How Not to See Neville Curtis

Just thought I would share with you an experience I had with the Napier Police.

I was up at Napier over Easter and heard a rumour that Neville Curtis was speaking somewhere in Napier on the Saturday night. I had missed his talk in Wellington, so I thought it would be great to see him in Napier. Not knowing where the meeting was held, I decided to go into NR police station - they would probably know where the meeting was, there were several police at the Wellington meeting!

'Where's Neville Curtis's meeting tonight?

'Who's he?', said the Policewoman, after assuring someone on the phone that the police DO work 24 hours a night.

So I told her about Neville, how he was banned in SA and how he had escaped to Aussie.

'Don't know anything about it', says she, making some tea.

'We don't have any rebel-rousers in NR; there's no Varsity students or Polytechs here, to there probably won't be anyone at the meeting anyway!'

Typical police-cum-Govt. department attitude.

After getting addresses of some local info centres. I left. But no where could I find any publicity about the meeting, and it wasn't even advertised in the evening paper.

So I haven't been to see Neville Curtis!

Rob McDavitt

Open Letter to the Honorable Persons the Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition in Australia and New Zealand

As an assistant to researchers at Spiri I consider myself comparatively well-informed, and as a New Zealand citizen and rational human being I feet a duty to urge upon you immediate recognition of the PRG of South Vietnam and the Royal Government of Cambodia. Division was forced upon the majority in Vietnam who didn't want it, thus it is a myth that North Vietnamese in the southern part of the country are foreign intruders.

Australian and New Zealand representatives can do more to bring about peace in Indo China, by squaring their policypositions with the facts.

One argument for switching recognition overshadows all other possible considerations :-

Suppose that 'A' and 'B' are opposing sides fighting a civil war with massive injections of aid in weaponry and man-power skills as well as general economic support. 'A' is riddled with corruption and distention and makes only sporadic gains, always seeming to lose ground in the long run. And yet over the last eight or nine years of the conflict, 'A' has received Thirty Times as much help from its foreign backers as has 'B'. This granted, to continue to treat 'A' as if it had a right to act and speak authoritatively for the people of that nation is surely to take part in a cynical farce.

US intelligence figures show that the U.S.A. has spent nearly thirty times as much in Indo China since 1966 as Russia and China combined ... Aid to North Vietnam from the two Communist Powers totalled $3.65 bn. since 1966 — $2.57 bn. from Russia and $1.08 bn. from China ... The U.S.A. spent $107.1 bn. during that period on the war and for aid to its allies in Indo China, according to official Pentagon sources ... In 1973, when US forces withdrew and (supposedly) turned the defense burden over to the South Vietnamese, the figures show, US aid was $2.3 bn. compared to $290 million for Russia and China. (This paragraph is reproduced without significant alleration from The Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis July 1974.)

Although Communist aid in weapons to North Vietnam and the PRG has been stepped up this year, the new Congressional restrictions have not had time to reduce Pentagon aid much below its normal level, and in the mean time the side supported by the Americans is collapsing faster than ever. No North Vietnamese have taken part in the Cambodian war for several years now (Dagens Nyheter 25 March 1975), and the Vietnamese as a whole must be allowed to settle for the kind of peaceful political solution that would be most natural for them, whether we like it or not.

As for the tragic refugees, they are not 'voting with their feet' but are suffering a kind of blackmail. For years they have been subjected to a frantic campaign of Viet Cong atrocity stories — no doubt some of them true — and this has unnerved them. But their more realistic fears concern the atrocities committed impersonally, from the air, through the uninhibited death-technology of the most advanced and powerful nation on earth. This is what makes them fear to stay at their homes in the so-called lost or liberated areas.

(B.P.Lilburn)

Open Letter on Litter

As you may recall, just before Christmas I wrote you, expressing concern about the worsening litter problem in Wellington; and offering suggestions on ways to reduce it. I was careful to ring John Hunt and Ian Galloway beforehand and both agreed 'fair comment'. And your reply was encouraging.

However, apart from showing me an Anti-Litter slide presentation, I have not seen or heard of anything effective being done about litter. I have, from time to time, heard comments such as 'We can't get staff', 'We lake our direction from the Council', 'it isn't as bad as overseas', and others. It seems clear that those officers in a position to do something are too busy with coping with their primary jobs in a traditional way, to have time to organise new attacks on even the major, worsening problem of litter. (I strongly suspect that the public transport director is similarly 'too busy').

I would like to stress how bad the litter problem really is here; and how important it is to do something truly effective. I respectfully urge you to walk along almost any street, or footpath-steps, and/or park, particularly in the inner city, and you'll see what I mean. I suspect officers and Councillors seldom walk there, or are busy talking to people, so don't notice all the litter. However, thousands of city dwellers and workers Do a lot of walking and seeing and invariably must be 'sick at heart' at the obvious carelessness — including property owners, too — and at the too-limited efforts of the City.

These scenes are but a few examples of what's typical all over. Even in Kelburn where I live, I pick up litter every day just to keep my route in work reasonably clean. This route includes the footpath below the Tea Kiosk, the Cable Car terminous, through the Gardens past the Met Office, and down Bolton St. I can't even get the parks officers to be very concerned about the litter in places leading to, and in, the Botanic Gardens.

It is important to the Council as well as the public that there be no further delay in Visibly Effective action on the litter problem. As you realise, I'm sure, large areas of the inner city are decaying and rapidly turning into slums. Litter is one of the factors contributing — along with traffic noise, mixed land uses (in some cases), and undesirable neighbours (sometimes). As typically happens everywhere in the world, I'm sure, most people won't take the time or trouble to fight these seemingly insurmountable problems. Instead, as soon as they can, they flee to the suburbs, hoping for a 'better environment'.

