WONAAC Spokesperson makes clarification

I was very annoyed when I read through the summary of a speech that I gave on September 14, at a lunchtime forum, to find that I had been misquoted several times.

The summary to which I refer appears on page 3, paragraph 2, under the heading "The struggle of women", in the September 19 issue of Salient.

In the second sentence of the summary the writer gives the impression that I said that rape was not a criminal act. When in fact what I said was : "A pregnancy resulting from rape will not be grounds for an abortion, because rape is not a 'criminal act', or at least not one which the Bill or the Commission thinks can be remedied by abortion".

The latter part of the quote, which you chose to ignore, is obviously the most significant part of the statement.

The next quote to which I take exception also appears in the second sentence. I am quoted as saying "that children of 12 years and women of 68 years are not ideal candidates for motherhood and have evidently escaped the commission as non are taken into account as grounds for abortion". (Emphasis added).

What I said was : "Extremes of age will not in themselves be grounds for abortion. So if you are raped at the age of 12 or 45, and become pregnant, you will have to prove that bearing the child will result in serious damage to your life or physical or mental health.

"Apparently an unplanned pregnancy which was the result of rape, contraceptive failure or some other reason, is not going to cause severe distress, or even mild discomfort".

I have included the latter sentence of this quote because I want to make it clear that I do not agree with the Commission's limited grounds for abortion. That in fact I consider that an unwanted pregnancy is indesirable and destressing to a woman, no matter how it occurred. I was also trying to make it clear by this statement that I believed in abortion on demand.

In the final sentence of the summary the writer states : "Instead they have taken away the democratic right to choose motherhood . . .

Nowhere in my speech did I say motherhood was a democratic right. "Domocratic right" implies that the majority decides. It is up to the individual woman to decide whether she wishes to be a mother or not. The original quote from my speech reads : "Motherhood for our welfare . . . must be something we choose . . .It is not our duty to bear childre, it must be our choice".

Writer replies

(Although the factual inaccuracies pointed out in Gillian Denford's letter are present (and I apoligise for them) they are not such as to really warrant a letter or complaint. This can only split those who believe in the right to abortion at a time when it is essential that all unite in the struggle against repressive legislation such as that of the Royal Commission Bill. Gillian Denford would be better advised to spend her time in actively fighting the attacks on women rather than causing unnecessary splits in the ranks.

— Lamorna Rogers).

Fiji Club

This letter is aimed as a criticism of one of the committee members of the new executive of the Fiji Students Association of Wellington (Fiji Club)

The new executive was elected on July 7 this year and so far has handled the affairs of the Club quite satisfactorily.

The new executive has the priorities of the Club correctly placed. However one executive member Mahendra Dahia, the present treasurer of the club continually seems to oppose the motions of the other members. At the very first meeting called by the present President he showed his hand by opposing moves for a club dance. Fortunately the other executives pverrode him, and the dance was held. Despite Mahen's prophecy that it would be a loss it turned out a success.

Later I hear that he was against the get-together which brought Fiji students from all the other centres in New Zealand to Wellington. Again it seemed to be on financial grounds and again Mahen was overridden, and perhaps the most memorable function of the present executive emanated.

It was also him who refused subvention of members of our club on their way to the Universities Soccer Tournament in Auckland. Let me remind him that the past executive issued the soccer club with a complete set of new jerseys. It was the least they could do.

So far Mahen hasn't contributed anything positive to the Club, and acts only to defy us. I suggest he gets off his arse and does something quickly. (Perhaps the pessimist can learn some-thing form our past treasurer's motto : Nothing ventured, nothing gained). Or else the club demands his resignation.

Yours Fiji Club Member.

Fiji Club

I refer to the article of 12.9.77. While it was commendatory of the President, it was certainly defametory for Mangal Singh.

We as Executives of the above Club, deny the content of the article. It was untrue and attempts to lower one of the Committee members in the eyes of his friends and us all.

For your information, Mongal on the weekend in question had (1) Made a return trip to Masterton on Friday evening on family call. (II) Was at the gum on the Saturday sports afternoon and (III) Was a linesman and also refereed a soccer game on the ground on Sunday. The Committee knew of this.

Though the author has a right to express his mind, we feel that this also in the light of the above was unnecessary, groundless and thoughtless. Secondly, using Salient as his voice is not proceedurally embodied in our constitution. Perhaps the proper channel is to complain through a Committee Member and use the "forum" of the "Special General Meeting". If this was an oversight, well it is always open.

From memory, twice I have stressed the need for each of us to create an atmosphere of understanding and unity in our relationship. I wish to add that the bond that binds us is stronger than the rarities that tend to seduce our division.

