Attitudes to censorship

Press, 31 October 1979, Page 20

Attitudes to censorship

Sir, — You owe me a public apology. The heading on the review of my pamphlet. “The Bartlett Syndrome” (“The Press,” October 27) stated the exact opposite of what I wrote in the pamphlet and what the reviewer wrote about it. By association that untrue statement has been attached to me. Already several persons have said, "I see you’re campaigning against censorship.” When I protest that I am not campaigning against censorship, I am told that they read it in “The Press.” Not only have you done me a grave injury, but also you have done a disservice to

the Indecent Publications Tribunal and to all those reasonable nersons who would like nothing better than for the tribunal to get on with its job. — Yours, etc. GORDON TAIT. October 29, 1979. [Since Mr Tait finds our headline, “Campaigning against censorship,” unjust to his cause, we apologise. By way of explaining our headline to readers who were apparently misled, we note that the review drew attention mainly to passages in Mr Tait’s pamphlet that appeared to criticise the practice of censorship of books in New Zealand. His publishers. Freedom to Read, claim to be dedicated to the maximum freedom to read and presumably oppose what they consider excessive censorship: his criticism of the censoring effects of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act seemed to be explicit. Our reviewer noted particularly Mr Tait’s finding that standards of censorship had declined since 1964 and his evidence of “dual censorship and political interference.” We did not wish to convey the impression that Mr Tait opposes all censorship and we are confident that any reader of the review would have a fair impression of Mr Tait’s pamphlet. — Editor.]