Anzac Day wreath

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32587, 22 April 1971, Page 12

Anzac Day wreath

Sir, —Many, myself included, support wholeheartedly the words of the students’ message to be placed with a wreath on the city’s war memorial, but many, again myself included, deplore their decision to do so during the Anzac Day service. Since Mr Caygill is eager to assure us that there is “no desire to offend,” etc., no doubt he will be as eager to ensure the cancellation of the proposed action now that he sees that it will cause offence. It is to be hoped that Mr Caygill will encourage his association’s members to pay their respects to the dead by offering thanks for their sacrifice and to express their humanitarian views on another occasion, and, perhaps, in a different way.—Yours, etc., A. P. GURNSEY. April 21, 1971. Sir,—Ten years ago I would probably have agreed with Brigadier Burrows about the proposed student wreath. However, too much has happened since World War II and too many illusions have now been shattered to be able to look back without looking also at the present and the future. And in doing so, what do we see? The latest shock is contained in Professor Buchanan’s article in “The Press” of April 20. In this, he shows up what we might well have expected —an ulterior motive for the

Indo-China war, the acquisition and protection of offshore oil resources. “The richest oilfield in the world” carved up among the oil companies of Brigadier Burrows’s “free” world. You cannot serve both God and mammon, and until we can extricate ourselves from our miserable dependence on mammon, innocent lives, in Vietnam and elsewhere, will continue to be sacrificed at his altar. —Yours, etc.,

G. C. SUGGATE. April 21, 1971.

Sir, —May I thank Brigadier Burrows for expressing so well, as a citizen, what so many of us feel? There are 365 days in the year. Surely this one day should be for gratitude and remembrance. May I suggest to Mr Caygill that their wreath be laid on Capping Day? Then we, as citizens, could really see just how many students associate themselves with the students’ executive.—Yours, etc., LAURA BROWN. April 21, 1971.

Sir, —I wish to support Mr D. F. Caygill in his stand concerning the message to be attached to the Anzac wreath of the University of Canterbury Students’ Association. The message acknowledges the loss of life caused by war, and, in addition, publicly opposes a war taking place at the present time, and in so doing reveals a responsible concern for the miseries of war. Those persons who

gave their lives defending their way of life should rightly be remembered, but the greatest monument to their sacrifice is concern for lasting peace. Only if this is achieved will these servicemen not have died in vain.— Yours, etc., SIDONIE MOORE. April 21, 1971. Sir, —The pre-Anzac Day confrontation between the R.S.A. and the Students’ Association dramatises two things. On the one hand we have the statement of Brigadier Burrows, with its true but rather parochial reference to “those who lost their lives in the service of New Zealand.” His approach reminds me of that of other Establish-

ment figures who talk about defending “freedom” but who turn a deaf ear when I advocate a vigorous aid programme to help democratic India to overcome its problems. On the other hand we have the students’ statement, more international in its outlook, but reflecting their belief that there is nothing in the world worth fighting for or dying for. For their lack of belief, an education system devised by the contemporaries of Brigadier Burrows, one which fails to encourage serious discussion of values and ideologies, is mainly to blame. —Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. April 21, 1971.

Sir, —Before this issue becomes a matter of public controversy, one point should be emphasised in fairness to students at the University of Canterbury. The decision to lay the wreath with the wording expressing concern over the continuance of the war in Indo-China was made by the executive of the Students’ Association, not by the student body as a whole. Although the executive does, in name, represent the entire student body, this is not necessarily so in fact, as the candidates for election to the executive are to a great extent representative of a minority faction of “student politicians.” On election their opinions and acts are branded as those of “the students,” the inference being that all are in agreement. I suggest that on the current issue this is far from true. It is worth considering whether a majority of the 6802 students at the University of Canterbury support this impending display of illmanners by 10 of their number.—Yours, etc.,

J. G. MATTHEWS. Fourth year student. April 21, 1971.

Sir, —I wholeheartedly support Brigadier J. T. Burrows in his statement concerning the student group, particularly Mr Caygill as president, in their attitude and intended action on Anzac Day. If Mr Caygill and his students looked more objectively on life they would see Vietnam has nothing to do with this day of remembrance. Does Mr Caygill suggest I myself should not have gone overseas in 1940 to help thousands of others to help to defend and protect this country that has provided him with freedom, education, and a living standard as high as anything in the present world? Do he and his fellowstudents realise they are offending countless numbers of brothers and wives who lost their husbands and sons to preserve a good country for him and his to live in? Let these young chaps sit down and think a bit. I sincerely hope they do not offend.—Yours, etc., T. M. MOORE.

April 21, 1971. Sir, —As Brigadier Burrows knows, Anzac Day is basically a time to remember those who died in two World Wars; but more than this, it is an opportune moment to reflect on the folly of war in general. Undoubtedly the Indo-China conflict must be considered, as this is the major theatre of war where

New Zealand troops are currently engaged, and regrettably some will not return. I feel the R.S.A. and Brigadier Burrows should be gratified that young people like the Students' Association are sufficiently interested to attend the memorial service and lay their wreath. The proposed message is valid at this time, and has a special significance at an Anzac Day memorial service. It is well to remember gratefully, those who died, but a body like the R.S.A. should also concern itself at all opportunities with the cessation of the Vietnam and all other wars. —Yours, etc., D.K.H. April 21, 1971. Sir, —None will disagree that war is full of horror and brutality. Had it not been for the men and women of this nation and their allies we would have had practical experience of it in 1942. Indeed, Mr Caygill might not have been acting as he does today. He might have been pulling a rickshaw round the Square and his sisters might have been ravaged as were women in other occupied countries. This young man, under the cloak of president of the Canterbury University Students’ Association, is to lay a wreath at our Anzac service. It is only an act of protest over war in IndoChina and should not be permitted. If they wish to show concern, let them display it elsewhere at some other time. Perhaps they could re-1 spect the wishes of those who lost loved ones in the fight to preserve the freedom which allows them to protest.—Yours, etc.,