For Your Convenience

I like abusing you. I feel/think that the muck /left-wing bullshit/biased bullshit/inaccurate bullshit/bullshit bullshit you pass off as journalism/propaganda/objective comment should cease at once/continue (it livens up lunch at the cafe) be printed on softer paper. I am writing on behalf of all sensible/right-thinking/mature/bone-idle students who are disappointed/disgusted/unsurprised by the turn that Salient has taken this year. Salient is paid for by students/hard-working students/real people and we think that it should represent these students/An drew Tees/ me/nobody at all/everybody except pinkos.

You and your lackeys/female friends on the executive/petty bourgeois closet revolutionaries/crap merchants/bureaucrats/trendy lefties should stop all this puerile nonsense/Tees bashing/barrow pushing.

If you cannot/will not/do not then you should resign/not resign (it keeps us amused)/ get run over by a truck.

De Aardvark Defended

In a recent Salient, Colonel Chomondeley refers to the Aardvark as a "Native beast of South Africa ...a country that practises unacceptable racial policies". In the interests of balanced journalism I forward a reply from the local Consulate.

"Die Aardvark is niet een naatif beest van Suid-Afrika, als U haaf zuigeested! Ouure ethnol- oogists haaf vound dat de Aardvark Kam inte de staat van Suid-Afrika [unclear: skarslij] twaalf yeers bevoor de inkomming van de uit maan. Die voortrekken van de uitlander op nordwaarts en die trekken van de Aardvarken suidwaarts met wid een verschrik- kelijk klaasje in de Transvaal. Deer was een groot baatel in uitj de twee ziedes foert veerjie braafljie but de uitmaan oveerkam dc Aardvarken in feer fijht zo dat die volk nu haaf de rijht te de land.

"U kan niet toerk van de Aardvark als iif dit weer oone beest! Dit mijht been vram die Aardvarken van de nord, oor die Aardvarken van de suid, oor De Aardvarken van de westen, oor de Aardvarken van de eesten. Eetj van dees Aardvarken haaf de distinktiif kuiltuure en de waay ov liif dat de Government in Suid Afrika waante te keep zaam voor eever en eever en eever. En waat abuit de waaj de Aardvarken been trieted in de odeer landen dat de kritiken van ouure land teend te ooverluik?'

"Dit is bekaas wij haaf moer Aardvarken dan aanie-oon cels dat die naatioons van de woerld been impoosing die zelektijf moeraality in de misguijded zimpaathjie voor de Aardvark."

Zurdo.

Pryor Pleased

Through your letters to the editor I would like to congratulate Caroline Massof and Mary Berber for one of the most objective pieces of reporting I have seen on the abortion issue for a long time.

It is encouraging to know that among those people who are writing for the Salient, there are people who have the ability to do what I regard as professional and objective journalism, on what to many people is a very controversial issue.

It is not always easy for people to put their own personal views to one side and write on this issue in a way which does not favour one side or the other. In the articles in the Salient June 12th, I believe that Caroline Mass of and Mary Barber did just this. They are to be congratulated.

There is one point that I would like to make. The article contained comments by Doctor Wainer on my visit to the fertility control clinic in Melbourne. I was asked if I had gone to the clinic under the guise of being a world (sic - Ed) member and asked if this was true to which I replied 'Yes, this is quite true'. I would like to add the comment that I said when I went to the Wainer clinic that I had been involved with Women's Electoral Lobby. In fact this was quite true. I had been involved with Women's Electoral Lobby more especially in the Porirua area. I had even written an article for the Wel newsletter in Porirua on the widows' issue. This explanation did not come through in the Salient. However, Caroline and Mary had gathered so much information from me when I was interviewed that I feel they had difficulty deciding which material to include and which to exclude.

However, I really would like to take the opportunity to say that I feel they did a first class job presenting both sides of this very controversial issue.

Saved by Biros

Did you know that one gallon of BIC Speed-line ball-point pen ink would service the writing needs of the 6000 ODD students at this establishment for approximately 170 years? Never underestimate ball-point ink.

