Anzac Day wreath

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32589, 24 April 1971, Page 15

Anzac Day wreath

j Sir, —A large number of 'students may be fairly dissociated from their execui five’s action in laying ths “controversial” wreath, as Mr Matthews suggests, bul what about the considerabls number of Christchurch citizens who would like to be associated with it? It is not Iso much a question of citi Izens versus students, but of : two unreconciled concepts of : what Anzac Day should commemorate. To me, Brigadier Burrows’s concept seems the “tasteless, offensive” one. because it could be encompassed by the other, but by itself is narrow and exclusive. Those who died under the New Zealand flag should be remembered and their relatives sympathised with; but

surely this can be done in a more dignified way if we acknowledge also that people are still fighting and dying, that if real security could be achieved by exporting soldiers to the fields of slaughter we should have it by now.— Yours, etc., B. P. LILBURN. April 22, 1971. Sir,—l, as a member of the Canterbury University Students’ Association, dissociciate myself from the actions of the executive of that body, in the wording of their wreath for Anzac Day. To me, this day is symbolic of the desire of the nation, however hypocritically, to mourn those people, German or New Zealanders, Viet Cong or American, who suffered and died in war. It is a day of humanity mourning its dead, and not for the glorification of peace or war. The executive’s concern over IndoChina is justified, but their arrogance in choosing ‘ this day, and this way, to express that concern, is not.—Yours, etc., lAIN H. FRASER. April 22, 1971. Sir, —Students have as much right as any other member of the public to remember those killed in war. The only difference is that, while all we know of the World, Boer and Korean Wars is what we have been told by parents or their friends, it is our friends, and our contemporaries, who are among those killed or wounded in the present Indo-Chinese war. This reason, if no other, justifies our presence at the Anzac service, as the legislation which set up Anzac Day includes all wars that New Zealanders have fought. For this same reason, the wording on the wreath stands as it is. Wreaths from other groups will mention specific wars: we mention the IndoChinese war because this is the war that is affecting us personally. We realise and appreciate the fact that our predecessors fought for us. To the R.S.A. and other such groups, please remember that our contemporaries are fighting for your grandchildren.—Yours, etc., 4 M. G. SMITH. Apnl 22, 1971.

Sir,—-As one who remembers the first sacred Anzac Day, and was fortunate enough to return intact from World War 11. Many, of course, did not come back, I wish to support Mr Caygill and his sincerity, for laying a wreath on Anzac Day. On Sunday amid the conscious or unconscious process of history-making, New Zealanders again salute the memory of Anzac. Bom 56 years ago of an enterprise which, in spite of failure, established itself spendidly in the annals of heroism and sacrifice, this memory has come to embrace all New Zealanders and Australians who fought, and especially those who fell not only at Gallipoli but also in the whole of two World Wars, in South Africa, in Korea, and now, too, in Vietnam, etc. Thus Anzac Day, the day on which we honour sacrifice in the cause of freedom, is also in one sense New Zealand's true national day.—Yours, etc., FLEMING ROSS MILLER. April 22, 1971.

Sir, —Have these students no conscience whatever? To desecrate a memorial service to New Zealand’s war dead is the lowest form of depravity. Immature as they are, they surely know the rudiments of respect. Tragically, there are many decent l young students who do re- : spect the feelings of others 1 but whose image is being ' tarnished by a few selfish I publicity-seekers. The Anzac 1 service is no place for exhibitionism; keep that for Capping Day.—Yours, etc., i PLEASE RESPECT MY DEAD. April 22, 1971. Sir, —As one who, since 1934, has attended and not infrequently been asked to address Anzac Day services, I would like to express my reason for heartily agreeing with Mr Caygill. Brigadier Burrows would have been on side had Anzac Day always remained, as I maintain it should, a day of commemoration for Gallipoli and First World War men only. I made this observation at an Anzac Day service about 15 years ago, to the great satisfaction of the First World I War personnel present and Ito many others. But now that Iwe are asked to pay our re-

spects to New Zealand dead in two major wars and the Korean one as well as Vietnam, with the possibility, but perhaps not the probability, of present-day university students having to suffer likewise, I understand and support the message on the students’ wreath. Yours, VICAR (Ret.). April 22, 1971. Sir,—Mr Caygill and his committee cannot claim they represent the majority of students in their wreath action and appear to be seeking cheap ghoulish publicity to enhance their personal ego at the expense of men and women who have sacrificed their lives so that Mr Caygill and his committee members can be educated in this country at others’ great expense. The appropriate action is for the inappropriate wreath and its wording to be ignored; alternatively, for decent, serious, hard-working students to take action to stop Mr Caygill and his associates antagonising taxpayers and voters, in this and other ways, to the ultimate detriment of university education and the best interests of conscientious, responsible student citizens. As Mr Caygill and his committee members should know, they will be unwise and acting illegally if they interfere with a religious service on church property, in this free community.—Yours, etc., ALAMEIN. April 22, 1971. Sir, —Surely all those who died in two World Wars would applaud the action of Mr Caygill and his fellow students. Wouldn’t these men say, if they could, "Don’t just remember us. Do something.” The students’ message reminds us that these men died in an effort to bring about world peace. We should be grateful that the young people, at least, realise this, and still care.—Yours, etc., ANGRY HOUSEWIFE. April 22, 1971. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”]