Letters to the Editor

Press, 26 July 1976, Page 16

Letters to the Editor

(1) Letters submitted for printing in this column must not exceed 150 words. They should be written in ink or preferably typed on one side of the paper. Ample space must be left in the margins anti between lines for subediting marks. (2) Letters written over pen names or initials will not ordinarily be considered for publication. A legible signature and full postal address —not a P.O. Box number — are essential. (3) The correspondent must say whether the letter has been or is to be submitted elsewhere. The Editor does not undertake to acknowledge, hold, return or enter into correspondence on any letter not accepted for publication. G. Not by name. H. Subject of wages discussed many times before. B.R.W —Thank you; but where does the association find the money? Olympic Games Sir, —The Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties wishes to state that the word “traitorous” (.or, as the Prime Minister is reported to have said in Parliament “bordering on treason”) should not be used for the activities of groups in New Zealand, unless the law has been infringed. The use of this type of term tends to create situations of hatred, recriminations and divisions in the country which must harm the activities of persons dissident from the majority, but whose opinions may very well be those of the majority of tomorrow. This council believes that progress is the result of thought and opinion often initiated by dissident minorities, and that the essence of a successful democracy is the protection of such minorities —not their persecution by word or deed by authorities momen-

tarily representing the majority.—Yours, etc., W. ROSENBERG. Chairman, Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties. July 23, 1976. Sir, —The reason that African countries have boycotted only New Zealand at the Olympic Games is because New Zealand, rightly or wrongly, has long been recognised throughout the world as one of the best examples of a non-racialist and integrated society. Added to which, we also share South Africa’s love and talent for rugby. African countries therefore consider that New Zealand is in the strongest position to encourage the South African Government by passive means (by severing national sporting ties with South Africa) to include their Africans equally with whites in all sporting activities and opportunities. Throughout black Africa sporting talent is searched for, trained, and encouraged. Many national teams include their citizens of different ethnic groups (e.g. Europeans, Arabs, Asians). In contrast, Africans in South Africa for decades have been shackled from birth by laws prohibiting their participation and representation in any integrated national sporting team.— Yours, etc., G. V. SANSOM. July 23, 1976. Sir, —For 36 years I have served as a rugby coach, sei .ctor, administrator, and leader of three overseas schoolboy touring sides. On the eve of the first test in South Africa it saddens me to see how such a fine game has been the instrument by which New Zealand’s high overseas reputation in race r< lations has been so lowered by active Government public encouragement for the tour. Vulgar abuse of some individual African Governments or pettv bodies like C.A.R.E. or H.A.R.T. does not alter the brutally clear fact that to hundreds of millions—not all of them black—our action has been wrong. Principles must be above sport. Let the authorities, political and rugby, restore our position by bringing back our team from South Africa no matter what the result of the first test may be.—Yours, etc., V. F. WILKINSON. July 24, 1976. Sir, — The boycott of us by 30 countries is a shocking disaster for New Zealand whose ill effects may be felt for many years to come. I still admire Mr Muldoon for the moral and political courage he has shown in advocating unpleasant, but necessary, re-medies-for this country’s very serious economic problems. But in his attitude to Mr Ordia and the tour of South Africa, Mr Muldoon clearly made a bad error of judgment. He admitted that when he said he was surprised bv the extent of the boycott, and he only makes his mistake worse by attacks on supporters of H.A.R.T. and C.A.R.E. who have, after all, been proved right by events. As for justifications of South Africa by pointing to evils further north, one can only repeat that two wrongs do not make a right. — Yours, etc. MARK D. SADLER. July 24, 1976. Sir,—l am a New Zealander at present on a working holiday in Britain. I was disgusted to hear that the Rugby Union was allowed to continue to send the All Blacks on a tour of South Africa. One feels quite ashamed of bring a New Zealander at the moment with the resulting African and Arab countries’ bovcott of the Olvmpic Games. I wonder at the intelligence of our New Zealand Government which could not foresee the fiasco that, could develop from sending

a sports team to a country banned from sporting contacts by the United Nations. After coming to the other side of the world and being so proud of our wonderful country, I am now quite humbled and can only hope that the African and Arab countries will forgive New Zealand’s incredible mistake. For the future one can only hope that something like this will never happen again.— Yours, etc., JENNY BOYCE. Wallington, Surrey. July 19, 1976. Sir, — I think it would be the lesser of two evils if the freedom that New Zealand sportsmen enjoy at the moment should be removed, rather than have New Zealanders portrayed throughout the world as a bunch of white racist nazis by H.A.R.T., C.A.R.E., and company. — Yours, etc., J. HAMILTON. July 23, 1976. Sir, — I am appalled at the bald statement made by the Prime Minister “that H.A.R.T. and C.A.R.E. are close to treasonable.” Treason is a very serious crime and any allegations of it must be supported by facts to prove the necessity of its use. If members of our society are coming close to committing it, surely they, and we, have the right to know how their actions can be so construed. We have neither the facts supporting the use of this highly emotive affirmation nor a definition of what, to Mr Muldoon, constitutes treason. We must therefore treat it as another instance of deliberate misleading on the part of our present Prime Minister. — Yours, etc., ALISON BAKER. July 23, 1976. Sir, —When I read your headline on “Go back to the jungle” advice to Africans, attributed to Mr B, J. Drake of the Canterbury Rugby Union, I mentally accused your paper of reporting wrongly, or out of context for sensationalism. Surely no man could be so absolutely arbitrarily archaic. That night on television, Mr Drake proved that he could be, had been, and still unrepentantly is. To you I tender my apologies, to him my sympathy.—Yours, etc., S. R. DAVEY. July 23, 1976. Food stockpiles Sir, — In your editorial on food stockpiling, your arguments evidence a morality whereby obligation to the poor is measured according to the response of other wealthy countries rather than by the need and by our facility to meet it, or — love your neighbour as others do. Christ superseded this code nearlv 2000 years ago. The world desperately needs individuals and nations who will dignify themselves by giving priority to others. The apparent acceptance of the long-standing coexistence of the rich and poor as mutually independent, is also dated, and is. I understand, the object of Corso’s education programme. — Yours, etc., D. E. JOHNSTONE. July 25, 1976. Sir, — It may be the task of your editorials to salve wealthy New Zealand consciences when they are pricked by people like the convener of the Corso food group (“The Morality of Food Surpluses,” in “The Press,” July 24). But it would insult our intelligence less if you avoided using such transparently shabby devices. If stockpiling ’food while people starve in other countries is immoral — and you do not discuss this either way — the fact that other countries do it more than us hardly excuses our action. May I murder so long as others murder more? And if Dr Ferguson’s committee, a New Zealand group, thinks it immoral, then the appropriate target for their criticism is