The Whole Person Philosophy

I was interested to read Simon Wilson's comments on Dr Anna Holmes' presentation of sexuality and marriage printed in the latest Salient.

I should like to state quite simply that, even as reported, her attitudes show a greater depth of understanding on the subject than the reporter was prepared to admit. Furthermore I agree with them, and although attitudes of self-control may be old-fashioned they are still right.

Among the many positive statements made by Dr Anna Holmes at the forum on 'Sexuality and Marriage', I was delighted to hear one on Women's Liberation. Dr Holmes made it clear that many women's libbers in their quest for liberation have merely sought and taken over masculine ideals and roles. She likened this to the Paulo Freire notion of 'internalising the oppressor', liberation through becoming like the one who oppresses you.

When women go about this intemalising the male ideal there arises an equality and similarity between women and men that implies they can interchange at any time, it also implies a loss of individuality for women. (The direct inverse of liberation). Perhaps this kind of internalisation of man is symbolised by women now wearing men's three piece pin-striped suits? Whatever, the conclusion seems to be that woman becomes fully liberated when she acts in accord with what she most fully Is — specifically woman not a male impersonator.

Who's an Honest Student?

I would just like to ask you a few questions, to which I would very much appreciate some straight answers. Why are you and your left wing cronies so terrified of Andy Tees and his mob of middle of the road student politicians? You have the ability to defame them in your wonderful newspaper, an opportunity seldom goes by, when you don't actively criticise and slander them at your pleasure. If it wasn't for Andy Tees, and co, student politics at this varsity would be a very one-sided affair.

Despite your pathetic attempts at trying to down grade them as often as possible, I am one student who appreciates the effort these blokes make especially at SRCs where they have the guts to get up and express an alternative opinion. I abhor you and your staff's attempts to make these honest, conscientious students look foolish, simply because you don't agree with them.

I respect the freedom of the press, and I respect your opinions, however, you seem to think that you have the right to censor their opinions especially when they come into conflict with your own. I urge you firstly to apologize to the people concerned and to either resign or wake up to yourself, and give both sides of the argument. We students are getting sick and tired of picking up Salient and having to read socialist propaganda, and Marxist perspectives on every issue under the sun.

After three years in this wonderful institution I have had enough, I urge all students to come along to the SRCs and support these wonderful guys in their constant battle against the leftwing extremism that proports to "represent" the students.

Not a Trendy Lefty, but...

I am sick of people like Andrew Tees getting up at SRCs and writing letters claiming to represent the average student. I don't consider myself a trendy lefty but I do occasionally go along to the odd forum or SRC. I spend most of my time in the library because I'm at university to get a degree but I'm also interested in hearing alternative points of view which you don't get from the Dominion. Though I think Salient is too onesided it still gives an opinion which you don't hear elsewhere. Finally I'm sick of people saying students can manage on $15 a week. I'm flatting and don't want to bludge on my parents. That's why I can't manage on $15 a week.

We have been motivated to address your, readers by the sudden and unexpected appearance of this new publication, The Black Glump. We feel we have a moral duty to brine this right- wing rag to students' attention. We don't know who the perpetrators of this literary gem are, but it is our opinion that they should confine their journalistic efforts to the latrine walls, along with the rest of the shit written there.

Could you please tell us why Salient have remained silent about this contemptible, puerile, wretched organ of right-wing extremism? Surely, it is your bounded duty as editor, to openly condemn such affronts to the intellect of Victoria's students. What is more I couldn't do the bloody crossword!! I shall await your reply with eager anticipation,

An NZUSA Referendum

In Principle, a referendum to gain some indication of what students think about NZUSA IS necessary, despite the objections of our honourable President. A referendum is a very democratic way of doing things as it Can bring issues directly before students. This is accomplished by an informative 'debate' being conducted in the weeks before the referendum through student newspapers, posters, and the holding of discussions etc. All this done in moderation, could help bring about more student Involvement in the future of NZUSA. The referendum need not be binding - the results could simply be reported to an SRC or SGM to consider if further action is necessary. As far as cost is concerned, it could be considerably reduced by holding it at the next elections.

