NEW ZEALAND'S SHARPEVILLE

Mr. Eric Butler at present in New Zealand on a two-week lecturing tour under the auspices of the New Zealand League of Rights sends the following report.

Because of its close association with South Africa through rugby, New Zealand has been given special attention by the anti-South African agitators. As everywhere, the tragic Sharpeville incident of 1960, when sixty-nine Bantu were shot by South African police, is used as a major propaganda weapon. But, as I have been reminding New Zealanders, they had their own Sharpeville at Featherston, in the North Island, on February 25th, 1943, when a working party of Japanese prisoners of war refused to parade for the New Zealand duty officer until an interview had been arranged with the camp commandant. At first there were repeated orders and talking in an attempt to get two Japanese officers who had got into the men's compound to leave. After two hours, during which time the orders became ultimatums, with threats by the camp authorities receiving the reply that force would be used with force, one Japanese officer was forcibly removed. The adjutant threatened the other with a revolver, eventually wounding him in the shoulder. There was a shower of rocks from the 240 or more Japanese prisoners and a concerted rush towards the 34-armed men of the guard. The guard opened fire and forty-eight Japanese were killed and seventy-four wounded.

On March 21st 1960, 2,000 Bantu assembled in Sharpeville, South Africa, to protest against the pass laws. As the day went on Bantu from other townships joined those at Sharpeville. The crowd reached 20,000 and armed with knives, axes and iron bars, marched on the police station, manned by 130 white and 77 Bantu policemen. The crowd was called upon to disperse, but refused to do so. Rocks and other missiles were thrown. Shots were fired from the crowd and the fence around the police station started to give way under the pressure on it. Painfully aware of what had happened to their police colleagues at Cata Manor, only two weeks previously, when a crowd of Bantu had beaten seven of them to death and then badly mutilated their bodies, the police at Sharpeville eventually fired in their own self-defence. They did the same as the guards did at Featherstone. But while the Communists and their dupes have turned Sharpeville into an event never to he forgotten, with a "Sharpeville Day" commemorated every year in many countries, many other similar tragic events, such as the one at Featherstone, are treated, as they should be.

I discovered passing through Featherstone a few days ago that Japanese prisoners of war who were at Featherstone plan to hold their first reunion next year. And thanks to the generosity of the Japanese ex-prisoners, a New Zealander, Mr. Keith Robertson, who acted as an interpreter at Featherstone camp, will go to Japan to attend the reunion. This has been arranged by Mr. Tamotsu Fujita, a Zero pilot shot down in the Solomons in 1942, today manager for PANAM in Tokyo. Mr. Fujita was badly wounded in the Featherstone camp riot of l943.

South Africans are well aware of their problems, and do not need to be reminded of the tragedy of Sharpeville. New Zealanders would, like all peoples, be distressed if they were never allowed to forget what happened at Featherstone. The camp authorities had no alternative, under the circumstances, to fire upon Japanese prisoners. Neither did the police at Sharpeville. It is pleasing to report that in spite of official bans against sport between New Zealanders and South Africans, there are increasing sporting engagements as New Zealand clubs and their supporters make their way to South Africa. And the overall result is increasing sympathy for both South Africa and Rhodesia.

FROM BRITISH ON TARGET

(November 9th, 1974) Christian Affirmation Campaign Challenges the World Council of Churches

"For many years criticism of the World Council of Churches (W.C.C.) has come mainly from individuals; now there are signs that collective opposition is being organised. Earlier this year a conference of West German evangelical churches was held in Berlin. It later published the Berlin Declaration on Ecumenism. This document attacks the W.C.C.'s ecumenical programme for encouraging 'an ungodly humanism that defies Man' and for a tendency to 'supplant the unassailable heart of the Gospel - the forgiveness of sins - with the call for socio-political liberation'.
It warns the W.C.C. that its 'Utopian vision of a world community of peace, accomplished by united human efforts and composed of all races, religions and ideologies' is a falsification of the Gospel and 'will pave the way for Anti-Christ'.

The W.C.C. reacted sharply to this criticism and condemned it as 'an attempt to harden attitudes and increase polarisation within the Church'. It went on to describe it as 'a cry of alarm....an indication of the fear of change and the desire to preserve the status quo'. It concluded:
'But the emotional criticism levelled against the W.C.C. appears to have met with more disapproval than acceptance.'

Events have proven the W.C.C. mistaken. The idea of the Berlin Declaration originated with an Anglican priest, the Rev. Francis Moss. Returning from Berlin, he and an Anglican laywoman, Avril Smith, began hammering into shape their ideas for a movement in this country that would effectively counter the W.C.C.'s anti-Christian policies. Not only would the movement oppose the false teaching of the W.C.C., but it would re-assert the historic Christian faith, and its attendant values. The movement would be open to all Christians without in any way prejudicing their loyalty to their own Church tradition. It would be a common front against a common enemy. It would thus be genuinely ecumenical.

In July a statement was issued to the Press announcing the foundation of the Christian Affirmation Campaign (C.A.C.) a manifesto which quoted generously from the Berlin Declaration, set out its criticisms of the W.C.C. and called for the withdrawal of churches from the W.C.C. 'unless and until...it gave evidence of a change of attitude'. It described the present crisis as 'the most serious to confront the Church since the Gnostic heresies'. The manifesto was signed by 19 well-known churchmen, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and representatives of most Protestant Churches. Most leading Church papers gave the announcement full coverage.

The C.A.C. has clarified its position intellectually, but what is to be its strategy? How will it combat such a powerful body as the W.C.C.? How will it exploit the discontent that is rife in most churches with W.C.C. policies?

