Afghan conflict
The Listener’s “exclusive” mother’s account of “a family’s anguish” (“Our Matty is gone”, June 28) distorts the realities of the Afghan conflict. The United Nations did not authorise the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which was launched to avenge the 9/11 attacks. This means Matt Ferrara died as an aggressor in an illegal war initiated in defiance of international and US law. He died for a dishonourable cause and the tragedy of his death is overshadowed by the innumerable deaths of Afghans at the hands of the invaders.
David Fisher’s article in the same issue (“Crossfire”) again dwells on the deaths of invaders but does acknowledge how the death toll of civilians from Nato operations is heavily understated. He details how the war is going badly for the invaders but does not attempt to justify their presence there.
Defence Minister Phil Goff said “the reason we went to Afghanistan was because this was the place from which the Taleban were launching terrorist attacks across the world, in which New Zealanders died, in New York and elsewhere”.
But the US and its allies (New Zealand included) violated the principles of the Nuremburg Tribunal, a basis for the UN Charter, by initiating a war of aggression.
When he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, Goff supported the Government’s decision to commit our SAS soldiers and military intelligence personnel to the Bush Administration’s war of aggression in Afghanistan. Taleban members have not crossed the world to attack and kill New Zealanders but Goff has sent New Zealanders to Afghanistan and they have taken part in US operations that have killed hundreds of Afghans.
Peter Grant, (Wanganui)
BLOOMSBURY TRAIL
Thank you for Diana Wichtel’s excellent Bloomsbury tour (“Bloomsbury Trailing”, July 5). In 1973, as a young curator at the Tate Gallery, London, (now Tate Britain – a must-add, along with the National Portrait Gallery, to any London Bloomsbury tour), I had lunch with Duncan Grant at Charleston to discuss his works in the Tate’s collection.
Four decades later I was able to acquire, through the Mackelvie Trust, the Auckland Art Gallery’s brilliant, moving and much admired 1918 portrait of Vanessa Bell by Duncan Grant when she was pregnant with their child Angelica.
Christopher Johnstone (Grey Lynn, Auckland)
BILL SUTCH
Graeme Hunt’s article on the release of the SIS papers regarding the apprehension of Bill Sutch on a charge of spying in 1974 (“Aye, spy”, June 28) promised a more in-depth coverage than that afforded by the regular news media but failed to analyse or assess the SIS records. It would have been interesting to learn if they contained any intelligence that was more substantial than that presented at the trial or anything more convincing than the rather speculative and wildly imaginative assumptions regarding Sutch’s behaviour.
The SIS dossier was assembled during the Cold War. The NZ Communist Party was never particularly influential in New Zealand, even in trade union circles. In the post-war period, it was seriously schematic, and Trotskyites, Marxist-Leninists and Maoists were more engaged in debating the philosophy behind their theories among themselves than in plotting to overthrow the state.
Surely the author does not expect us to believe that Chips Bailey, Jack Lewin or anyone else with an interest in left-wing politics who may have patronised Modern Books or attended gatherings for Closer Relations with Russia or the Peace Council would have been willing to welcome a foreign power planning to re-colonise New Zealand. It is all so ludicrous and suggests that some people have been reading too many John le Carré novels.
It is possible – as Bob Tizard’s assessment inclines one to believe that the SIS was a bit of a joke at that time – that many of the agency’s activities were foolishly conceived, clumsily executed and, in truth, just plan silly. But one might have welcomed some evidence that the SIS wrought so much distress in the Sutch case.
History will no doubt take care of all this, with Sutch restored to his rightful place as a valuable and valued contributor to the literary and economic/sociological development of our country. He was not perfect – a little opinionated, perhaps a little vain, and often a bit dogmatic – but his patriotism was unquestionable, and the idea that he would have behaved in any way that was detrimental to the interests or welfare of New Zealand is beyond the belief of anyone who knew him.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the extraordinary behaviour of the SIS at that time is that its antics last year suggest it has not learned much in the interim.
Lenore Baxter (Khandallah, Wellington)
Reading Graeme Hunt’s article that kept insisting Dr Sutch was guilty of espionage even though there was no evidence reminds me of a quote from One Foot in the Grave.
