Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 21, No. 5. May 6, 1958

Salient's Correspondence .... — Headers Protest About Censorship

page 6

Salient's Correspondence ....

Headers Protest About Censorship

The Privilege of Censorship

This article was considered necessary by the author following ugly rumours of Executive high-handedness, including the censorship of a letter he had written on the Cafeteria.

The laws protecting the individual against slander or libel, the church against blasphemy and the state against anti-state activities are considered adequate by a general concensus of opinion. If it were otherwise strenuous efforts would have been made to extend these laws.

There is one point, however, upon which a considerable divergence of opinion, explicit but more commonly implicit, is evident; that is the rights of censorship.

This is quite natural for in some of its aspects censorship is intended to prevent the dissemination of material harmful for the community. And just who is to decide, whose opinion is sufficiently clear to weigh in the balance the "advisability" or otherwise of the material offered for publication.

In the community at large the all-powerful State decides this, one church has the Index, and in each town and city additional checks are provided by the local influential groups which bring pressure to bear to prevent this or that material being offered to the public for perusal. In our own University we have the University Council, the Professorial Board, each of whom has the ultimate legal right and who can bring pressure to bear to stop publication.

When any of these three groups, either nationally or in the University, wield sufficient power to censor material which—in their opinion—is unsuitable, then we have to all intents and purposes what we would call a totalitarian system if it happened almost anywhere else in the world.

For democracy presupposes the interplay, the counterbalancing of conflicting groups, whose open conflicts are ultimately decided upon by the voting public.

Curiously enough some of our student leaders (and here I am only offering an opinion) would deny this. They would say, "But how can you call it totalitarian when the students can voice an opinion?" When it is explained to them that they have not made certain relevant facts available to students so that they may more correctly form an opinion they would reply, "But the students can find out for themselves if they really wish!" This is a tautology, for who calls for a lire engine without first having knowledge of a fire? "We could present the facts," they say, "but who would care? Students are so apathetic!

Essentially such an attitude, and the conviction that they alone are capable of interpreting this "apathetic" silence, is the root of the Exec's belief that they hold the mandate to censor what they consider undesirable for public student consideration. Yet by censoring or seeking to censor or by being peeved when cheated of the right to censor controversial and provocative opinion they are unwittingly perhaps, throttling some whose voices echo from this apathetic void.

They deny this claiming, but those who are provocative are not representative of the average student, they are the vocal few in the void or are from a particular pressure group.

Of course they are not average students; who can say who is and if this average student can be found should all conform to this pattern? Perhaps the opinion is from a pressure group, but pressure groups are the working foundation of democracy.

Big Brother . . . .

Big Brother . . . .

Perhaps the Executive may venture one further utterance. They do not as a general rule like to censor material but in this particular case it would not be tactful to allow publication, perhaps matters could be best settled without a general broadcast of the information.

There are cases when this is true but, Ladies and Gentlement of the Executive, they are few and far between.

Use your privilege of censorship wisely. This is a University, not a kindergarten. You would be advised to remember this when thinking how not to displease the Board, the City Fathers, the General public and all others you can use as apologies for censoring our opinions. Try not to displease overmuch the students who, both by good luck and good management, you have been chosen to represent.

—A. C. Walsh.

The Editor:

Sir,—It was with deep regret that I learned of the intention to restrict "Salient's" right to free speech. During my two years as a student at this University, I have taken pride in the fact that I have been a part of a community whose members, while believing almost passionately in the Tightness of their own ideas, have been prepared to respect the views of, others. If this University makes no other contribution to a better life, it can surely offer this small example to a world bedevilled by man's intolerance to man. Free speech here is not a privilege to be extended or withdrawn at the whim of an Executive but a right won by students of other years, who were willing to face public scorn, fines and imprisonment rather than surrender their claim to it.

