The meeting was attended by 300 students who spent half their time in rapt pursuit of speeches, and the other half screaming with laughter. Many had come in order to participate in what turned out to be a tight and beneficial dispute over whether the previous week's motion to give $100 towards counsel for Black Power members arrested for "illegal assembly" ought to be rescinded.

The Unlawful Assembly Act is of special concern to students since its interpretation can extend over pickets and marches. The debate centred on the principle of civil liberty. Fourteen speeches were-made 4 for, 10 against reclaiming the money.

Spence Leads With A Right

The prime mover, Mr Spence, poo-pooed suggestions that the possible prosecution of these people would set a precedent whereby students could be likewise charged for taking part in demonstrations. Demonstrators, he said, are immune from the Unlawful Assembly Act, firstly because they do not cause fear to people in their vicinity, and secondly students obtain permits to march.

He claimed the accused were being charged in accordance with the law, and "the police must be able to prove a state of mind is involved".

Spence concluded by advancing a dire warning against the association financially binding itself to "these people". - "next thing you know they'll be going around in T-shirts with Sponsored by SRC written on the back".

Neil Gray replied that it was the Associations policy not to get permits anyway, and that the clause 'intent of violence' could be "extended to our student demonstrations which seek social change".

Hannan Exposes Salvation Army

Mr Hannan suggested that even though an assembly was quite lawful those involved could be arrested for unlawful assembly if anyone near it became afraid. He cited a case earlier in the century when a group of Salvation Army people were beaten up by thugs, and then arrested by the police for unlawful assembly - "You can be out there praising the Lord and still get done".

Although the case in hand would not set a law precedent, the police would take notice of the outcome, so he supported funding counsel for the accused.

Students' Association Vice-president, Steve Underwood warned us to leave the case alone because the accused would get off anyway (since a case had to be proved against all members of the party).

He accused students of showing a lack of faith in the judicial sytem, and should be more careful about what cases they threw their weight behind. He advised waiting to see the outcome of the initial trial, and then, if required, supporting an appeal against the verdict.

Ian Westbrooke: I'm not with them

Ward, Fikkers, Purdie: the anti-smoking lobby giving right thinking people cause for concern.

Tony Ward replied that the accused would certainly be convicted in the initial trial unless they were provided with adequate counsel. Students had already been charged with unlawful assembly (to wit at the Weedons military base in 1973) such a law is "fascist" and should be opposed on principle.

Lloyd Jobson thought section 86 was basically a bad law - "You or I could be tried on the fears of someone else - it doesn't have to be real". In saying this, he got to the guts of why exactly this law was up the shoot.

McBride and Westbrooke Into the Act

John McBride scorned the Act as a "catch law" used to convict people if they couldn't be nabbed for anything else. Ian Westbrooke - "We should support people and their civil liberties" by funding counsel. On the same note, though sardonically, Mr Hannan said it was wrong to avoid the case just because we didn't like the un-middleclass lifestyle of the people involved. Simon Tracy spoke against the funds, with John Ryall and Bob Drummond in favour.

Many speeches had attempted to show [unclear: h w] the Unlawful Assembly Act rode roughshod over the civil liberties of innocent people. Thus, the shifting balance of the vote depended on Mr Spence's final speech in reply : he urged students to leave the case alone and have confidence in the courts, since, "if these people cause distress, they deserve to be charged."

However, in this way, he failed to healthily answer the essential question of civil rights, as well as the instance of student arrests at Weedons. Hence his motion not to fund the accused in their case against an unlawful assembly charge, was defeated, albeit narrowly, 96 - 108 votes. Thus, students now have a vested interest in following the court reports from Lower Hutt.

Spence Attempts Second Coup

Next motion (Spence/Lees) was that at least one week's advertising, including a notice in Salient on the Monday, be required for SRC's that intend to allocate money. Mark Sainsbury ejaculated enthusiastically that he himself had passed a similar motion last year, and then mumbled something about having trouble reading noticeboards.

Lindy Cassidy thought political motions were just as important as financial ones, and deserved equal publicity. At this stage Steve Underwood proposed an amendment that such advertising be required only for motions that intend to allocate funds to "political" causes, in order to stop donations to "bodies which have doubtful support throughout the student body (e.g. the Black Power Fund, and the North Vietnam Medical Relief Fund)". General laughter broke out.

John Bowden jeered that it was "silly" to encourage the stacking of SRC's over a small area of Association policy.

Tony Ward entwined his antlers with Steve Underwood by throwing in the curly question "what's political?". After the barbarous John Ryall had asked how much notice students were given of the $100,000 donation to the Bookshop, the amendment was voted on, and lost.

Ryall was quite on heat by now, so he leapt up again to speak on the original motion, telling the meeting that constitutionally, no-one can decide what or what not goes into the pages of Salient. The crowd loved it, and voted strongly against the motion.

The Blue Haze Reappears

At this stage, every vestige of collective solidarity was stubbed out while the whole question of smoking in the Union was discussed.

It was an interesting debate, because as a result, the Association actually established a policy towards cigarette smoking: there is to be an active campaign against smoking, smoking is now banned in the cafe, lounge, and TV room; and all sale and advertising of tobacco products is now banned on campus. There were streaks of resentment on both sides, since the debate centred on the rights of comfort to smokers and non-smokers. A pack of vociferous nonsmokers hogged the whole debate, while smokers did themselves a mischief by not having sufficient champions.

Tony Ward referred to smoking in terms usually associated with narcotics e.g. "addicts", "kick the habit", "nicotine injections". Derek Fikkers thought smoking was antisocial - "every time I go into the cafe, I get smoked out."

Mark Sainsbury: You've got to believe me. Your Honour.

Other arguments against smoking included: only 20% [unclear: of] students smoke; damage to walls and ceilings, and privilege of clean air. Mark Sainsbury accused the meeting of hypocrisy, and pointed to the social and physical evils of alcohol. With watering eyes, and a fist raised above his head, he announced the Smokers Liberation front which would free "the masses". At this solemn moment a young woman shrieked "Ooooo, Fuck!" and ran from the Hall pursued by a hirsute youth shaking hot liquid from his right hand.

More Donations

Students then passed two motion's, one to give $40 to help pay for a recent tour by a New Caledonian speaker, and another of support for Friday's Abortion march.

An eleventh hour motion to ban dope smoking from the graveyard was quashed, and everyone headed for SASRAC.