. Where is the sense and Justice in trying to unscramble the population and nations this created?

David Merritt's article in "Salient" No 22 says the Arab armies went into Palestine to protect the Arabs"; he knows they went in to prevent a partition and to destroy Israel before it started, if possible.

No wonder David pays such attention to the deaths of Deir Yassin. He has no other incident to offer as "proof" of a Jewish plan to terrorise the Arab population into leaving. There was no terrorist plan of this kind; but no-one can doubt the nature of the unrelenting terrorist campaign against ordinary civilians in Israel and around the world. David admits that the King David Hotel, attacked by Irgun, was a military headquarters; today the Palestinian terroritst define any Israeli citizen of any age, as a military target.

Why should Israel act as if peace had come until peaceful co-existence between Jew and Arab in the Middle East is guaranteed by all concerned? Dave Merritt further staess that the UN Security Council of 22 November 1967, called on Israel to withdraw from Sinai, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. He knows this is only part of the truth—Salient readers should discover for themselves what the resolution really said.

Saying that the "Zionists" claim Palestine "for historical reasons based on their biblical traditions" is also only a part of the truth. I, and the Ambassador in his article, have given more important reasons why the Israelis believe they have a right to self-determination in Palestine. This self-determination is the basic aim of Zionism and for this reason almost 100% of Israelis are Zionists. It would be more honest for Dave Merritt and your editorial comment, to refer to the "Israeli people" instead of the "Zionist movement" claims, aims etc., just as the claims of the Palestine Liberation Organisation dignified by the title of "Palestinian peoples" claims.

But this would be only a small step on your behalf toward an objective view of the situation.

Yours sincerely,

P.J. Saxby.

"Blatant bias" or fair comment?

Dear Editor,

I am continually amazed by the hypocrisy of those who control NZUSA executive. They claim to produce a "balanced rational" broadsheet on the Middle East yet inject their blatant editorial the Middle East yet inject their blatant editorial bias into the article by noting the "indignation" of the NZUSA representative who was searched by Israeli Embassy officials before entering the Israeli Embassy in Wellington.

In virtually the same breath, they claim to support the PLO, an organisation dedicated to destroy Israel by violence; in other words .... "I support your governments violent overthrow but don't bother searching me, it's humiliating".

Drawing of cartoon Snoopy kicking something

Maybe some searching by us will secure a more rational, balanced NZUSA approach. I don't think NZUSA can make pretentious statements to the effect that it is seeking a rational, balanced view and be sincere until it's obvious interests in not finding an impartial position is changed.

NZUSA executive makes it very easy to prove they are-better bullshitters than me.

G.K. Lewis.

NZUSA replies

Dear David,

I am continually amazed at the pettiness of the heart-rendering (?) cries of Zionists like Gary Lewis—they can't abide the fact that they lost he vote in a democratic and rational meeting where students decided to support the concept of a free, democratic and secular Palestinian state.

As both the person who prepared the 'Middle East' Broadsheet and the person who was searched by an Israeli Embassy staff member, let me say that the searching was a most unpleasant experience that I went through without complaint—solely in the interests of obtaining an aricle solely in the interests of obtaining an article from a person whose views I vehemently disagree with.

Mr Lewis says I/we are biased—that's quite correct; we have a definite view one way—but we are not so biased that we won't also tell our members what the other side's view is. I challenge Mr Lewis, Mr Durden and their Jewish Students Society to publish our views in their material!

As far as saying that we support the PLO, I challenge Mr Lewis to produce one shred of evidence to support his claim in our broadsheet or in our policy motions. I know he can't. We published an article showing how Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan support the PLO—only to show that the story put out by Mr Lewis and friends that Palestinians don't support the PLO is a lie.

NZUSA executive only puts out material that it is authorised to—the real bullshitters appear to be the authors of the type of attack that Mr Lewis indulges in.

Dave Macpherson,

Research Officer.

Fiji Club

Dear Sir,

This letter is aimed as a criticism of one of the committee members of the new executive of the Fiji Students Association of Wellington (Fiji Club).

The new executive was elected on July 7 this year and so far has handled the affairs of the Club quite satisfactorily.

The big moment for the Club came with the arrival to Wellington of Fiji Students from all the other centres in New Zealand. All the executive joined forces to organise the billeting, sport and socials. However one committee member. Mangel Singh was conspiciously absent on almost all occasions and definitely all evening functions. Overall his effort in the Club's affairs can be summed up as nil.