An SRC or SGM only, would not be a completely democratic way of doing things or of gauging a Representative student opinion on NZUSA as only the 'usuals' a very small selection of students and student opinion turns up to such meetings. Simon Wilson is correct in saying that there is no agitation for withdrawal from NZUSA. However, There is in Existence a Body of Opinion which Favours Further Substantial Reform of the Structure of Nzusa, principally to make more provision for the expression of Individual participation, and to make available more provision for Individual student views.

One can't write a book about possible reform in this letter; but NZUSA must reform or else it will crash physically as well as morally which it has done already by losing the support and interest of Victoria's and other students throughout Nz. the Ostrich's Heads Must be Pulled out of the Sand! it's Time a Spade was Called a Spade!

Andy Tees.

Last Week's Crossword

I wish to complain about the crossword in last week's Salient. It was Too Hard! This was complicated by the fact that the clue for 22 down should have read "Body of water" and not "Be conscientious". I hope your standards improve.

I wish to complain about the crossword in last week's Salient. It was Too Easy! This was not helped by the ploy of ommitting the label from square 13, and spelling "contiguous" wrongly. I hope your standards improve.

Another Piece of Spite

It's me again. Another Malaysian-less SRC has gone by. Why doesn't A. Tees, the "terror of the SRC" move the motion as I suggested last issue? I'd have done it but like the rest in my genre, I just "couldn't be bothered".

There's some rumours around, that I am a MSSA agent, I thought I'd better clarify the thing, not that I wanted to defend MSSA, but rather because I wanted to keep my good name away from being associated with such an association as MSSA, Ha, what a joke, tho' the name includes Singapore, how many Singaporeans do they have as members? MSA, MSSA what's the difference? They're both faces of the same coin.

Some friends of mine commented that it is a quiet year, not much mud-slinging as last. Of course! Sleeping people don't quarrel! Both Assns don't quarrel because there isn't anything to quarrel about. What have both Assns done so far? NOSAC organised the ISC. NZMSST organised the sports tournament. Where does that leave the two so-called representative Organisations?

I also got the information that the OCF (Holy of Holy Organisation) has elected mostly girls in their "fellowship". Well done! The Women's Lib will be happy. So will I be as it shows an improvement in the mentality of the "fellows" Amen! (Any change is bound to be an improvement at any rate.)

The new batch of students (esp. girls) were no better than their elders, sometimes I think Gill has the right attitudes after all. Why waste our energy in fighting for a bunch of nitwits who couldn't be bothered whether they come or not? When the first thing they did was to criticise Movick, the very person to have fought for them. James, you are a sucker, if you think these "kids" are grateful for what you did. They think that you should have stuck to your books, than for you to fight for their rights to come!

In conclusion, MSA, MSSA, OCF, go and wank yourselves (of course, the last category won't do it here, they'll do it only in heaven in eternal bliss!)

Keeping up the Averages

Who says you don't get any letters?

Abortion in 1975

In Salient 12-6-78 Leonie Morris gave an answer to WONAAC in which she referred to an SGM meeting in 1976 as a justification for voting against support for WONAAC. While on the subject of background information it is instructive to examine an event at Victoria University in the previous year because it shows how Catholic Action works both in student politics and in the former NZBC, now Radio New Zealand (alias "Radio Vatican").

Briefly, an SRC meeting was held on the campus in mid September at which a motion was passed rescinding the original students association policy allowing abortion and substituting a Catholic policy opposing abortion. Taken at face value this seems fair enough, but let us look more closely.

It so happened that less than two hours notice was given of the meeting, so that many students did not find out about the meeting until it was over, and what is more significant, the meeting was "stacked" with known Catholic students. In other words a pressure group, which was by no means a representative selection of student opinion, cunningly pushed through a motion that became official students association policy.

The meeting was barely over (about one o'clock) when an NZBC reporter was found mingling with the students to find their reactions and of course to bring the good news to people in the Wellington TV viewing area (about 7 o'clock). A pro-Catholic policy is "news" as we would expect.