It is then only gentlemanly that the author of the article in question to make an apology to Mongal either personally or through this same medium.

In conclusion let us give this subject true pacific ceremonial burial with our prayer "rest in peace".

We are all potentially subersive

I applaud the criticisms Salient makes of the SIS Amendment Bill, although the headline "Smash Fascist SIS Laws" might detract a little from the credibility of the arguments in a constructive context.

But in the interception of communications area, I suggest that the greatest danger does not arise from the inactment of SIS powers to intercept per se — as the Powels Report recommended, this is an overdue reorganising of an already established practice and it is necessary to provide limitations and checks on that practice which have not hitherto existed. The danger lies in the wide and marginal definitions of the general functions of the SIS, which are contained in the principal NZSIS Act 1969. That Act defines the basic SIS function as gathering information relevant to the security of New Zealand. What is "security"? The Act defines it as the protection of New Zealand from, inter alia, subversion. "Subversion" is defined as the undermining, by unlawful means, the Government. It is unvertain what is meant by "undermining by unlawful means". As Powles points out, it is the construction the SIS places on its countersubversion information function that raises the major problem. In the past the SIS has tended to include in its surveillance not groups and individuals who are subversive, but are potentially subversive. The target of surveillance then becomes political opinion, which is evidenced by discent and protest.

The fear, then, is not simply that the power to intercept exists, but that It might conceivably be used to monitor any group or individual whose political opinions do not coincide with those of the Government. The basis of this possibility is not to be found in the new Bill before Parliament, but in the principal Act which has been on the books for eight years.

— George Crowder.

From the mass of emotional and extraordinary statements on Israel published recently, I want to take two more and discuss them.

1.

"If the Arab states had been injected with as much foreign capital as Israel has been, their exonomies, too, would have been flourishing". This is faulty on two grounds. First, defence has used up all Israeli's donated foreign capital and more. The Arabs have thus prevented her from using this money, as she would have preferred to, on internal development. Second have you ever heard of oil revenue? Some Arab states have the highest per capita income In the world. How long do we have to wait before their economies (and their lands) look like Israel's?

2

"In each of the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars it was Israel that actually attacked first, each time invading land that did not belong to it". This is very close to the logic of my small children, who say things like : "All I did was take his crayon and stamp on his foot and then he attacked me first". No doubt by similar reasoning (if it can be called reasoning) you will assert that England was the aggressor in WW2, because she undeniably crossed into Germany before Germany crossed into England. The truth is obviously that, after war begins on a border, it is the other side winning that crosses the border first, not necessarily the aggressor. A monent's thought about at least two of these wars, 1948 and 1967, would remind you of Israel's particular weakness at each of these times. In 1948 the state of Israel had just been declared, and everything was in chaos. In 1967, if I remember correctly, it was Yom Kippur that the Arabs chose to attack — a religious festival which closes down the country almost totally. It can be readily seen that Israel would never have chosen war at either of these times.

I want to respect your views, and I don't like to conclude that part of the appeal of the Palestinians lies in their surface glamour, but you have yet to convince me. Students have traditionally been seduced by the excitement and aggressiveness of ruthless terrorists with dark galsses and machine guns. It all makes me wonder whether academic work should not be carried out in conjunction with hard physical work for part of each day, as it was in some of the Israel settlements I visited. (Now there's a revolutionary idea for you. What? Us? Work?).

Salient rejects allegations of Soviet Social Imperialism

I have only been in your beautiful country a short time, but may I say how much I enjoy your newspaper. However, there is one thing wrong with it : the name. Do you not think a name like "Pravada" would be more appropriate ;

Will the real Trotskyites please stand up?

In the August 29 Issue of Salient, someone claiming to be a bona-fide non-partisan political studies student at Victoria University vomitted forth in the letter column a frenzied and utterly fabricated attack on the Socialist Labour League.

The political purpose of this attack is an attempt to divert attention from the content of the first meeting held at Victoria University by the Socialist Labour League.

The meeting was on Security and the Fourth International. The Socialist Action League, which figures prominently in the letter, has kept a cowardly and sinister silence, in public, for over two years on the indictment of their American godfather Joseph Hansen as an accomplice of the GPU, the Stalinist secret police.

In the Indictment of January 1 1975 it was proved conclusively that Joseph Hansen has maintained a 37 year cover up of the role of the GPU in the Trotskyist movement. Now it has also been revealed that Hansen formed a secret and personal contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in September 1940. This latest revelation has driven fake Trotskyists of the Socialist Action League to desperation in their cover-up attempt.