He was elected as a committee member at the Annual General Meeting because of his various criticisms levelled at the out-going committee. He professed to have managed clubs whose activities are much more extensive than our Fiji Club. Then why has his contribution to the Club been nil. Perhaps, he is married and has children—But, this reason (excuse) is not good enough. The present President of the Fiji Club also has children and besides this is further handicapped in that he has to come ail the way from Porirua. Yet, the President has always been there. For the President it can be said that he is humble and hardworking. Mangel—is [ unclear: ompnt] and and [ unclear: em]. (He can stay in the library till 11 pm every night but excuses himself on grounds of wife and children from attending Fiji Club functions).

The Club demands an explanation, Mangel, or a resignation.

Yours,

Fiji Club Member.

NZ and ASEAN

Dear Editor,

The anti-cutback campaign met with initial success. Congratulations to NOSAC and all who supported this campaign.

Finally the OSAC has listened to reason and recommends a reinstatement of Overseas Students Quota to fill up the available vacancies in NZ. Universities. Now it's up to the government to act!

Recently, NZ PM Mr Muldoon pledged $60 million to foreign aid to ASEAN countries to be aided in a period of five years. Here is a concrete chance for NZ government to rid its irony if their pledge is of any validity!

There is an urgent need for higher education for students from ASEAN countries as there are insufficient institutions in their home country. Since NZ PM has pledged aid developments for ASEAN countries this will be a chance for the government to show its sincerity and lift the Cutback.

It would be an irony for NZ government if it doesn't lift the cut-back with full understanding that NZ Universities can provide the places for those needy overseas students.

The story of wider geographical distribution is a fallacy as there aren't any students from the Middle East so far. By cutting back the over seas students and leaving the places unfilled would be most inhumane, wasteful as well as selfish.

The Hon. Mr Talboys, Mr Gill and PM Mr Muldoon please throw away your hypocrisy and regain your respect!!!

Yours sincerely,

Krisj Raat

.

PS. NOSAC and all concerned should keep up the efforts to urge the government to reverse its cut-back decision!

Dear Sir,

WEARY WANDERER; RUGGED INDIVIDUALIST FREE SPRIT

D. Beswick's abridged statements concerning Ustasha (Roman Catholic. Actionaries) against Serbs (Orthodox Christians) in Yugoslavia during WW 2, can certainly be substantiated, despite statements to the contrary by the Reverend Father O.O'Sullivan.

The Rev. Fr. says that most of the fighting took place in Croatia, but fails to mention which Croatia (Hrvatska), that before May 1941, or that afterwards?

The "Independent State of Croatia" expanded it's borders as the Nazis invaded, and behaved atrociously toward Orthodox Christians and Jews not only in Hrvatska proper, but also in the regions of Bosna, Hercegovina, Vojvodina, Slavonija, and Dalmacija.

It declared war on the Allies and was a religion fascist satellite of the Nazis. It supported Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in their depopulation campaign and imperialism, with its own religious pogroms, forced conversions to Roman Catholicism, public tortures, and massacres.

It's Ustasha, and similar groups, were aided mightily by the Moslem population, and by Hungarian and Italian fascist forces in their common imperialisms.

The UNO, and wartime Allied governments have plenty of authenticated documentation on these matters; and not far from Wellington exists a library of publications on Jugoslavija in WW 2.

I list a few titles which the Reverend Father ought to read, but they are likely to be listed in an Index Prohibitorum:—

"The Martyrdom of the Serbs"—documents and reports of UNO and eyewitnesses. New York 1943.

"Yugoslavia in the Second World War"—government pub. Beograd 1967.

"Tito" by G. Bilainkin, Williams & Norgate, London 1949.

"Eastern Approaches "—Fitzroy MacLean, Jonathan Cape, London 1949.

"The Position of the Church in Yugoslavia"—government pub. Beograd 1961.

"Ravening Wolves"—by M. Farrell, pub. Glebe, NSW, 1949.

"This is Artokovic" by Gaffney, Starchevic, McHugh, Box 2313, Grand Central Stn., New York.

ferror over Yugoslavia" by Avro [ unclear: M uh] 'tan, pub. Watts & Co., London 1953.

"Ustasha under the Southern Cross" by M. Jurjevic, pub. Jurjevic, Melbourne, 1973.

There are many others available, whereas so very little information about the appalling situation in Jugoslavia in WW 2 has ever been published by the propoganda system of our "free world".

Perhaps this is because the churches are very much on the side of capitalism and its imperialism, which also might explain why Ustasha war criminals named at the Nuremberg trials are living unmolested in the "home and fount of freedom", the USA.

—Gorevac.

Dear Sir,

The Catholic Church's collaboration with the Nazis and Italian Fascists during the Second World War was bad enough but its role in Yugoslavia (D. Beswick, 5 Sept.) shows it should be regarded in the same light as the Nazi Party. Should the University have a Catholic Chaplain and a Cathsoc? Fascism should be opposed whether it is in the form of a religion or a political philosophy.