More people, now, are becoming more aware of the advantages of the city. But they will not brave 'slum conditions', including litter, for long. If the Council wishes to prevent such areas as Mt. Victoria, Newtown, Aro St., upper Willis St., Te Are, etc., from becoming even more slumlike, and increasingly costly burdens on the Council (and Police), then it must do something visible about 'environment' Now. It cannot afford to wait for neighborhood surveys and redevelopment.

I would like to stress also that merely stepping up present cleansing efforts will not be enough. The present efforts are based on approachessuch as 'It's the responsibility of the property owners, the public, etc., to do this and so (i.e., not the Council's); We're doing what we can with what the Council gives us'; and 'That land is not in our park, or not Council land, etc.' In other words, approaches which interpret suggestions or demands far improvement as requiring a defensive explanation, rather than a positive programme for action.

To be visibly effective, a whole new approach to the litter problem is required. Preferably, this would be coordinated by a single new 'czar' (as they say overseas) with power and money — and above all, incentive and imagination. This is so important to success that either an increase in rates or a reduction in other programmes would be fully justified.

This new approach would be that the Whole City — including Council, and private, and Government land — All of it is to be kept free from litter and rubbish. A combination of methods, such as I suggested in my December letter, would then attack the problem of All land, even where 'no one cares'. After all, the wind blows litter every where, and people tip it everywhere.

In closing, I make all of this as a plea — not a criticism. And it's a plea from thousands of other Wellingtonians, too; who have given up trying to change the Council officers and are now silent. They're 'sick at heart' about the city's environment too.

What a pity! Here we have the most fascination, beautiful city in New Zealand, at least. But over time — through carelessness — the people have rubbished it. And now that it's so littered, you can't really hope to educate very many people, until they can see some strong, Visible efforts and real improvements made by the Council.

I know you're concerned, and best wishes to you in trying to solve the city's problems.

Victoria University of Wellington Department of Music

Lunch-Time Concert

1.10p.m. in the Music Room (Hunter 332) No charge for admission

Bruce Greenfield — piano

Gavin Saunders — viola

Margaret Nielsen — piano

A Crappy Film ??

It had the promise of being a reasonably constructive criticism, as some three odd students and others gathered around a table in the Union Hall Cafeteria to read an article by some literary genuis of description, who had the logic of a mathematician and the language of a lawyer ... it must have been the work of a super-being ('has-been'). The first paragraph had a somewhat sophisticated and limited description of what the evening was like. But the second paragraph took a diabolical turn as our celebrated critical author made a few mistakes and as superbeings are infallible, the author started criticizing everybody and everything except himself.

With his shrewd sense of logic the Crappy Film critic not only rubbished the organisers but also, more or less, squashed a local club accusing it of playing host to the causes of imperialism. Just for your interest, I would like to clarify a few matters. The evening in question is well-described by the super-author in his first paragraph of The Crappy Film in last week's Salient. However, there were 150 people present and the somewhat myopic critic saw only 70, and only one film (a tourist documentary), lasting almost 24 minutes was screened and not two. The super-being's description of the contents of the film are also of literary value.

Suddenly, taking another diabolical turn our super-being makes us read on as he starts lecturing on 'cultural agression'. He has every right to, but is it not somewhat foolish to criticize the affairs of Victoria because some local club makes a genuine effort to present something informative and without profit. The documentary was informative although somewhat biased (as most tourist films are) but the criticism by a Fijian student following the screening was enlightening and had the desired effect on the audience, an cyeopener by shocking them with hard and cold facts after a lot of buttering. Now, everybody has to crap once in a while, but if someone makes a supcrsizc crap in the wrong place and then guiltily leaves the scene ... well, that is something different. In this situation, the pseudoradical super-being ought to be checked and made to cover-up the crap, before he makessuch sit-ins (shillings) a habit.

Mochi

Go Home Yankee?*

I was very pleased to hear that Clark Titman of the friends of South Vietnam' and renowned Yankophile is intending to" go to Vietnam with a group of mercenaries. I can think of no better place al this point in time for him to be.*

Frank Le Thin

'Blind Knight'

On reading last weeks column 'From the Courts' in Salient I was disturbed by Les Knight's first article where he felt the respective Magistrate Courtrooms 1,2, and 3 catered for different social classes. I take point with this and everything else Mr. Knight has to say.

Rooms 2 and S are not predominantly occupied by traffic cases, and it is utter rubbish that the more 'socially acceptable' offences are heard in these courtrooms. If Mr. Knight had taken care with his observations he might have noted that he least socially acceptable crime of all is usually heard in Room 2 in its preliminary stages: murder.

With regard to Mr. Knight's belief that the stmosphere is less tense in Rooms 2 and S because of 'less social condemnation', I suggest to him that it is not and that he ought to sit in on a murder or assult hearing in Room 2 instead of traffic offences. If the atmosphere appears to be a little less tense on occasions it is because the rooms are smaller than Room I and thus a much smaller public is present.

Most ludicrous of all is Mr. Knight's summation that the defendants in Rooms 2 and 3 are more expensively dressed and more articulate — did it occur to Mr. Knight that the majority of cases in 2 and 3 are defended hearings and the defendents are generally dressed in the same mode there as the defendants in Room 1, with a few exceptions? He concludes that a different class of people' are tried in different courts!!

I recommend Mr. Knight to familiarise himself more closely with the Court process before he criticises it.

Greg Milicich.