However, during the next few days the implications filtered through to the student community at large and another meeting was called, with more advance notice, and at which a more representative selection of students were present, and the original students association policy of allowing abortion was reaffirmed. It is significant that the reversal of decision - again official policy - was not included in the NZBC news.

In other words the news and current affairs staff propagated the pro-Catholic motion as official students association policy while concealing both the circumstances and the official reversal of policy a few days later, so that a few hundred thousand people in the Wellington TV viewing area will mistakenly think that the Victoria University Students Association is officially opposed to abortion. This deception is part of the gentle art of brainwashing which I have discussed elsewhere. Please yourself if you want to think that the Catholics in the NZBC did not know about the second meeting - it is not the Catholic way of working.

Coming back to 1978; the recent plans of certain members of the students executive to delete from students association records information which they don't like (support for those favouring abortion) is a calculated and deliberate attempt to deceive future generations of students at this university. The spirit of 1975 remains: it is only the methods that have changed.

Donald J. Beswick.

What about Movick?

During the final plenary of the International Students Congress, held in Canterbury, May 1978, a number of resolutions were passed. One of the areas covered by these resolutions concerned the continued struggle by overseas students to gain equal rights with local students as regards student politics ie. elected positions in Student Unions and NZUSA.

In view of this struggle Congress passed a resolution of acknowledgment (R.16)

"That this Congress loudly acclaims the selfless dedication and contributions of James Movick in advocating the rights of overseas students while in his capacity as NOSAC co-ordinator and International Vice President of NZUSA."

James Movick had been in many ways the active centre for the vocalization of overseas students interests. But a lack of foresight by NZUSA and the discriminatory policies of the Immigration Dept, had made sure that the position of Movick was untenable whereby he was subsequently ordered to leave the country voluntarily or face the threat of deportment.

A previous letter from us (Salient April 24) had pointed out that it was NZUSA's bureaucratic mentality and lack of any real interests in the overseas students movement which allowed a situation to exist whereby although overseas students pay the same amount of union fees as the local students they have not been getting the obligatory equal rights in the union and NZUSA affairs. James Movick's ordeal had objectified this position sufficiently enough for overseas students to recognise the fact that the plight of James Movick was reflective of the general position of all overseas students.

The ISC thus passed two other specific resolutions in view of the need to continue the fight for equal rights,

Resolution 19 (b): "That this Congress urges NZUSA to continue the struggle to win equal rights for overseas students to take up NZUSA positions. We recommend that NZUSA tries all possible means to bring James Movick back to New Zealand to continue the job he was elected to do."

Resolution 12: "That this Congress believes that the work done for overseas students and on international campaigns are a vital part of NZUSA's activities and thus strongly supports the retention of the International Vice President position." (Carried unanimously with acclamation).

These wishes and interests of the overseas students had been expressed with the hope that NZUSA would continue its publicly stated campaign to fight for the James Movick case. But what subsequently happened at the NZUSA May Council,.. held shortly after the International Students Congress, has dealt a serious blow to the continuation of this struggle. The position of International Vice-President of NZUSA was scraped.

In their attempts to hold the bureaucratic status-quo intact by means of a series of compromises they found it convenient to sacrifice the interests of the overseas students. Thus the struggle to get James Movick back into the country and thus possibly win equal rights for all overseas students can no longer be continued, for the elected position left vacant by Movick's departure no longer exists.

And to Lindy Cassidy, President VUWSA we have two quotes from her reply to our last letter, in which she defended NZUSA, followed by two questions,

Quote 1; "A great deal of time and money was put into trying to appeal against the Minister of Immigration's decision through the courts! Now that James has left that battle continues."

Question; Could you please give us an outline as to how this battle is being continued, what headway has been made and whether the abrogation of the elected position of James Movick could have in any way an adverse effect on the appeals to get Movick back to NZ.

Quote 2: "Though we have lost the first stage of this campaign NZUSA is obliged to continue to win equal rights for overseas students. It is an important principle, and one which I personally am prepared to continue to fight for."