Yours,

John Pearce,

The Catholic Church in Uruguay

Dear Sir,

In regard to your article "Uruguay—the forgotten dictatorship" (Salient August 29) it appears that your reference material contains a typical Catholic half-truth in that the Catholic strength in Uruguay is concealed. Your article says that "The Church (mainly Protestant) is only just alive while many clergymen are rotting in Jails ". Any inference that Uruguay is a Protestant country is entirely incorrect. According to the 1974 Catholic Almanac, there are 2,600,898 Catholics in a total population of 2,955,296 (i.e. 88% Catholic). The country has 35 Seminaries, 342 Catholic schools, 212 parishes and 633 priests. The constitution of 1830 made Catholicism the religion of the state and subsidised some of its activities. With the seperation of Church and State it should be noted that the Catholic definition of "Church" includes all of education, most of social policy and some of political policy, and is thus entirely different to the Protestant concept of separation of Church and State).

An indication of the Catholic strength in Uruguay is given later in your article where you have described and explicitly mentioned the Fascist Corporate State. The Corporate State is described in the Papal Encyclopedia Quadragesimo Anno of 1931, and for many years it formed the basis of the Roman Catholic solution of social problems. Probably the two best examples of the Corporate State in recent times were the Clerico-Fascist dictatorships of Spain and Portugal in which persecution of non-Catholics was part of government policy. It also happened in South Vietnam under the Diem regime.

To sum up, Uruguay, like many other latin American countries, is fundamentally a Roman Catholic country and it is only when the Roman Catholic strength is known that one can appreciate the full implications of Protestant clergy rotting in jails as described in your article.

Yours truly

Donald J. Beswick.

(Uruguay has the highest proportion of Prostestant churches in South America i.e. quite a few. Of course it is predominantly Catholic but, as we clearly pointed out in our article, the passage of fascism was due to economic rather that religious reasons. We failed, perhaps, to add that many Catholic priests are also incarcerated and the Uruguayan fascists under Bordaberry are in the process of abolishing both Catholic and Protestant churches in their bid to subordinate the Uruguayan people utterly—Ed).

Bias on Abortion March

Sir,

After watching the 10 o'clock news on TV2 on the 31st of August we were annoyed at the misrepresentations with which the pro-life rally was reported. Firstly, the term 'anti-abortionist' was a negative phrase while 'pro-life' would have been a more accurate term to use to describe the rally in light of the pre-rally advertising.

Secondly, the size of the pro-life group in relation to the pro-abortion group was in the ratio of 100: 1. It seems surprising that this group got so much coverage when they did not have a legal permit to march and headed off the front of the pro-life rally. This point was not made in the news.

Furthermore, the television news commented that the pro-abortion group were far more vocal than the pro-lifeers. They omitted to point out that the pro-life march was a silent one of protest.

Neither was there any mention of the representative crowds of pro-lifers who arrived from Auckland, Whangarei, Napier, to mention but a few places.

Yours faithfully.

Joanne Cunningham

Helen Cull

.

Cafe Mess

Dear David,

MEDIA SUPERSTAR, MONUMENTS EGOTIST AND SELF-CENTERED S.O.B. HI GURLS!!

Throughout the cafe this week I have seen notices suggesting that students clean up their own mess. As a dedicated tidy minded student who faithfully places her cup, paper bag etc. in the rubbish tin. I would like to suggest that "they" provide materials for wiping up split coffee and generally making tables more hygenic and habitable.

Being often faced with slopping coffee from over-full cups, with handles that tend to bend at the most awkward moments I find it most disconcerting to have to ask for something to clean it up with. Could "they" please provide an area where us tidy minded students having weak wrists, would get Wettexes etc. to clean up our own mess

Yours hygenically,

An Unhappy Coffe-Slopper. (More absorbent Salients might solve this problem!)

Denominational Health

Dear Sir,

The involvement of the Catholic Church in the abortion issue raises the question of its influence in society as a whole. The extent of religious control of health services is particularly disturbing in view of an incident which took place in the US in 1950 but which is still relevant.

Dr John M. Stephens, of Brownsville, Texas, determined that a patient of his who had survived three close calif in childbirth could not survive another pregnancy after her fourth child. At the request of the patient, Mrs Theresa Gonzalez, and her husband, he tied her Fallopian tubes when her fourth child was born in the delivery room of the "Mercy" Roman Catholic Hospital of Brownsville. A nun, Mary Adele of the "Sisters of Mercy", who was in charge of the hospital's obstertrics department, physically interrupted Dr Stephens and compelled him to untie the tubes.

