Radio Active and the IHC

A few thoughts on Radio Active. The idea of a student radio station is a good one as it can help pioneer new uses of perhaps the most powerful of the media. Also a lot of good noncommercial music which does not arrive here until perhaps a year or two after its overseas release, can be given some exposure. But I object to Radio Active's use of the IHC appeal as an attempt to project a 'good guy' image to the public. The attitude of the jocks was relaxed and seemed reminiscent of children having a good time at the taxpayers expense.

The IHC is a worthy cause and its use as a political football betrays a cynical attitude on the part of some of the prime movers behind Radio Active. As my late - lamented maternal grandmother said (once) on her deathbed, "If y'a gonna do it, do it well."

By the way Andrew Tees seems to be suffering from dysarthia, a speech problem involving poor articulation of words.

Fable Filching

I would like to take up a point made by our gracious Madam President in her column in the issue for 24 July. She claims that NZUSA is by very nature a political organization and to say otherwise is rubbish. Well, I would have though that NZUSA and in particular our own VUWSA are by very nature welfare organizations acting to protect the interests of university students, and should only get involved in politics when necessary to fulfil that role. I don't think wasting great amounts of time arguing whether or not to condemn the USA and the USSR for human rights violations is doing much to protect the interests of students.

Just what exactly is to be achieved by passing all these motions anyway? I can just see the scene. SRC passes a motion condemning the USA and USSR. Very soon afterwards aides rush in to President Carter while he's watching "Charlie's Angels"; "Sir, VUWSA has just passed a motion condemning us". "Bloody Hell", says Carter, "Better call an emergency meeting of the Cabinet right away." Meanwhile it's the early hours of the morning in Moscow as aides rush in to wake Brezhnev with a similar message and get a similar reply.

There is a fable by Aesop which I think fits here. It is called "The Gnat and the Bull".

One day a gnat landed on the horn of a bull. It stayed a while and rested, and then decided to fly away. Before leaving it said to the bull; "Do you mind if I fly away now?" "It's all the same to me", replied the bull, "I didn't see you come and I won't know when you leave."

The moral is that we are sometimes more important in our own eyes than in those of others. Let's face it, who knows about the motions SRC passes anyway? The few who were at SRC and the even fewer who read it in Salient.

You, Mr Editor, have said that it is sometimes important to take a stand on principle even it it's unlikely to have any immediate concrete effect. But why? It is a pointless time wasting and money wasting exercise that Never has any concrete effect. If we did not do it we could save time at SRCs, save money on the printing of the agenda and minutes (which would be reduced to a mere fraction of what they are now) and then be able to devote more time to the issues that should be concerning the association, such as bursaries, internal assessment, student unemployment, library hours, those lifts in Rankine Brown, etc.

It is not just international events that student associations should keep their noses out of, but also New Zealand issues, such as abortion, the SIS Act, etc. These do not affect students As Students. Therefore the associations should not get involved. It is good that people should be concerned about these issues but they should get involved through special protest groups, not through student associations.

It is interesting to think how much imagination went into writing those sentence openings.

It is interesting to note that our president reads that "newspaper" which masquerades under the name "Truth".

Democratic Fiddling?

One can only feel a great of distaste concerning the actions of Patrick Mulrennan and those who supported him in a call for a recount on the abortion/cafe motion at the last SRC (August 30th).

While the right to call for a recount remains unchallenged, Mr Mulrennan should realise that its purpose is to establish the authenticity of a count where there is reason to believe that the tallying has been in some way inaccurate, eg. invalid votes, disagreeing scutineers etc.

Mr Mulrennan and those who supported the recount motion effectively reversed a democratically made decision on this matter, in the (correct) hope that the small time lapse and the changed composition of the meeting (7 people left; several arrived) would result in a reversal of what was a cliffhanger decision.

[unclear: I] there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a count, by all means ask for it to be repeated, but do not use this right to procrastinate and manipulate in order to reverse a decision already democratically taken (with both scrutineers agreeing on the count).

Zionism in NZ

A few corrections to last week's Salient:

Mark Shenken is a chairman of the New Zealand Union of Jewish Students, which is affiliated to the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (of which Mirk is the NZ regional organizer). This is affiliated to the World Union of Jewish Students.