Victor Meldrew is reading from a medical dictionary: “Colon tumour: offers no symptoms in the early stages – oh, God, that’s exactly what I’ve got.”
Roger Hall (Takapuna, North Shore City)
I knew, liked and greatly respected Bill Sutch, and find Graeme Hunt’s article accusing him of being a spy for the Russians for 40-odd years a lot of old squit. Sure, Sutch held left-wing liberal views, not very extreme for the time. So what? He met and talked with various people. So what? In 1951 and 1954 he made public statements that annoyed the American authorities as heresies against the creed of “Americanism”. So what?
As for the events of September 1974, when Sutch was accosted by the SIS outside a gents’ toilet in Aro St in the context of a rendezvous with KGB agent Razgovorov, Hunt states outright that Sutch gave Razgovorov some kind of “parcel”. But the official account indicates that Razgovorov ran away before any such transfer could happen, and yet no such “parcel” was found in Bill’s possession or anywhere. And suddenly a postulated envelope or packet has grown up to a “parcel”.
Sure, the way Sutch behaved in 1974 in meetings with Razgovorov was reckless and unwise, but not all that harmful and not proven to be “spying”. The full story of Sutch’s life is yet to be told.
John Ross (Palmerston North)
Keith Locke (Letters, July 5) wonders what state secrets Bill Sutch could possibly have had that might have been of value to the Soviet Union.
Sutch’s arrest came shortly before the state visit of the Shah of Iran, when New Zealand was desperately seeking new markets for its produce in the wake of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community and the first oil shock. The Ministry of Overseas Trade and the producer boards were preparing to negotiate a large sale of sheepmeat and dairy produce with the trade delegation accompanying the Shah.
The Soviet Union was an increasingly important buyer of the same products and would have taken a close interest in New Zealand’s bargaining stance and negotiating strategy. How desperate was New Zealand to sell? How low would the country go in price? How far was the Government prepared to subsidise exports?
As a leading economist and an experienced trade negotiator, Sutch was well qualified to answer questions such as these and may well have been privy to preliminary tactical discussions involving the Government and the producers.
Derek W Smith (Hamilton)
RAPE TRIALS
When I was 17 or 18 I was raped by a senior doctor at the hospital where I worked. For some reason I didn’t go to the police when there was still evidence; I am sure this man would have been convicted, if only because nobody would believe that a teenager would willingly go with an old, bald, ugly creep like that. However, I didn’t.
The effects are still with me three decades later. I still feel an involuntary frisson of fear when I go into any doctor’s surgery. I can’t have invasive procedures like cervical smears. Naturally it has affected all subsequent relationships.
I wish I had gone to the police; it wouldn’t have provided the over-rated “closure”, but it would have put the pervert away. But I didn’t and I have to live with that.
However, I am totally opposed to the idea that rape trials should be essentially one-sided and that the accuser’s word should basically be enough to convict the accused. The notion that I have heard from some rape counsellors – that there is really no such thing as a false complaint, and that even if the accused didn’t do it, someone did – is insane. I knew who my attacker was, and if I had accused someone else in a “state of confusion”, it would have been an appalling miscarriage of justice and a belly laugh for the real rapist.
I have heard more than one counsellor suggest that victims can be confused and accuse the wrong person. What an insult to women to reduce us to the level of children who don’t know what we’re doing.
Rape trials must be hell, but there must be more than an accusation for a conviction. There are too many David Doughertys whose lives have been ruined by wrongful convictions for rape. The repercussions of taking primarily only the accuser’s word would be appalling, a great leap backwards for justice and women.
Name withheld by request
In response to David Stone’s June 28 letter, in a rape trial, as with any other offence, the accused has the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself. If someone brings a complaint against a person, it is up to the Crown to prove the complaint. It is only right that the accuser be tested in court as to the truth of the complaint, because some women have lied. As an ex-prison officer, I have seen men found guilty of rape and set free after another trial, because the complainant was found to have lied.
The complainant should not be protected from the court procedures just because she is a woman – the accused has the right to confront the accuser and have the offence proven.
