£31,000 Claim Against N.Z.B.C. Withdrawn

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30286, 12 November 1963, Page 12

£31,000 Claim Against N.Z.B.C. Withdrawn

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 11. A Wellington businessman, Mr C. U. Plimmer, who in September and October issued writs against the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation claiming £31,000 damages for alleged defamation, has decided “to let the matter rest.” In a national network broadcast tonight, Mr Plimmer gave the background to the difference which arose between the corporation and himself and which led to the issue of the writs. In a preface to Mr Plimmer’s broadcast, an announcer read a statement from the corporation,, which said: “In inviting Mr Plimmer to make this statement, the corporation desires to make it clear that the comment referred to in Mr Plimmer’s statement was a comment by a private person who is not connected with the corporation and did not represent the views of the corporation.”

Mr Plimmer’s statement was:— “A few weeks ago I was asked to speak to the younger set of the English Speaking Union on my recent visit to Africa and other overseas countries. In accepting the invitation. I thought as turned out to be the case, that I would be talking to a small group of young people, a number of whom were known to me, who combine their social gatherings with discussions and talks on matters of current interest. “I spent some time talking to them about their own careers in a completely informal manner and then went on to tell them something of my own travels. Assurance Sought “When I accepted the invitation, I received an assurance that the talk would not be reported. I sought this assurance not because the presence of reporters would affect any views I might express. but because I wanled to know whether I might talk in a wholly informal manner. “It is true that of those introduced to me. one was said to be ‘from broadcasting,’ but in view of the assurance given to me it did not occur to me that this man was present to report the talk. “I did not deliver an address; I simply sat and talked as one might to a group of friends in one’s own home. There was no question of my advocating any cause, supporting any policy or urging any particular view. “In talking about racial and political matters in South Africa, I told the audience that my background thinking and experience in a free enterprise commercial world would be different from that of a minister of a church or an educationalist. And I discussed the subject of human rights, self-preservation and race differences, all of which can influence conclusions about African problems. “I used quotations freely and referred to racial problems in some other countries. I emphasised that these problems in Africa cannot possibly be properly comprehended without some on-the-spot examination. One must try to grasp what apartheid means. And to the best of my understanding I explained it to the audience.

“It is separate and parallel development of race. I also gave an outline of the history of South Africa, a knowledge of which is so necessary in the understanding of these problems. “I spoke of Kenya with some foreboding and expressed doubts whether the Africans of Kenya were yet ready for self-government. “Most Disturbed”

“I thought that what views I did express in my two-hour talk were not calculated to disturb people who might hold strong views on racial matters. And I was most disturbed to hear the day after the talk that a great deal of controversy and concern had arisen from the television and radio reports of my talk, which had been broadcast from over 20 stations and repeated more

than once by the main stations—a total of 82 different broadcasts. “I did not see or hear these reports, but from the comments of others and finally from the transcripts I eventually obtained, I found that the broadcasts had created an impression which was, I think, unwarranted and completely misleading. “The effect of all this was increased by broadcast comment that I had aligned myself with Hitler on racial issues and that I would favour apartheid in New Zealand. “It seemed to me that this represented me as a man antagonistic to the coloured races and as a man who thought that those who were not privileged to be whites should be oppressed. “Completely Unjustified” “This comment was so offensive and so completely unjustified that I felt I had no option but to demand a retraction from the Broadcasting Corporation. This was not forthcoming and I issued a writ claiming substantial damages. “Later it came to my notice that the Broadcasting Corporation had published transcripts of its broadcasts to the External Affairs Department for inclusion in a bulletin distributed to all overseas representatives of New Zealand and other officials and it became necessary to increase my claim to cover this further publication. "During the weeks which

have elapsed since the issue of the writ. I have been giving the matter a great deal of anxious consideration and have reached a decision. Reasons For Decision "This decision has been influenced by the following matters. First, the innumerable messages I have received from all over New Zealand, from Maoris and pakehas. and even from people of other races, have led me to believe that most people did not accept the broadcast as a true statement of my views. “Second, the External Affairs Department has taken prompt and complete steps to withdraw and destroy its bulletin. “Third, and perhaps the most important consideration, is that I feel that the hearing of this case may raise racial and other issues. I think that there is no possible justification for raising such issues in New Zealand and I do not want to provide a forum for anybody who wants to apply the racial problems of Africa to our country. “I have many friends amongst the Maori people and I accept their assurance that they did not regard the broadcast as a true indication of my attitude. In ail the circumstances I have decided to let the matter rest and merely to accept the invitation of the New Zealand Broadcasing Corporation to put the matter in perspective.” Mr Plimmer said.