Question: Could Lindy Cassidy inform us of the position she and other members of the VUWSA delegation to the May Council took as regards the NZUSA position of International Vice-President?

We the undersigned believe that the above questions be adequately answered and the situation be clarified if NZUSA hopes to continue being seen by overseas students as a politically dependable organisation reflecting the interests and demands of the general overseas student body.

WONAAC Supported

I find Leonie Morris' letter on WONAAC less than sincere. Once more it is a Maoist or Stalinist attack on the Trotskyists and as usual it is underhand and lacking in integrity.

The 'Women's National Abortion Action Committee' otherwise known as WONAAC was set up by Trotskyist feminists and it was the first abortion action group to recognise "abortion as a woman's right".

As a feminist in 1973 I was drawn to this group by its uncompromising stand on woman's rights and the dedication and effectiveness of WONAAC women in the feminist movement as a whole. (It is only very recently that the Maoists have taken any positive interest in the feminist movement and the abortion issue with the setting up of Arc. Even now I am doubtful whether this is the expression of a sincere interest in women's rights - rather I think it is in the interests of Maoist or Stalinist political expediency; for example the constant attack by Maoist students on WONAAC.)

Let me state categorically that WONAAC is not anti-male, as Leonie Morris well knows. The constant support and morale boosting that men gave WONAAC in 1973 decided me then and there against feminist separatism. However these men (unlike many Maoist or Stalinist men, I suspect) have the maturity and integrity to realise that because abortion is a feminist issue women should lead and organise the struggle for abortion as a woman's right. Not only are men sympathetic to WONAAC content to play a supportive role but they actively encourage women to be more assertive in taking organisational and leadership roles.

As far as I am concerned Leonie Morris and her fellow Maoist/Stalinists, by seeking to discredit WONAAC and split the pro-abortion movement, are not truly interested in women's rights at all.

Like many other liberal students (not only in Wellington: note the Canterbury University and Lincoln College discontent with NZUSA) I am heartily sick of the part a small group of Maoists play in student politics. Their tactics are too often anti-democratic, dishonest and slanderous.

WONAAC Defends itself

Leonie Morris's letter in the June 12 issue of Salient which sets out to justify the VUWSA delegation's attack on WONAAC at May Council, merely echoes right-wing attacks on the women's liberation movement. Opponents of women's rights have always raised the bogey of "anti-male" and "men haters" in an attempt to smear the justice of women's demands and to undermine support for our struggles. By taking up these slanders and lending credence to them, Leonie is doing a service to the right-wing.

WONAAC is not anti-men nor does it label men as the enemy. Our fire has always been directed at the government and its right-wing allies such as SPUC. A fact Leonie is well aware of since she participated in a debate at the Women's Abortion Rights Conference in Auckland where WONAAC members forcefully opposed a proposal for a campaign against men.

WONAAC's stand is pro-woman. Our decision-making meetings are open to women only, but we have always welcomed male support and assistance to implement our decisions. Men distribute leaflets, provide financial assistance and swell numbers on public protest actions.

At times WONAAC has initiated coalitions which included men, to campaign against specific attacks on abortion rights - the Wall Bill, the charges against Dr Woolnough, the Gill Bill, the Royal Commission Report, and the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion legislation.

On a long-term basis we actively seek support for WONAAC's aims and objectives from groups and individuals, whether they be female or male.

However, we maintain that no section of society which has been subjected to oppression, whether they be national minorities, workers, gays, or women, can delegate the leadership and promotion of their fight for freedom to other forces - even though those forces can act as allies.

WONAAC is a component of the women's liberation movement organised around the key demand for a woman's right to choose abortion. As women we claim the right to lead and organise our own fight for that right.

Leonie is right when she states: "Only by mobilising the greatest number of New Zealanders for women's democratic right to abortion will the fight be won." WONAAC has always sought to do this.

But that doesn't imply that women must abdicate leadership of the struggle to achieve this. In fact it is absolutely crucial that they don't. The fight must be seen to be led and won by women.