It would be unjust to doubt the good intentions of the Executive or to underestimate the difficulties with which they are faced in the present situation, but all the good intentions in the world cannot make an unlimited system of censorship consistent or just, nor free the censor from his own prejudices, however fair minded or conscientious he may try to be. If the realities of the situation call for a compromise, as I believe they do, then surely the Executive can devise some formula whereby censorship can be confined to articles which leave the Students Union open to legal action. Perhaps it might be possible to appoint some outside person with legal training to carry out this work.

It is to be hoped that the Executive now regrets its momentary panic and will follow the example of Miss Buckley who must be highly commended for her defence of the right of another to put forward a viewpoint, though it was expressed in a manner which she personally could not approve. This surely expresses the very essence of tolerance and is in the highest traditions of the University.

—B. R. de Clifton.

The Editor:

Sir,—I was hardly surprised at the action taken by Exec, in imposing a rigid censorship on "Salient", but it did surprise me that they took no action to change your paper's name. The name "Salient" was meant by the paper's founders to indicate a policy of fearless and forthright criticism where that was considered necessary.

Something might also be done about that little line that appears on the front page under the name "Salient" — "An organ of student opinion at Victoria University, Wellington." I suggest that Exec. should direct the editor to do away with the present offensive and provocative title and substitute, "Mouth-Piece—Opinions approved by the Stud. Ass. Exec. at Victoria University, Wellington."

Yours sincerely,

D. A. Patterson.

The Editor:

Sir,—Re the recent (and continuing?) furore on the subject of censorship: may I add a personal comment? It is true that now "Salient" is gagged by the Executive. But to take an extreme example, which I am not at all sure I would necessarily suggest applies in this instance: would one not gag a mad dog?

Yours frothily,

"Yukata-Hoo."

Don't Knock The Rock

The Editor:

Sir,—Your reply to my letter in the last issue of "Salient" gives rise to considerable doubts about your policy as Editor of that paper. In a previous issue you described your editorials thus: "Rather they are nothing more than an attempt to set the ball rolling. Every reader is invited to send in his own viewpoint and in that way correct any mistakes that the editor might have made." Having done this to the best of my ability, I was promtply told that in future such letters would not be acceptable. I would like some clarification on this point; are the only acceptable letters to be those that agree with your own opinions, or is "Salient" to be a genuine expression of student opinion.

I am afraid that your rather laborious reply not only evades several of my points, but signally fails to refute the others.

Calls for peace, and pleas for an end to all strife are characteristic of the Catholic Church, which is a past-master in the art of saying one thing, and doing another. Effective measures towards a much-publicised end are only undertaken at the convenience of the Church.

The Pope never condemned fascism, and the fulminations of the Bavarian Bishops cannot be accepted as a statement of Official Vatican policy. The two encyclicals "Mit Brennender Sorge" and "Non Abbiamo Bisogno" have been quoted ad nauseam to prove the antagonism of the Pope towards Fascism, but they are nothing of the sort.

In "Non Abbiamo Bisogno" (1931), the Pope simply denounced fascist violence against Catholic Action, and fascist doctrines about the education of youth, which tended to place the supremacy of the State above everything, including the Catholic Church; I quote from it: "We have not intended to condemn the Party and the regime as such. . . . We have intended to condemn only those things in the programme and in the activities of the Party which have been found to be contrary to Catholic doctrine and practice."

In "Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), the Pope condemns certain of the more extreme Nazi doctrines, but does not condemn political and social totalitarianism. The encyclical made no attempt to break diplomatic relations between Berlin and the Vatican, German foreign policy was not condemned, and Hitler was not excommunicated. The complaints were wholly ecclesiastical, bemoaning the lost privileges of the Church, and the lost control of schools. The Vatican never protested against Nazism as such, as it could not afford to offend such a valuable political ally.

The Spanish Civil War did not break out until July, 1936, and Spanish Catholics had contacted Mussolini with a view to planning it as early as 1933. (See "Manchester Guardian" 4/12/1937).

