Clinching It

But this was one of those rare occasions when that didn't get through, and the discussion continued on the motion. Clearly, there were many objections to authorising legal action, and it had been severely criticised. Mr. Evison could not discuss his motion since the amendment was under discussion, but he could, and did, move an amendment to the amendment deleting every word after "That" and inserting the original motion without the mention of legal aid. The chairman stopped, looked and wondered at this: but it was a perfectly correct amendment. He (Mr. Evison) started the discussion on the amended amendment by stating strongly that the amended form suggested by Mr. Heath was not forceful enough. Students should be allowed to print; this was a question of free expression, and the matter needed underlining. This was not done by the amendment What power is the Board to have over the ex pression of the student? Agals, be suggested that sample restrition was provided the law, sad that no further gage by the Board were neccsary or justifed.

The matter could obviously be reconsidered by the Association if the appeals to the Board and the Council failed; Mr. Jenkins would have to have an appeal in by September 22 for the Council.

The motion of closure was moved by Mr. Heath and it took Mr. O'Brien in the chair some tone to instruct the meeting what it was voting on; be took very great care to prevent anyone voting on the wrong thing; the closure motion was carried; the amendment was carried, then became the first amended form (do you follow? Again, the amendment was put to become the motion, and by 100 votes to 7 the closure was placed on discussion of this.

And breathlessly in the landslide of hands shooting up and down, scrutineers moving like shuttles, people standing ready for the final rush down the stairs, the motion was put and carried 78 to 34.

It was always clear that a protest was strongly supported; many obviously had reservations about committing themselves to the expense of legal action—paying the fine in the but resort might perhaps have been preferred, as being cheaper. Clearly, too, the affair was seen as an unnecessary restriction on the right of students to express their opinions. We shall therefore continue to regard it as our duty to publish everything sent in—as we always have (so long as it is readable)—and give every student a chance to speak within the bounds of the law.