A victory on this issue will strengthen the women's liberation movement and give it added confidence to continue the struggle to end all forms of women's oppression. And it will deal a mighty blow to the ruling ideology of this society which portrays women as naturally inferior because of their biological differences to men.

While we remain vulnerable to unwanted pregnancies, we remain chained to this sexist society's concept of women being defined and limited by their biology - destined first and foremost to produce and care for children, and thereby denied the right to choose how we will live our own lives.

That is why women are demanding the control of their bodies. It is not only because they can't afford any more children, or a child might be born deformed, or because it is dangerous for them to have children. These are added reasons which serve to highlight the degraded position women are in.

Men can only act as real allies of the abortion rights campaign when they understand this and are prepared to fight on this basis. Without a total commitment to women's rights on this issue, including our right to organise, you are only conceding to the arguments of right-wing forces who assert that women are inferior, incapable of acting responsibly or of making decisions about their own lives without men to protect and guide them.

I have been asked to write to Salient on behalf of W'ONAAC (Wellington). We were surprised to read an interview in your June 12 issue in which Geraldine Whiteford promoted the Abortion Rights Campaign as an on-going organisation. Perhaps the editing of the interview was at fault but to our knowledge Arc was intended as a short-term coalition.

Our understanding of the situation is that Arc was established at a public meeting on April 22 as a coalition of abortion rights groups and individuals. WONAAC Wellington is one of the groups involved.

The purpose of the coalition was to organise a public meeting and march to protest the abortion laws. These are to be held on July 10 and 14 respectively. Yet no mention is even made of these activities in the interview.

The organisation of these events was to be handled by a committee open to anyone interested in helping. As well monthly public organising meetings were to be called where the committee would report back and the abortion rights groups in Wellington would also report on their own activities. In this way it was hoped to provide a point of liason between groups to avoid duplication of activities and obtain wider support for these.

The question of whether Arc was to be continued as an on-going body was also discussed. It was decided that this matter would be taken up after the July actions.

As far as we are aware, this is still the situation.

Jewish Nationalism

It is obvious from your writings and those of some of your contributors that you and they have no idea as to what Zionism is. At least not outside of what it is depicted to be in anti-Israeli propaganda, which must be treated with a great deal of suspicion (would anyone believe a nazi's description of a Jew?) In fact the view expressed, especially by you, is even less sophisticated than that which suggests that anyone who questions you or anti-Israel statements must be therefore Zionist, the same sort of equation that Senator MacCarthy used in the 1950's quest of "communists".

Let's consider the Jewish people's connection with Palestine and Israel. That land has been an essential part of his religious beliefs for the past 4000 years. The "roots" of the Jewish people are seen to lie in Israel (which is a part of historic Palestine). This idea plays a major role in their holy scripture - the Torah (or pentateuch) - the mosaic law, as well as the rest of the Bible and other works of theology (Talmud etc).

Since the time of his dispersion (the Diaspora) after the destruction of his most holy shrine the Temple at Jerusalem, the Jewish people have longed to return to the Holy Land. The longing to return to Israel is signified in all parts of his life, and is re-emphasised both in his daily and Sabbath Synagogue services.

For those of you, as yourself, who have been brought up and socialized in a Christian society where such an emphasis does not exist may find the idea difficult to accept and comprehend, but it is central to Judaism. It became especially prominent in Europe during the 19th century with the emergence of a lot of anti semitism, which culminated in progroms in Russia, and the Dreyfus trial in France and other such events. This was also the height of European nationalism.

It was agianst this background that in 1897 Theodor Herzl convened a conference which founded what is recognized as modem political Zionism, which is essentially Jewish nationalism. It is no less valid than French nationalism or Slavic nationalism etc. The Jewish people may be scattered geographically, but they are linked not only by religion and language but also by an essentially common culture. Anyone who knows anything about Judaism (ie. "that it is not just a religion but a way of life") will understand what I mean by the validity of Jewish nationalism. Apart form these factors it becomes more valid if one considers the fact that whereever they have lived it has been (often forced) in cohesive communities outside the host community.

