.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 14, 5 July 1976.
Scott Takes Round Two for Hart
Scott Takes Round Two for Hart
Dear Sir,
D. Heath's last letter confirmed my suspicion that he is either a masochist or a fool. I would like to gently bring to people's attention some of the more glaring fuck-ups in his misguided and slightly smelly anti-Hart snipe of two weeks ago.
| 1. | Heath says he has neither the time nor the energy to seek those elusive thousands he claims to represent but notes that in the cafeteria one day he found eight supporters of his principles. In the face of such mass support I was originally speechless but have now recovered sufficiently to point out that the fact that Heath needs Pluravit is hardly likely to persuade me to withdraw my accusation of arrogance for multiplying his known following by over 100. |
| 2. | Heath says he has concluded that anyone who has not been to S. V. cannot hold an unbiased view. He is therefore calling himself biased and admitting that Henry Isaacs may not be. |
| 3. | Heath ferociously asserts his individuality with: "I am unique in every respect except my views against Hart". Sounds like a lonely person if his views on Hart are the only ones for which he enjoys support. But perhaps his uniqueness explains why he differs from accepted historical fact so thoroughly with his claim that "the first people to arrive in S.A. were the Boers". The first people to arrive in S.A. were the bushmen and hottentots - they were treated by the Boers with the same respect and consideration for equality as is offered to South African blacks today and as a result are almost extinct as a race. |
| 4. | (quote): "As for calling me an apostle, all I can say is.... I thank you for your faith in me." Very amusing Mr Heath but I recommend glasses - self-appointed apostle was the term I used. |
| 5. | Proving himself master of the bigoted generalization Mr Heath claims that "supporters of an idea, (like the Hart concept), always consider it arrogance when non-supporters attempt to claim the support of many other people." Does Heath exclude himself from this group he disdainfully brands as "supporters of an idea"? If not then it is most interesting to observe that he himself is admitting the probability of his arrogance, since very few ideas live unopposed. It he is, then his lack of ideas would explain his letters. |
| 6. | If Heath's mildly abusive reference to my comprehensive abilities is to stand then he is claiming his original letter to have been what he calls "Pure English". A bad move for someone trying to deny arrogance Mr Heath - or to put it in Purer english -absolute fucking bullshit. |
| 7. | "Anyway why is a person rascist just because he doesn't support Hart"? he asks. This in itself is quite a fair question so one can't help wondering why Mr Heath has to balls it up by in the same paragraph noting "and Isaacs certainly knows about pygmies" and referring to Mr Isaacs attitude as "typical of that sort of person" thereby exposing himself as (subconsciously) rascist. Got to be more careful than that. |
| 8. | Heath notes that the Evening Post poll showed Hart to be a 20% minority and consequentally advises us to give up. I would like to point out that, firstly, the questionaire composed by the Post was so worded as to make it quite possible for every member of that 80% majority to have been a member of Hart - not all Hart supporters are in favour of Govt intervention: our appeal is to the rugby union - so you can stick that "proven minority" shit for a start. Secondly, if you think that all minority groups should give up their beliefs for that reason alone then you are effectively condemning both change and democracy. Sure your name's not Vorster? |
Jonathan Scott.