surely New Zealand’s activity, on which, unless undermined by “Press” editorials, they might have some effect. They can hardly expect to be heard as loudly by your suggested target, the distant treasuries of Europe. — Yours, etc., JIM WILSON. July 24, 1976. [Aid funds in New Zealand and elsewhere should certainly be used to distribute surplus foodstuffs, and New Zealand cannot fairly be accused of overpricing its dairy produce. If the producers of food do not get a reasonable return the food may not be produced at all. Our point is simply that New Zealand should not carry the sole responsibility for the aid merely because New Zealand farmers happen to have been the producer of the surplus. — Editor.! Snow reports Sir, — Your article of Tuesday, July 13, lays bare some inadequacies which I feel should be looked into. Mount Hutt has become a very popular local ski field, offering, on the whole, excellent ski-ing to a large number of people. I feel the company is obliged to provide a better, or at least more accurate information service in Christchurch. Repeatedly, wrong or misleading information is given out by Seekers, the main information service for Christchurch skiers. Exactly who is to blame is incidental; the fact is Mount Hutt is rapidly losing public good will and no doubt patronage as a result. — Yours, 808 FULLER. July 14, 1976. [The chairman of directors of the Mount Hutt company (Mr P. Yeoman) replies. “The procedure for snow reports from Mount Hutt is for the staff living on the mountain to inform the mountain manager at first light of conditions at that time and expected for the balance of the day. The mountain manager, with this information and that of the weather office, answers inquiries about expected conditions for the day. Unfortunatelv the weather can deteriorate or improve in a space of two hours contrary to earlier predictions and this, on odd occasions, has ca :sed the field to be closed at short notice, or in some instances, re opened. We are concerned when patrons are put to unnecessary expense, but Mount Hutt is an aipine region and safety must be paramount over income. Nevertheless, with each unexpected closure, procedures are re-examined to try to improve the reporting procedure.”! TV advertising Sir, —Congratulations to your critic, A. K. Grant, for castigating TVI for “the shoddy advertising technique” ... of “blasting out the commercials at a higher volume than the programmes.” This matter of variation in volume was discussed, and strongly condemned, as far back as 1966 at the . meetings of the Southern Regional Programme Advisory Committee of the N.Z.B.C. of which I was then a member. There is no excuse for it; and those responsible should be held to account for a practice that many listener-viewers find extremely disruptive of their evening’s enjoyment. — Yours, etc., RUTH A. BURNS. July 10, 1976. [The head of information services for Television One (Mr Charles Martin) replies: “We are aware of the fact that some of our current comme cials sound louder than the adjacent programme material. This is usually caused by the commercial production compan' s who emnloy techniques which make a commercial sound louder, even though we transmit it at a metered

volume level which is similar to the rest of the programmes. It is an unfortunate fact that, owing to the many distractions to the staff in our programme control room, they are not able to be as sensitive to this sound level disparity as we would wish. The problem is currently receiving our attention.”] Product of county subdivision Sir, — Your report ("The Press,” July 21) that “a house was not necessary to get high production from small lots” was incorrect. What I said in reply to the chairman of the hearing was that the results of the survey showed that the value of farm production per acre was higher after subdivision and, if the residence product, that is benefits (in money terms) derived from housing on the farmlets, were taken into account, an even higher output per acre was evident. — Yours, etc., B. K. CHIU. July 23. 1976. African racism Sir, — G. Lattimore is unfair to reporters when he implies that they tend to be lenient in their interviews with HA.R.T. and C.A.R.E. These reporters — and radio and television interviewers — are not required to be challenging. H.A.R.T. and C.A.R.E. invariably expose themselves as being so rabidly pro-black and anti-white as to be dismissed with contempt, without any assistance from either reporters or interviewers. The bulk of G. Lattimore’s letter, however, is right on the nail. I, too — and, doubtless, tens of thousands of viewers — experienced disgust at Mr Ordia’s contemptuous dismissal of Biafra. Naturally, too, because she was white, Mrs Bloch’s apparent bestial murder has been disregarded by H.A.R.T., C.A.R.E., and all the

rest of the bleeding hearts. — Yours, etc., HARVEY FOSS. July 22, 1976. Forest management plan Sir, — Your correspondent, S. R. June, should not be surprised that the Forest Service is actively frustrating those members of the public who wish to comment on the Kaimai-Mamaku Forest Park management plan. The report is shoddy and hopelessly biased towards management for wood production. Excluding the protection forest, 85 per cent of this small remaining area of native forest is zoned for production. The Forest Service once again remains oblivious to the many other values of our native forest. This report will reaffirm the desire of conservationists to relieve the Forest Service of control of our native forests and place them in the hands of an organisation that has a clear and undivided responsibility to protect them. — Yours, etc., KEVIN D. SMITH. July 21, 1976.