The main resurgence of Zionism in modern times came as a result of the Jewish holocaust after the Nazis - the shocked energy from which set up the State of Israel in 1948.

Essentially Zionism is a political movement which as Jewish nationalism advocates the ingathering of all Jewish people to Israel (it being the only place that Jews can live a whole and normal people rather than as an outcast minority).

But after 1948 a new factor came into being in Jewish life - Israel. No Jew, if he accepts his religion, can avoid being pro-Israel. Not to be pro-Israel would be to deny his religion. But that does not mean he is necessarily Zionist, ie. supports the precepts of Jewish nationalism. There is a valid difference!

To those of you who call yourselves Marxist, let me point out that Macx was not against Zionism (see his writings on the Jewish question) because it was Jewish or because it advocated the taking back of the land of Palestine, but because it was nationalism. Marx said that Jews ought to assimilate into the population and work for the ultimate struggle - freeing the proletariat from the oppression of bourgeoise capitalist owners of the means of production. Nationalism worked against that ultimate goal, as such marxists ought to condemn Palestinian nationalism, that is the PLO.

Israel has been a state for thirty years, as such it is now an historical fact, to suggest its destruction, to try and turn back the dock thirty years, is simplistic idealism and is not compatible with any acceptable ideology.

On Judging the "Facts"

You continually talk of Israel as expansionist, yet it returned the Sinai in 1956, and today in withdrew from the South of Lebanon. As well as this it has continually staled that it is willing to negotiate on all other territories that it occupies for a guarantee of peace (which seems fair enough). Is this expansionism? Come on you don't have to accept propaganda, you can judge facts as they are, can't you?

Its funny how all we get from you about Israel is how bad it is, and how good the PLO are, you complain about Israel in Lebanon but don't talk of the demonstrations against the PLO by the Lebanese of the South Lebanon, (oh no) or the reconstruction of roading or housing by the Israelis in South Lebanon (these are reported in the Economist, and Time, etc.)

Perhaps that would weaken your case, I mean balance and objectivity are not your style.

A. R. K Smith.

When is a Zionist not a Zionist?

In Salient June 16, page 15 there is a letter you put under the heading "Zionist tactics Criticised". Nowhere in the letter was there a criticism of Zionists by name (in fact the writer suggested that he was pro-Israel - as he said he found being anti-Israel, like anti-semitism or Nazism, abhorrent).

It seems Simon that you suppose that any one who criticises your editorial policy or your reporting must be Zionist - your statements certainly reflect that. I am not a Zionist and I criticise your editorial policy and your reporting (not only of the Atashi forum but also of other things too). Are you going to call me a Zionist?

Fortunately there are a large number of students who are dissatisfied with your Salient, there are even rumours that there is going to be an alternative paper. It seems that I may be in a majority and you and your supporters in a minority.

Come on Simon, lets see some journalistic professionalism, give up your name calling. MacCarthy used to look under his bed for "Reds" perhaps you should for Zionists.

A. Student.

Workers Interrupt Student Pleasures

As a law student I am pissed off with work but I am also much more pissed off with the fool who hammers away above and below the law library on successive mornings. Kindly Stop or else I will come and shag your...... off. I am also hosed off with the insufficient library hours at weekends Somebody do Something about it..............

Perhaps you might even consider publishing this instead of the usual irrelevant rubbish you print about South Africa and Zaire etc.

The Last Round on Christianity

Sorry to drag out the "Christian" debate, but neither do I like letting the opposition have the last word. In fairness I should have clarified my stance, in my first letter. I don't claim to be rational, especially as regards matters of common- sense, nor do I aspire to be so. At present I am perfecting a philosophy of irrationalism - or better - arationalism (cf immoral, amoral), which takes a warm and tolerant but strictly realistic view of rationalism. I believe in God, and the Bible because it is the only thing that makes nonsense of life, the most bizarre philosophies after this, are, by comparison homely and earth-bound. So! In the happy mental anarchy of my Irish extraction, I continue. Seriously tho', I may write irrationally but it doesn't mean I am stupid.