The present educational arrangement in Quebec originated in the British North America Act of 1867, which provides for subsidised separate schools for Catholics in Ontario, on condition that Catholics in Quebec contribute to Protestant schools, which are really public schools, as they are undenominational for all practical purposes and wholly unsectarian, whereas Catholic schools in Ontario are entirely separatist Church schools controlled by the clergy. It is obviously in the interests of the Catholics to treat the Protestant schools fairly, which they certainly do not do because of any altruistic ideals. Incidentally, Quebec spends about one third as much per capita on schools as does Ontario. The "educational democracy" of Quebec, as a matter of interest, does not permit divorce, forbids birth control and has no public schools. Its capital city has no public library. Comment would be superfluous.

Your reply raises a question which I am sure you will explain for me: who are these "thoughtless" people, whose reading the Church guides so assiduously? Are they members of your own religion? But surely, if anyone is fit to accept Roman Catholic doctrines, and partake in the observances of that faith, he cannot be classed as thoughtless. Perhaps these "thoughtless' people are deliberately being kept in ignorance and superstition.

I sincerely hope and trust that these few comments of mine will lead you and many others to study this subject from a less biased position, and to formulate an individual assessment of that most complex organisation, the Catholic Church.

—R. G. Hall.

[To show my good faith on the matter of 'Netting the ball rolling" shall retrain from writing a reply. Moreover, a reply would only lead to replies and counter-replies ad infinitum.—Ed.]

The Editor:

Sir,—Mr. Bollinger's numerous attempts, in the past decade or so, to reduce any rational dispute to the level of facetious remarks and expressions of childish innocence do seem to suggest that he is possessed of a delightfully simple nature and consequently incapable of condescending to the level of rationality and coherence. I shall do Mr. Bollinger the service of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Leaving aside, the possibility of Mr. Bollinger being a simpleton after all, we are left with only the possibility that he possesses that simplicity of mind that usually comes only after long periods of self-denial, deep spirituality, and mystical experience. One can almost visualise the look of innocence, those hands clasped in prayer, and that glowing halo that adorn the saintly figure of Mr. Bollinger. In a spirit of deep humility I bow to Mr. Bollinger's greater sanctity and ascetic virtue.

—"Fallen Angel."

Angels v. Assassins

The whole controversy on the virtues of Catholicism that has been raging in your pages, and especially the interchange between yourself and Mr. Hall, highlights all the blind prejudice and stupid oversimplification that follow when discussion on a religious theme is raised along narrow sectarian lines.

The blame must, I fear, be laid at your editorial door. It was the blaring trumpet-blasts of your first two editorials that awoke the chorus of discordant echoes. To make exaggerated and swaggering claims on behalf of the faith into which one had the (good or bad) luck to be born, without any serious attempt at any intellectual argument, is to invite diatribes of abuse in return. It is a familiar pattern in New Zealand, and one which has had a disastrous effect on the traditional tolerance which was a national characteristic of the stock from which we are derived. Roman Catholic bigotry breeds Protestant bigotry, and vice versa.

It is almost hopeless to try to straighten up the substance of the resultant discussion. To Mr. Hall, the Church of Rome is a sinister secret society of schemers, obscurantists and asassins. To you, it is an army of angels robed in dazzling white. Since both viewpoints are so wildly wide of the truth, it is only natural that the arguments marshalled in support of these viewpoints are based on myth rather than fact.

Just one example: Your comparative treatment of the Spanish Civil War. I believe it can be amply documented (a) that this war was not engineered by the Vatican, and (b) that the impressively attested tales of Republican atrocities are a medley of distortion and fabrication. Let us get this straight—there were Roman Catholics on both sides in the Spanish Civil War; there were also heretics and infidels on both sides. The war was not about religion at all, although the fascists exploited religion for their own ends —apparently with some success, if one is to judge by the delusions about the war cherished by many Roman Catholics in New Zealand. The issues were also confused by the disruption behind the Republican lines set off by an unholy alliance of conservatives and communists.

But still, broadly, the Spanish Civil War was a battle between fascism and democracy—a sort of curtain-raiser to World War II. Religious bigots do great disservice to democracy by attempting to represent it as anything else — as by almost everything else they do.

—C. V. Bollinger.