Thrush On the Mat Again!

I read with great interest the article concerning us (Salient vol 39 no 18), and I must My that once I got over the glory of having my photo in Salient. I was disappointed that you should have printed the article there is nothing as boring and less informing than a set of potted biographies. I am afraid that I must also point out that were factual errors in the article, the most important bring: we are not Sports Council; we are members of Sports Committee, the elected, representative body of Sports Council Incorporated - which consists of all members of all sports clubs on campus. Not that anyone is going to be wildly misled, but I can't help thinking that if a person can't gel the small facts right, how reliable is he/she when it comes to more important things? (Also I must point out in all fairness that I was more piqued than the other members of Sports Committee because, firstly, a report I submitted for the article about the functions of the committee was completely ignored, and secondly, the piece referring to me in the article was totally fabricated by the author and I object to having words put in my mouth).

I'm sure it would have been far more useful for you to have "commissioned" a well written expose of the committee along with a group photo of the people concerned (showing how unified we are - compared to other Stud Ass committees!!). Doesn't anyone realise what a bunch of ruthless, megalomaniacal capitalists we are? (Any groups of individuals prepared to spend $500 on a booze-up for 15 people must automatically be the subject of scrutiny and closed committee discussion!!) I am disappointed, John, that you should have consented to print such a misleading and mediocre piece of writing (although on second thoughts, maybe that is in keeping with Salient 1976 so far).

But to more important things: the committee has asked me to make known some important points regarding our relations with the Sports Officer. Firstly, we on Sports Committee are concerned that he is not treating his position as it was intended. He is supposed to be the mouthpiece of the Executive on Sports Committee; the committee is not intended as a vehicle for the Sports Officer's dreams of expansion and elitist sports competition (if only because neither the committee nor the Association can afford it).

I do not mean that Sports Committee is not appreciative of the tremendous amount of time and effort the Sports Officer has put into his portfolio (as indeed I did when I was Sports Officer), but we are concerned that some of his enthusiasm has been a trifle misdirected.

Regarding the Batter Tournament Travel Fiasco (1976 model not 1975); Sports Committee is very concerned about it, as an SGM of Sports Council Inc. held on March 24th decided that a travel subsidy would be paid to all competitors. In view of this, a complete cost account of the total expenditure has been requested from the Sports Officer at the past three meetings we have held, without success, despite repeated promises to do so on his part. Therefore at the last meeting of Sports Committee held on August 12th, a motion was passed (unanimously) censuring the Sports Officer for failing to provide the required accounts as requested.

The Sports Officer has recently been in Australia on an NZU volleyball tour without the blessing of Sports Committee - in fact some members are actively opposed to his having gone. The committee felt that if he was able to devote so much time organising this tour, he had enough time to draw up a simple set of accounts.

The motion of censure is not meant to reflect on the Sports Officer's industrious efforts concerned with sports tournaments, nor is it an attempt to add to the negative aspect of his relations with VUWSA members, as indicated by the no-confidence votes he received in the last Exec elections, but it must serve to remind him to get his priorities in the right order and to whom the Sports Officer is responsible after all.

With love to all the Salient workers,

Alex Veysey or Salient

Over the past few weeks I have noted an abysmal lack of comment in 'Salient', on the All Black games in South Africa. An article by Alex Veysey on the failure in the 1st test or a comment on the Eastern Transvaal game would be appreciated by many students.

However I feel Isaacs, Freeman, Ordia, and all their merry little band have got you by the balls, and you are too weak to do a fucking thing about it.

All I want is a bit of balanced journalism in Salient, as I've had a gutsful of aspiring trendies trying to outdo each other in seeing who can be the most bigoted each week. "Bigoted", you might say, "that's them not us". But, my friends you are wrong. You and your ilk are as bigoted one way as Vorster is the other way, if not more so.

So instead of praising the Supreme Council of Sport for picking on New Zealand out of 25 countries that sent sports teams to South Africa in the last year. Wake Up. Present a balanced view, and explain why New Zealand should be picked out and jumped on, with the support of backstabbing bastards like Newman and Freeman, who turn on their own country.

SRC Reporter Debunked

As the seconder of the motion passed at the last SRC to send a telegram of support to the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa congratulating them on their boycott, I'd like to complain about the non-journalist you employ as an SRC reporter. The mover and seconder spoke briefly - true so far. Then he goes on to say that others tried to speak but were shouted down (or words to that effect).