"Time" magazine (4.12.50) commented "Most of Brownsville townspeople backed Dr Stephens. So did fellow doctors, though none could raise his voice for fear that he, too, would find the doors of Mercy Hospital shut in his patients' faces. For violating its code of ethics (which it shares with other Roman Catholic hospitals in the US) Mercy Hospital denied Dr Stephens the use of its facilities for his patients ". "Mercy" Hospital was Brownsville's only hospital As a religious organisation the Catholic Church enjoys tax and rating privileges so its hospitals, indirectly, are subsidised by the taxpayer and the local community.

This incident illustrates one of the dangers of sectarian health services. Medicine should be free of the influence of religious extremists but in NZ it isn't.

Yours etc.,

G Herrington.

Up the Whites

Dear Sir,

I have succembed to the persuasive editorials and other articles in the Salient newspaper and, as a final year commerce student, have cut my studies short this year to support the second-to-last bastion of White dignity and civilisation in Africa.

REGULAR GUY AND GOOD NEIGHBOUR GOT A SWELL GARDEN IN THIS YEAR!

I must congratulate the students union on shining the light for us to follow God's call for assistance for our White Rhodesian brothers.

We represent the feelings and aspirations of the vast majority of loyal Christian New Zealanders. We follow numerous other decent New Zealanders who have already made the pilgrimage.

We of the proven master race will never give in to inferior masses, and will fight on until the last Black, Marxist so-called 'soldier' lied dead at our feet. Only then will our duty in Africa be fulfilled. This will ensure us our rightful place in Heaven alongside all Rhodesians who gave their lives for our freedom.

Viva Rhodesia!

Yours sincerely,

Trevor.

Dictatorships in Africa

Dear Sir,

Freedom, Liberation, Nationalism. What inspiring concepts. The problem is that some "concerned" (egotistical) students actually believe they are such practical realistic concepts.

Lets face it; when Rhodesia and South Africa are "liberated" with the help of Russian aid (and influence ") and are granted their "freedom" from oppressors (always White capitalists) it is claimed a victory for the majority "nationalists" (some Leaders aren't the heroes they are said to be). "Everybody" wants to see the token white "tyrant" replaced by the token "black hero" but this does not necessarily mean that the guns of unrest, military coups and torture will be silenced.

Judging from the numbers of military coups and reported genocide in Africa in the last 15 years I would think that the "freedom fighters" would at least have the decency to change their name to something more appropriate e.g. "Upcoming Military dictatorship".

I noticed that the United Nations Conference on racism recently opened by the Nigerian (military) head of state seemed to be preoccupied with the ousting of White control in the South of the African continent. It seems a pity that the word "Biafra" seems to have become extinct along with the free press in that country.

But as I continually remind myself, at least. It's better than playing Sport with South Africa.

"Fijian Indians Liberation Movement ".

Machiavelli strikes again

Dear Sir,

I am disgusted at the obviously low level of intelligence shown in students in their letters to Salient. I am shocked that people in an institution of learning such as this can hold such pathetic, half-baked pseudo-Marxist ideals.

This leftist drivel is poorly thought out and based on [ unclear: retttmlw] assumptions made by people totally ignorant as to the state of the case.

OUT-OF IT DULL-WITTED FOOL

My disgust is aimed particularly at a certain section of this community who concern them selves with the state of affairs in South Africa and its partner of "crime" Rhodesia.

We all hear how the coloured people of Southern Africa are refused their basic human rights but this statement relies on a falsehood. It assumes that the coloured people of Southern Africa deserves rights of any kind.

I would argue that any group. Black, White or indiferent, which cannot take rights for itself deserves nothing.

Any weak group must be put down by the stronger. To deserve rights a race must be strong enough to take them. The strong cannot be expected to carry the weak and thereby weaken themselves. As in the wild, the weak must perish.

In the world today there are too weak groups; Liberals and Blacks and both must be destroyed before they drag the world down the their level.

Kruger (Iron & Blood).

O'Dea recieves more flak

Dear Sir,

I congratulate Brian Robinson's on his recent criticism of Pat. O'Dea's (or O'Shafez') review of the Chieftain's concert. To add further insult to injury, I feel compelled to add a couple of points to put your reporter on the right tracks.

Firstly, as Mr Robinson noted, "bodhran" was incorrectly pronounced in O'Dea's article—its correct phonetic prounounciation is "bode-run". Secondly, the song-title "Mna na h'Eireann" cannot be compressed to "Mna h' Eireann" no matter what part of Ireland you come from.

Which leads me to suggest that the blundering Mr O'Dea return to the land of his ancestors, catch up on the Gael teach and, in so doing, get his Erse into gear.

Yours faithfully,

(Mr)

N. Flanigan.