View from the Left

Sir,—The President of the Socialist Club, Mr G. R Hawke, appears to have forgotten the definition of Socialism adopted at the Annual general Meeting of his club viz "The common ownership of the wealth of the world by the people of the world Had he remembered, he might the avoided confusion in understanding the traditional meaning of Equality. I believe that a great deal of the confusion that exists in interpreting the meaning of socialism today arises from the fact that parties such as the Labour and Communist Forties, which once appeared to have championed it and still claim to act under its auspices, have now taken up anti-revolutionary positions ion the Right in the case of the Labour Party this is a compromise with the forces of capitalism while in that of the Communist Party it is a totalitarian state capitalism.

The early socialists, inspired by revolutionary idealism saw in Liberty the right of the individual to achieve the fullest development of his personality Recognising that all are born equal in dignity and right they asserted that each had a role to play in society which could not be evaluated in terms of superiority or interiority Thus Equality was defined as above with the added implication that all would share equally in the fruits of the earth, without regard to profession or occupation Finally, Fraternity, denoting mutual aid was the cohesive force to hold humanity together in peace and love, replacing the sordid jungle of survival of the fittest and mad rivalry which was the cause of war and degeneration.

Mr Hawks commits the fatal error of the materialist when he attributes to socialism an overriding concern with controls. The theme of those who hoped for a better social system was emancipation with the eventual arrival of an era of freedom embracing the concepts of Liberty. Equality and Fraternity as defined above. Yours etc.,

W. Dwyer.

Society for Student Rights

Sir,—The following letter was sent to the "Dominion" on August 10, protesting against Brigadier Gilbert's article, which they reprinted in part:—"We object to the recent article by the head of the Security Police (Brigadier Gilbert) reprinted in part in the "Dominion" recently. Such intolerant smears on persons who are criticized and condemned merely for what they believe or used to believe augur badly for the continuance of liberty in this country. It was accusations of this kind that enabled Senator McCarthy to seriously undermine freedom in the U.S.A. The Brigadier's association of radical movements with subversion could well lead to the suppression of all criticism of the government, especially on foreign policy, on the grounds that it was subversive. Freedom needs to be protected from Brigadier Gilbert as much as from the subversive organisations that he condemns."

The Brigadier's article was in our opinion offensive, unwarranted and unworthy of publication in a reputable Student newspaper.

Parking at University

Sir,—How long must the anomalous parking situation in the grounds of this caretaking prevail? It is time that the caretaking staff and others responsible realised that the problem of parking space for cars cannot be solved by continually issuing tickets to those who park cars in "restricted" areas.

The fact is that much better use of existing space could be made, Students have realised this, as one can see from the number of cars parked in "restricted"? marked are as has only worsened matters, and it is little wonder that students have tender to disregard N.P signs and while lines that have been arbitrarily and thoughtlessly drawn Why should one risk missing a lecture searching for a park all over Kalburn, when there is perfectly good space available right outside the University?

Admittedly a little congestion might result it can are allowed to park Indis-criminately all over the grounds, but until more space becomes available near the University, the authorities could for the benefit of all concerned take a much more reasonable attitude to the problem yours etc.,

John Murphy

See article on Parking in this issue.—

Editor.

What a Stink!

Sir,—Mr Maconie was right—you are indeed a first-rate Stinker I hadn't realised until now that your arbitrary treatment of copy extended to such exalted sections of this paper as Critics Corner, but it becomes increasingly evident that a fair deal is not being given to those contributing to this column—"Letters to the Editor" We are suffering from two of the worst kind of abuses—discrimination and suppression.

Discrimination—certain people (the editor's friend?) obviously have access to letters written for this column before Publication. This is completely unfair Witness, for instance the treatment Bill Dwyer received In Salient 10—Mr Maxwell, because he had access to Mr Dwyer's I before it was published, was able to nip in with a "pat" reply calculated to make his opponent (and his ideas) look ridiculous. You Sir, decided that Maxwell's was more important than Dwyer, and was therefore entitled to the tactical advantage of having the last word for the current fortnight.