On November 23rd, the C.A.C. is holding a meeting at 3.00 p.m. in the Kensington Temple. Kensington Park Rd., London, W.11. John Braine, the novelist, who is a Roman Catholic, will be the chief speaker. Other speakers will be the Rev. Dr. Oliver Beckerlegge, who is an evangelical Methodist, and Rev. Francis Moss, General Secretary Anglican Association. After the speeches there will be time to discuss the C.A.C.'s future strategy. All those who are willing to make some effort to defend the Christian faith against its enemies should attend."

NATIONAL DIRECTOR'S SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TOUR

From Nov. 29th to Dec. 6th. The League Director for South Australia has asked us to publish details of Mr. Butler's coming tour of the State. The main thrust of Mr. Butler's activities will be centered around INFLATION and the PETERSEN PLAN. Mr. Butler will address the Conservative Speakers' Club (Adelaide) on Fri. 29th November. Assemble from 6.15 p.m.: Dinner commences 6.50 p.m. Venue: Adelaide Railway Station Dining Room. Tariff: $2.50, drinks extra. Mr. Butler's subject for his address will be... "Thy Kingdom Come." Bookings: Ring 383 0114; 278 2517; 296 7642 not later than Wed. 27th Nov.

Other meetings: Nuriootpa on Tuesday 3rd Dec.
North Brighton (Adelaide) on Wed. 4th Dec., at 8 p.m. in Masonic Hall, Cnr. Seaforth Ave., and Margaret St.
Adelaide (City) on Thurs. 5th Dec in R.S. L. Hall, 25 Angas St. This is the main Adelaide meeting.

Mount Gambier on Fri. 6th Dec. Contact League Director for South Australia for any further details.

INDUSTRIAL DOMINOES

".. .a Collingwood electrical contractor which has been in business 60 years, is being wound up." - The Age (Melbourne) November 11th.

This particular old-established company is only one of hundreds in Victoria, alone which is being forced to close its doors. The managing director, in a statement, tells the same old story; loss on contracts with one major building project. A substantial loss due to the failure of Cambridge Credit. Another substantial loss on planning a $1 million contract with Mainline Corporation, which failed just before the contract was ready...And so on. We anticipate that there will be thousands of medium and small businesses which will fail throughout Australia, within the next two or three years.

Many, like the electrical contracting business quoted above, will be "caught" by being geared to larger enterprises, which in turn get "caught" by the credit squeeze - inflation - tariff cuts etc., etc. Many others will be unable to meet soaring wage costs, and will either go out of business, or will "get small", the sensible thing to do in 1974. No longer is it a case of "get big or get out", The rationale now is "get small and stay in."

Many small and highly efficient manufacturing engineers, close supporters of the League, tell us that by staying small and highly efficient, their overheads are cut to the bone, and that they on their own, can do the work of three to four disinterested men on inflated wages. This is taking place right throughout the country. Many businesses, which close for the Christmas-New Year recess, will not re-open, and many that do will have staff drastically reduced, as exampled above. This is one aspect of the escalation of unemployment; and the easing of the credit squeeze won't make any difference at all. Inflation is bringing this about, and Mr. Whitlam is not able to do anything about that; nor is Mr. Snedden!

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION TO ON TARGET

BRIEF COMMENTS

We have expressed reservations in these pages recently concerning the reliability (politically) of the Queensland Liberal Leader, and Deputy Premier of Queensland, Sir Gordon Chalk. As we feared, he is intentionally or unintentionally undermining the efforts of Premier Bjelke-Petersen in his struggle for State Rights, which means in essence, the sovereignty of the individual. Government can only increase powers at the expense of the individual; the stronger a Government, the weaker (as to rights, in law) the individual. By weakening State Rights, and centralising power under the Central Government it is the individual who thereby loses some of his sovereignty.
A State is an abstraction; it is made up of individuals. It isn't a "State" which loses control of anything the individuals who comprise the "State" suffer such loss. The more political and economic power is decentralised into small "States" "units" "cantons"; the name doesn't matter, with genuine local control (sovereignty) the more control over his own affairs, has the individual.

Don't be hoodwinked by the Canberra socialists' "regions" and "regionslisation". This isn't decentralisation, but the reverse centralisation. The "regions" are to be totally and rigidly controlled from Canberra by the power of the purse, and ruled by Canberra bureaucrats, swearing allegiance to Big Brother.
Sir Gordon Chalk (The Australian, November 19th) has spoken up for a softer line with Canberra, and has given Mr. Whitlam useful ammunition in his Queensland campaign against Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Sir Gordon Chalk wants to be Premier. He will undermine the efforts of Joh Bjelke-Petersen to achieve his end.

The Role of Overdrafts

If the entire supply comes into being in the form of bank credit, this can only mean that all the money in existence is owed to the banks.

At first thought it will seem that this is not possible. Many people have never borrowed from a bank, and could not possibly owe money they possess to a bank. But visualise what would happen if all the banks suddenly agreed that from tomorrow they would issue no new loans or overdrafts. This would result in no new money coming into the community. We would have to manage with what already exists. But the money, which would have to be repaid as the banks, called them in. If overdrafts were to be paid off (most businesses work on overdraft for at least part of the year) when no new ones were being issued, businessmen working on overdraft would have to use cash they had on hand to pay their debts. They would not have sufficient to pay wages and to buy fresh supplies of raw materials. Therefore wage earners and producers of raw materials would become unemployed, and would have to start using any savings they might have in order to live.
(Readers will note that even a moderate bank credit "squeeze" starts unemployment immediately.)