Most moderate, some talk of revolution

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32406, 19 September 1970, Page 12

Most moderate, some talk of revolution

While moderate demonstrators—and these are the majority are perfectly willing to get together with the police before-hand, the situation is complicated by another type of protesters, says a student leader, Mrs Marion Logeman. These are the people, she adds, who talk about revolution, who have grudges they cannot put into words and who want demonstrations to be haphazard. “They will try to stage a sit-down in a controlled demonstration in order to get a confrontation with the police," she said. As to what is reasonable, Mrs Logeman thinks moving against the traffic in a oneway street is out, and that a march should stick to one side of the street. Fair warning, 24 hours before if possible, should be given traffic authorities and police. , . “It has been proved in the United States that the most satisfactory means of control is by demonstrators themselves,” she said. “It is most important for people to know their aim, and what is the most effective means of achieving it.” In the 1968 Omega march in Christchurch, the students controlled the protest themselves; the police were amazed and so were the pub-

lic. , , , Shouting of slogans does not help either, says Mrs Logeman, who believes that once violence is introduced

or a procession becomes violent, then public sympathy is lost, and it detracts from the underlying reason for protest.

Instead of shouting, which provokes bystanders and demonstrators alike, she favours the singing of protest songs. A good megaphone or sound system is important in the control of marches, she agrees.

On the question of the rights of ordinary citizens to use the streets freely, and the rights of demonstrators, Mrs Logeman feels that the right to shop is not the same as the right to demonstrate on a political or other issue on which someone feels strongly.

And anyway, she says, if a motorist with a genuine reason for urgency put his case, he would be allowed through by police with a minimum of delay. She believes that priority should, for half an hour to an hour, be given to those who demonstrate. “It is so little inconvenience in terms of time—the last demonstration involving 1000 people was three years ago,” she said. Students and those who demonstrate do so for serious reasons, and feel very strongly. It is for the good of society. Mr Brian Rooney, a spokesman for the P.Y.M., said the rights of the individual should have priority. And this, he considered, meant that demonstrators had prior right over traffic in the city. But he said while the big demonstration would still probably take place, the impact of protest marches had now been lost.

The public no longer took any notice, he said, and other means of making people think, such as guerrilla theatre and community activity was being tried. “I personally don’t advocate violent demonstration," he said. But he considers it is up to the police to restrain themselves and prevent violence when demonstrators get emotional. For the police to take the side of the Government is wrong, he considers. Suggesting that demonstrai S

tions be confined to particular areas was “a ridiculous restraint” on freedom, he said. Protesters had to go where the people were. And it was not the old. people that could be changed —“they are beyond hope.” “We are trying to make people think about issues that are important, and it is the young people we want to do this,” Mr Rooney said. He is a young man highly critical of New Zealand society, and the impression I got was of approval of actions he considers meaningful—in other words, which make people think about changing the system. Demonstrations, and even the prospect of them, are

important in a democracy because they are one of the factors to which the Government responds, considers Mr W. Rosenberg, reader in economics at Canterbury University , and secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties.

In New Zealand a government responds to various groups, and the possibility that posible action would result in a march on Parliament can influence political thinking. Mr Rosenberg does not go along with the idea that organised protest should be restricted by law, and considers this would interfere with “the sovereignty of the people.” But he does oppose personal violence. He does favour prior discussion with the police before demonstrations are held, but he too is aware of the difficulties involved in demonstrators themselves wielding strict control, especially in emotionally charged situations. But in consultations with the police, much depends on the personalities of the top police officials, according to Mr Rosenberg. If they are reasonable and intelligent men, this can make a great deal of difference. In Christchurch, he points out, there has been little trouble. Any suggestions that demonstrations should be confined to particular areas

in the city Is strongly opposed by Mr Rosenberg. His comment on the rights of the citizen driving his car on the same night as a demonstration is that protesters themselves are “traffic” and also have rights.

As to the scope for each to excercise their rights, he says this should be a matter of demonstrations of a frequency and extent consistent with the thinking of a reasonable man. This brings us into a grey area of whom is a reasonable man in discussing protests and what can be con-| sidered "reasonable.” A 1