page 3

SRC: Is Jimmy Carter a Nice Guy?

The minutes floated by like a dream, and one matter arose from Matters Arising: Rire Scotney wanted to know how far the proposal from the last meeting to invite Mr Gandar up to campus had got. Basically nowhere was the reply. Sue Cairney detailed the cunning minister's moves to thwart the plan, including such desperate tactics as the labelling of the entire month of August "fully booked", and we all had to gasp at such political skill.

Lindy Cassidy suggested that the best way to combat such behaviour was to ignore it; in other words take the petition invitation to parliament anyway, whatever the erstwhile Minister for Education thinks he's doing at the time. This proposal met general agreement and Sue will be calling an Education action meeting to get arrangements under way.

Lindy reported the setting of a new deadline for SRC motions; 4.30 on the last Monday afternoon before the meeting. Paul Norman announced that there will be an Environment Forum this Tuesday at 12 o'clock in the Union Hall. Speakers: Venn Young, Richard Prebble, and Dr Ian Prior.

Elections made their inevitable appearance and were inevitably largely disregarded by the apathetic masses, with the heroic exception of Jim "Albatross" Brown who nominated, supported and elected himself to both the Pacific Studies Committee and the Open Day Committee with an enthusiasm which should serve as an example to the rest of us. Despite the desperate position of the Arts Faculty (8 positions, 2 filled) only one person was prepared to stand. And a man by the name of Smith was elected to the Open Day Committee with Brown. Thus ended elections (till next time).

The first motion to come before the meeting was one of those boring financial motions that they have to put at the beginning to stop everyone from leaving. The Arts Festival is at Canterbury next year and that university has guaranteed the first $7,500 of any deficit it might incur, asking that other campuses accept a prorata share up to $1,300 of any further deficit. The motion asked the meeting to accept this arrangement. Paul Norman introduced himself as Steve Underwood's mouthpiece and sounded that familiar Underwood note of caution, should the Festival incur enough of a deficit to require the full amount payable we would probably need 25c more per person on next year's fees. Simon Wilson pointed out that such a deficit was unlikely anyway (last year had been a particular fiasco for a number of reasons), and after some detailed explanations of why, the motion was carried.

The next one didn't escape so easily. It read, "That this Association condemns the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union and United States, and deplores the way in which the issue of human rights is being used as a pawn in the rivalry between the two super powers and particularly condemns the inhuman treatment of Scharanskey, Ginzburg and Petkus."

Simon Wilson and Leonie Morris explained the thinking behind the motion in some detail. Obviously it was prompted by the recent trials in the USSR they said, but it also aimed to look at the role human rights played in the relationship between the two superpowers, the USSR and the USA.

Since the Vietnam War and the exposure of CIA activities abroad the USA's image has become considerably tarnished. The States; wishing to regain its reputation as the good guy in the world, has taken up the question of human rights violations in its enemy country, despite its continued involvement with the fascist regimes in South Korea, Brazil and Chile, to mention only a few. Neither does it have a clean record at home, as Andrew Young and the American Indian cause have so recently demonstrated.

The point was, although human rights are consistently violated in the Soviet Union, the States is less concerned with this than with making capital in the world's eyes put of condemning it, and we should not be fooled. The growing rivalry between the two superpowers is the dominant aspect of the world political situation, and this should be recognised.

Objections followed on various grounds. It was generally accepted that there was an element of hypocrisy in America's policy, but the motion, said some, seemed to ignore the difference in the degree of human rights violation between the two countries. One speaker boldly asserted that he could call President Carter a "dick" without being shot, although this was never actually put to the test. Someone asked for specific examples of American oppression, and was given several: Kent State shootings, American Indian land rights, the predominance in the prisons of minority groups like blacks.

About this time the motion was amended to delete the reference to the Soviet trials. (A separate motion about these, including the decision to send a telegram of protest to the Soviet Embassy was formulated and later passed). A second amendment rephrased the motion so that it condemned the violation of human rights by the two superpowers, rather than just in them.

"What good will the motion do?" asked Andrew Tees. " Forgive me if I'm a bit dumb - I find it very difficult to understand." "We do, We do" came a unified roar from the other side of the room, confirming that good feeling and generosity still prevailed despite this candid confession from Tees.

It's sometimes important to take a stand on principle even if it's unlikely to have any immediate concrete effect, Wilson explained in his right of reply. Both motions were passed unanimously.

Motion No. 3 was a plea that the [unclear: cefetaeria] open at 8.45 am, from now on, instead of the "present average opening time of 9.15". Paul Norman spoke to the motion, saying that the catering staff were quite amenable to this suggestion, and detailed with great drama the time when, without a thought for his own safety he, at 9.10 one morning, pulled back the cafeteria curtain to reveal the staff sitting around drinking coffee! After expressing the proper degree of horror and indignation the meeting passed the courageous little motion. Shortly afterwards another motion was passed asking for $20 from the International Affairs Officer's budget to help with expenses incurred during the forthcoming Hiroshima Day commemoration activities.

With the agenda completed, Lindy asked if there was anything else to be raised. Victor Chang brought up a motion condemning the Labour Dept. for their refusal to allow overseas students sufficient extension of their permits to enable them to attend the graduation ceremony upon completion of their degrees. The motion was unanimously — passed.

Jonathan Scott