And this kind of thing happens again and again; decidedly poor, don't you think?

Suppression.—Once I refused to believe rumours that letters to Salient had been ignored without acknowledgment of any sort. However, now it's happened to me, I have a case to argue from. Some weeks ago, I wrote a letter on the Cat question (just in time for Salient 10)—that letter has been neither printed nor acknowledger, and is now, because of the time leg irrelevant. If my little was unsuitable for publication, I have a right to know why. And how many other people's letters have been quietly suppressed? Do our opinions have to conform to your "List of Expressible Sentiments" before they may be exposed to your readers? Or is it merely necessary to be a member of the right social clique to ensure publication? Is this a fair go?

Sir, the way you conduct this column shows you to be guilty of a breach of trust I join with Mr Maconie in labelling you Stinker. Yours etc.,

R. J. Spence.

Sex: Let's Face It

Sir,—With regard to your sexual editorial, why not a panel discussion(s) on this topic? I suggested this idea last year and it was well received by a number of individual students, but went no further.

May I also take this opportunity of protesting against the dress limitation at the Miss Victoria ceremonies. The university is one of the few areas where any freedom of thought, speech action or dress operates and this should be jealously protected and not encroached upon by the withering uniformity of the business. Professional, and diplomatic worlds. Yours etc.,

B. C. Walsh.

Security

Sir,—In that some of my Student Association fees have gone towards the publishing of remarks made by that Brigadier; Gilbert fellow I wonder if I could ask some question?

Does Brigadier Gilbert support the view of another speaker at the great Auckland conference, who wished that he had never heard of "social security"?

Also does the head of New Zealand security think that our military loaders should have a big say in our politics?

It he does I would like to suggest that. a country like Chile or Argentina would be more suitable for his work In New Zealand the military is for defence and decide who are to be our allies or enemies. The military leaders have not been elected to tell us where our political affections should lie.

In ending this letter how come C.N.D. missed out? Is CN.D respectable now? Or does it remain a communist front like all the other hot-beds of communism? Yours etc,.

P. Magnusson.

We Protest

Sir,—Those readers who strongly objected to your We Protest editorial obviously missed the main point i.e. you were protesting against the taking of all human life. Undoubtedly if it was ethically wrong to take the life of Herr Eichmann. if is equally wrong to terminate the life of the humblest individual, irrespective of his race creed or colour.

When people become emotionally unbalanced through reading accounts of crimes such as Herr Eichmann was accused of, they automatically jump to the conclusion that two wrongs make a right Individuals and nations have been following this line of thought for centuries—with disastrous results. When World War I came along it was going to be the war to end all wars: exactly the some was said of World War II. People killed on masse because negative feeling rather than reason. told them that humanity as a whole would benefit. How negative feeling was not called upon to specify In both wars soldiers and politicians wore blind to the fact that people and ideas are separate entitles and that. Killing the former does not change the latter. Such conduct is like putting an axe through a radio set because one does not approve of the programme.

If we are ever to grow up and get away from the childish belief that two wrongs make a right, it seems that universities at least must teach their students the proper relationship applied psychology and ethics. In no great world religion is the taking of life justified. Our greatest psychologists agrees that giving free rein to negative thoughts and emotions produces a world where fear and psycho-somatic complaints increase as happiness fades.

When University students can rationally appreciate that the taking of life does much more harm to the community at large than to the miserable victim then there will be hope that the man-in-the-street will one day reach a similar conclusion Until that day arrives the world must continue to be run by bomb-happy emotional nit-wits—and you, Sir, must bravely endure the continuing attacks of spiritually immature students as they openly display their unhappy thirst for revenge. Yours etc.

D. M. Woodford

Replies to Correspondents

Beverley J. Gadd and Maureen A. Quirke: Sorry: but in such a personal attack as this, you shall have to cite specific cases of "insolence" and "arrogance, Generalities are of no use here—Editor