Trotsky fought continuously to expose the lies and falsifications of Stalin and particularly of the GPU'

The International Committee of the Fourth International continues in this tradition. With the two year investigation into Security and the Fourth International, the International Committee has laid the basis for clearing out of the workers movement the stench of the Stalinist counterrevolution carried over from the 1930's.

The practice of the Socialist Action League, a decaying bankrupt grouping of petty bourgeois democrats, is the opposite. They have nothing in common with revolutionary communism, Their practice is a refusal to set the historical record straight and lies and slander against those who do.

The alleged incident in the litter — of threatened violence and the barring of the letter writer from the meeting — is a fabrication from start to finish.

No one was barred from the meeting and no such incident took place.

One of the completely misused slogans in Hansen's orchestrated campaign of Lies and slander against the International Committee is "For democracy in the workers movement" — What they mean by this is defence of the 'rights' of the GPU, the Stalinist murder machine to operate in the workers movement without being exposed.

Presumably it is also a continuation of their past policy of defending the 'right' of J. Edgar Hoover, the late head of the FBI to speak on campuses throughout America.

I feel sure that "Hasty retreat" — pseudonym of the anonymous letter writer — did not object to the Prime Minister, the Right Honorable R.D. Muldoon speaking at Victoria. This courtesy however does not extend to revolutionary socialists. He or she concludes their letter :

"As a fee paying student my $30 odd Studass fee should. I feel, protect me from harassment on campus from people who had a questionable right to be there in the first place. The morons from the Socialist Labour League appear to be not only racist but act as Brown shirts in the extreme. Please restrict Political Barracking on campus to Bona-fide students !

The whole build-up of the letter, with all its screaming about democracy, and the creation of an incident in the writers head for the purpose, was for this : to bar outside political speakers on campus.

All serious students will treat the whole fabrication of the letter and particularly what the writer advocates in conclusion with the scorn it deserves.

page 16

Mulrennan castigates democracy

The September 19 demonstration against the Bill on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, led by VUWSA, has sparked some disagreement about the slogans used in the abortion campaign. Many of us who were active in building this demonstration disagreed with the slogan that was featured in the publicity. This slogan, "Abortion A Democratic Right ", was pushed by some of the leaders of the demonstration — especially by Lindy Cassidy, the President of VUWSA, and by David Macpherson, NZUSA Research Officer. I and many others supported the slogan of "Abortion A Woman's Right to Choose". I want to explain why we hold strongly to that slogan.

Even had I agreed with the demand "Abortion A Democratic Right" I would have objected to the way that it was introduced. The abortion policy of both NZUSA and VUWSA sutes clearly that abortion should be "A Woman's Right to Choose". The new demand was pushed ahead of our policy with no debate or discussion in NZUSA, or at our SRC, or even any debate or discussion at the organising meetings for the demonstration.

The ultimate in this high-handedness was the poster that NZUSA produced for the National Student Day of Action on the Bill. This displayed a photo of an American demonstration, the head banner of which in the original photo stated "Abortion A Woman's Right to Choose". In the NZUSA poster this demand was rubbed out and replaced with "Abortion A Democratic Right". A poster which desplayed the policy of NZUSA was altered to display the opinion of the NZUSA officers who produced it ! That in itself should be condemned.

The supporters of the demand "Abortion A Democratic Right" went both against their associations' policies and against the policy of the abortion movement internationally. Those fighting for abortion rights across the globe are increasingly raising the demand of "A Woman's Right to Choose" — and with good reason.

The popular view of democratic rights is that they refer to the rights of free speech, organisation etc., i.e. rights of political voice. The right to abortion is obviously different. The abortion laws directly affect women, denying them control over their own bodies. These laws are bound up with the oppression of women as a sex.

It is women who suffer under these laws, women who will lead the fight for their repeal, and women who will gain most from the repeal. That is why the abortion campagin has declared that abortion should be "a woman's right".

The supporters of the "Democratic Right" slogan claim that it relates the abortion struggle to other struggles against oppression. But in the way that it is being imposed, that slogan tends to direct the abortion campaign away from its main political dynamic — against the oppression of women. The abortion laws deprive women of the most basic right — control over their own reproductive lives. That lack of control is one of the most powerful chains binding women to their roles as wives and mothers. The fight for the right to abortion teaches women (and those who support their fight) about the wide range of oppression they face.

Mr Gill, SPUC, the Catholic Church and all the enemies of women's emancipation are prepared to say that abortion is just about anyone's right to choose but the woman's. The abortion movement, in response, is increasingly demanding that abortion be a woman's right. It is no time to change that demand ; now more than ever we should declare that "Abortion is a Woman's Right to Choose !".