Booze and Abortion.

Belatedly I wish to reply to two criticisms of my ideas in Salient June 20.

John Grainer again brings up my 'if you're not for the PRG you're against them idea. He describes this as 'idiocy and 'certainly not a rational argument'. Trying to make things clearer (and lay the debate down) let us consider the following situation.

John and a mate (say Bill) are in the Royal Tiger, quietly minding their own business. Another bloke (say Trev) appears and helps himself to Bills jug. Upon telling Trev to piss off, Bill has the remainder of the jug poured over him and then gets beaten about. If John doesn't go to his mates aid here he is in effect saying to Trev "You are perfectly entitled to bash around my friend — go ahead, I won't stop you". If he takes this attitude, John may well find Bill turning rather bitter towards him. I suggest that this is very similar to the Vietnam situation — if you do not support the PRG you are entitling the Americans to smash them around.

In reply to G.S. Little, I would find his/her condemnation more compelling if he/she had bothered to read my article (May 29) more carefully. One major point there was that the Remuera clinic 'has not been shown to have broken any law'. The major part of G. S. Little's letter rests on the presumption that it has and is continuing to do so. Is there any evidence for this?

Another point stems from G. S. Little's 'If the purpose of society is to provide support to and acceptance of each of its members. . .' Society at the moment does not have this as its highest goal but the making of profits for a small and increasingly foreign elite. If G. S. Little is interested in a more humane and just society, I suggest his/her energies would be better spent in struggling for socialism rather than supporting Dr Wall's repression.

Anthony Ward.