The Israeli ambassador Mr Morris is not responsible for any of the "Zionist propaganda" that you can find in the libraries etc. This information is supplied by a federation of all Jewish organisations in NZ (the NZ Zionist Federation) which runs two Israel information offices, in Wellington and Auckland. This Federation has been in existence since the 1920's and has been supplying information about Zionism since then and about Israel since 1948 (note that there has only been an Israeli embassy in NZ for 3 years).

What is this "official Zionist policy" that you talk of that permeates all information? Official from who? If it is the (World) Zionist Federation then I find that surprising as they are not that strong. Perhaps you mean the Israeli view - well then that would be natural and you should call it Israeli and not Zionist, but from Israel it is patriotic response rather than the Zionist's expression of Jewish nationalistic yearning. Or perhaps we are again hearing about this mysterious ghost the World Zionist conspiracy (a thing dreamed up by the nazi's). You should be careful when you make these silly generalizations.

Another Attack on Beach

I must take this opportunity to protest at the shit not even thinly disguised as accurate or in any way impartial, in Salient a couple of weeks ago, entitled somewhat naively 'Zionism in search of a cause'.

I wonder how you can stomach the hypocrisy of making a genuine criticism of some of our more openly corrupt politicians and then turn around and do exactly the same sort of thing yourself by trying to obscure the real problems under a pile of propaganda (remind you of anybody?). One must seriously cast aspersions as to your competency to continue as editor of a paper which must surely have the fair and truthful information of its readership as one of it's aims.

When I approached you in the Council Room last meeting and asked you what you thought of the article you sheepishly replied that you thought it 'favoured your side'. Don't you think it is an abuse of your position to use Salient as your private propaganda vehicle while presenting the student population with very little in the way of impartiality?

Another fine example of this sort of this practice is the long string of very one sided articles published almost weekly covering selected aspects of the Middle-East conflict, bandying about such new left catch words as 'Zionist imperialism' and reference to the State of Israel its 'Palestine', rather like some primer to a primary school interpretation of the PLO manifesto. On one recent occasion when you pretended to supply a balanced argument you managed to mysteriously fuck it up causing doubt as to whether it was bias or just incompetency that caused the other view to be improperly represented.

One would have hoped that perhaps the report of a debate would escape the treatment and could have been presented impartially. Speaking as one of the few who was there, it gives a completely twisted account of the points raised and the way in which they were dealt with. Even Peter Beach didn't believe what he was writing, he says, "I expect that I will be accused of being biased reporting of this debate as Mr Carsen's arguments have been presented in greater detail than Mr Hirshfeld's".!!!! Really Simon you can't get more dishonest than covering up a debate by editing the highlights, that's the way they put away the dissidents (remind you of anyone?).

Patriarchal Patronizing Reply

Nanette McDonald's over emotional and ill-informed attack on my letter, is typical of the problem faced by the Women's Rights Movement. I never suggested that Government legislation has been able to institute 'instant social change', nor did I make any value judgement relating to the inherant usefulness of home science and needlework.

What I did ask, was what is the role of men, in the women's rights struggle? Do we indeed have a part to play, or should we remain silent, sitting back and [unclear: cing] nothing but observe the situation worsening? Contrary, to what Ms McDonald's literary gem would suggest, I feel the struggle is a just one, and I merely was inquiring as to how the male population can get involved?

Finally, I would conclude by saying that I am delighted Ms McDonald is at university, not in "the home", and I wish her luck in the forthcoming exams.

Letting off Steam

Being a regular attender at SRC and also reading Michael Carr-Gregg's comments on the women's liberation movement I would just like to say that Carr-Gregg has done for women what Columbus did for the steam engine.

A Parable

There is a legend that a man was caught in a bed of quicksand. Confucius saw him and remarked, "There is evidence man should stay out of such places". Buddha came by and said, "Let that life be a lesson to the rest of the world". Mohammed said about the man, "Alas it is the will of Allah". The Hindu said to him, "Cheer up friend, you will return to the earth in another form". But when Jesus saw him He said, "Give me your hand brother, and I will pull you out."