So, to your letter, Gary. You said: Christians do not use common sense - right? Therefore you would abandon commonsense on the same ground, exams or Christianity; the same test should apply - right? And I said that there might be a case for using commonsense when the practice was consequential (exams) and a time for abandoning common-sense in such cases where this was inconsequential, or, at least, had outlived its usefulness.

"Isaiah" if you must know, was used as metonomy, like if I said "have you got wheels?" You don't need to go checking my autonomy, you know I'm referring to the whole car. I also referred to Isaiah for his direct, unsentimental approach, another correspondent referred to Isaiah's regard for frank, rational discussion. He also has the utmost scorn for the overprivileged and powerful, and of course would abhor any religion tending the least bit towards polytheism and worship of images - God knows whose side he'd take in this debate. But that's another issue...

And why refer to the prophets instead of the Christians on compus, about whom we are really talking? Only in that the one in their writings, the others in their sayings, have a bit in common ...tho' I won't go into detail now. (Actually the 'you' in the last sentence of my letter was metronomic too, referring not just to you Gary, but to everyone writing exams. Sorry not to clarify that).

Next week I shall discuss the paradox 'God is not religious', a central axiom of my philosophy (deeper than you think), and YHWH, or 'did God invent the meaningless acronym?' I also think I might stop sheltering behind pseudonyms, seeing as Herrington has never done so.

Mr Rebel G. Herrington is lobbing dialectic grenades again.

I suggest he was too hasty to draw his knife. Rebel is constrictive to equate therapeutic abortion with Direct intervention of life. May I quote: "....the saving of the life of the mother-to-be, independently of her pregnant condition, should have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the foetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt .... the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions, granted always that another good of high worth is concerned...." (Pope Pius XII, Address to the Family Associations, November 26, 1951). Care to read p. 28, vol. 1, New Catholic Encyclopedia, and also consult p. 1021, vol. 4, for the exposition of the principle of double effect?

Rebel misconstructed my challenge to him. I didn't suggest he become a Christian to help the cause of humanity (excuses, eh?) He couldn't discern the authentic Protestant spirit either. A Catholic or Protestant secs God, not man, as the author of Charity !

Rebel insists to perpetuate the fallacy that materialism automatically entowed happiness and goodness. Alas! Sickness, disappointments and cruelty of this world, would mar our whole existence. What guarantee is there to assure the dying man that his life had a purpose?

Time is short, eternity is long.

I agree that if you aren't interested in the problem of religion letters about it can be boring but M. Morgan was apparently interested enough to devote part of his letter to it. He should also remember there is a lot of truth in Marx's statement that "The criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism." In any case the Christians can end the correspondence whenever they like simply by confessing their errors and promising to reform.

In answer to Q (1) I had to do an assignment but anyway who would go to a Christian discussion when they could be doing an accountancy assignment. I have not been to any Christian discussions and I don't intend to go to any, provided, of course, that's alright with M. Morgan. I would feel like Daniel in the lions' den and just feeling like Daniel is bad enough for a devout atheist. Also I doubt I would learn anything I couldn't learn from other sources.

In answer to Q (2) I haven't made an effort to find out what the Christian Clubs are doing because I naturally assumed they were promoting Christianity.

A Julian Heyes Lackey Complains

This letter is in protest at the authoritarian manner with which Lindy Cassidy, President of VUWSA, struck the name of J. Heyes from the apologies at the last meeting of SRC. The reason we are told, is that all people who apologise must make a personal appearance to Lindy, so that she may believe he/she/they exist. Does he exist? Indeed he does. The man has spoken at SRCs, amended motions. What more must he do?

Why must he personally vindicate himself to Lindy in order to be recognized as existing? Who is Lindy? God, man or mouse (sorry, got carried away)? I appeal in the name of justice, in the name of peace, and in the name of Julian Heyes to reinstate his name in its proper place, its rightful place (in the case of this meeting), the list of names under apologies.

Rise students, rise and fight for your rights, and Julian Heyes' rights to apologise.