The truth behind this story is that after the mover and seconder had spoken to the motion, certain people tried to urge a certain student in the balcony (who I believe to have connections with both the National Party and Fart) to decry the Hart people that had spoken. This he did in a tongue in cheek manner just to show that he wasn't going to let such a motion pass without giving it a hard time. What he said was waffley bullshit which bore no relation to the motion.

He was shouted down - merely heckled with pertenent remarks which he was plainly unable to answer. Gyles Beckford was not "pissed off" but did call for order.

This article is a thinly disguised smear on a group of people that he obviously can't tolerate although he gives no evidence for such prejudice. His writing gives an air of liberalism and pomposity unequaled in Salient this year. Gary Henderson has little to contribute to Salient if he keeps up this standard of writing.

David Murray.

Objection to Guest Lecturer

I would like the Sociology Department to justify its position in spending my money (I am a private student); the government's money, and my time, to provide a certain lady with a pedestal, in order that she may subject an unexpecting audience to her particular political beliefs.

Have all people a ready access to university students or is the education, free of political influences?

A concerned Sosc 101 Student.

Incoherent English Disliked

May I ask you to request your contributors to avoid using incoherent English. I refer to Mr A. Ward's review of "Red Papers on New Zealand" and Mr N. Rowe's article "Downstage", both in Salient of last week.

Whilst Mr Rowe becomes ironic about the nature of "this audience" (line 9, p 18) Mr Ward tends to write in an abrupt shorthand that leaves the reader confused, e.g. "To illustrate, (what) Ken Stanton describes with statistics, the process of concentration (of what?) in New Zealand". Col.3 line 8, p 17).

I'm Satisfied with Sosc

Thank you for printing my last letter. In past issues of Salient, many derogatory statements have arisen. I am a 1st year Student in Sociology 101, and I am somewhat perturbed by the one-sided argument which is usually presented.

Many students on Sociology 101 are, on the whole, quite satisfied with the course, content and structure. No course is perfect and it is surely unreasonable to expect it to be?

Many of the troubles plagueing the Sociology department, come from a small minority of very unintelligent shit stirrers. These cretins voice their personal grievences at tutorial representative meetings, in a deliberate attempt to cause more trouble.

This may sound like a cliche, but I propose that I, and many students like me, came to Vic to gain a higher education, not to be hindered by arrogant little queers, who rejoice in farting around, making trouble.

Open Letter to Venn Young M.P.

No Mr Young we will not just go away, back into our closets to lead an oppressed existence. We refuse to put up with the humiliation of the pallid tokens of liberal tolerance any longer.

We demand acceptance, to be allowed to live our lives the way we choose, to be allowed to fulfil ourselves as human beings. We demand our full civil, social and legal rights. Rights accorded to all people but denied to gays by the oppressive, uneducated, patriarchal legal and social structure of our society.

We exist, Mr Young, an undeniable fact. An estimated 100,000 women and men in New Zealand alone. We will not be just a nagging doubt in the back of your mind. We will protest. We will not let you ignore or forget us any longer.

It has been four years since your reform Bill was introduced. That mediocre concession to appease your conscience for which you seem to feel we should be so grateful.

This was only a small step towards full human equality. During the four years of consistent evasion, gays continued to suffer blackmail, muggings, deportation, prison and the other smaller oppressions and agonies finally forcing many to take their own lifes as the only way of escape. A situation comparable to that of those undergoing other forms of torture (e.g. captured resistance workers).

With growing anger we resignedly forced ourselves to watch a small glimmer of candle light in a far-away window burn itself out by being neglected in the "agonizing sould-searching that accompanied this moral question". It is not a moral question. It never has been and never will be. It is a question of basic human rights as demanded in the Geneva Convention.

If for a moment, Mr Young, you could force yourself to climb from your lofty position of benevolent benefactor, down to the position society imposes upon us and ponder your reactions to such an unjust ignorant of our only too real survival. To understand our anger, Mr Young, you must first experience our oppression and suffering, for experience is knowledge.

You question our need to protest in an effor to educate the general public and the lawmakers of our country in an attempt to right the unhumerable wrongs and seek an enlightened viewpoint. When attmepts at law repeal through the proper channels fail due to acute reaction from our lawmakers, history has shown that direct confrontation is the next step in our fight for full equality and human rights.

We refuse to hide any longer. We are proud of our gayness. But we are discontented at the failure of the government and the people to recognise Our reasonable and just demands, i.e. repeal of all anti-homosexual laws, full parity with heterosexuals before the law and an end to discrimination in areas of citizenship, employment and housing, etc.

Polls have shown overwhelming public support for law change; why do our lawmakers lag behind the wishes of the people they represent?

Wahine, Whitcoulls and Red Balloons