The accused’s past record should not be known to the jury, because the Crown has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence. If the jury has knowledge of any previous conviction, the jury might say it is probable that the accused is guilty, which is not a safe conviction.
Our system is designed to protect the wrong person from going to prison. If an accused gets off the offence, it is because the Crown did not do its job properly.
Bernie Fynn (Te Awamutu)
WAIHI SEA WALL
Your story on the sorry saga of the proposed rock revetment at Waihi Beach (“Being driven up the sea wall”, July 5) is alarming stuff. The whole matter should never have gone to the Environment Court in the first place.
Overwhelming evidence was provided that the proposed rock wall would be a poor long-term choice and certainly not a good medium-term one. But the judge chose to listen to the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the very small number of residents who want the rock revetment and granted the 25-year term.
Since then, the Conservation Minister has decreed that the best long-term option has to be determined in 12 years’ time. Ratepayers have had to fund council’s legal fees for this charade. Now the council is trying to recoup some of this ($14,000 ) from Kathy Mason and Peter Keall.
There is something wrong with the system when ratepayers have to go to court to solve issues with their own council. The councillors and staff actually work for us, the ratepayers. It should be possible for us to sit down with our “employees” and talk issues through, with a mediator, if necessary. We at Waihi Beach will not let this council rule us.
The irony is that the NZ Coastal Policy Statement review, if put into law, will mean no more rock revetments on public land, to protect private property.
John Watt (Waihi Beach)
ECO-BULBS
In his July 5 letter, Malcolm Bailey notes that some of the compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) he has installed have lasted no longer than the incandescent lamps they replaced, rather than the much longer life-time claimed by manufacturers. The standard basis for the stated lifetime of a fluorescent lamp has been the assumption that the lamp, once switched on, will remain on for three hours (“three burning hours per start”) – an acceptable assumption for linear fluorescent lamps used in, say, an office building.
When such lamps are switched on and off more frequently, as in a home, lamp life reduces significantly. A household lamp may sometimes be on for only a few minutes – and encouragement to always switch off lamps when not needed will only exacerbate this problem.
Hayden Willey (Mt Albert, Auckland)
The commentary on the Efficient Lighting Strategy over the past weeks suggests the media is uninformed on the topic of sustainable lifestyles.
Warm-coloured, yellow-spectrum compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) have been available for some time now, as have CFLs that warm up instantly and ones that work on dimmers. Even the 12V downlights now have two CFL options that I know of.
Nevertheless, there will be exemptions for specialty bulbs for which there are no workable efficient replacements.
LED lights have not been mentioned by your journalists. LEDs are rapidly coming down in price, are available in a large range of hues and fittings, including 12V downlights and bulbs commonly used in outdoor security lights, and have a functional lifetime that makes their value for money an order of magnitude higher than CFLs’.
The Waste Minimisation Bill, now past its second reading, includes a recommendation to make CFLs require importers to be responsible for the safe recycling of the bulbs at the end of their life. I trust those who are concerned about the mercury levels in CFLs (which have dropped significantly since their entry into the market) will support the bill.
In addition, the Ministry for the Environment is working with the lighting industry to create a voluntary nationwide CFL collection system.
Finally, inefficient CFLs, which your correspondent Malcolm Bailey clearly came across, are also regulated under the Minimum Energy Performance Standard, and therefore will not be allowed to be imported when the standards come into effect.
James Redwood (Tauranga)
PASSING NCEA
I was surprised to read Joanne Black’s July 5 column on the NCEA. I am the same age as Joanne Black’s friend (15), and am also doing NCEA Level 1. I feel it’s unfair to put all 15- to 16-year-olds into a group that supposedly does the minimum amount of work to pass NCEA. My peers work extremely hard to get the best results possible.
To get the best is not as easy as Black makes out. There are four grades: Not Achieved, Achieved, Merit and Excellence. Although it is possible to pass NCEA with just Achieved, there is also the opportunity to pass with Merit or Excellence. These provide motivation to work harder to get better than Achieved.
I would also point out it is ludicrous to suggest you could get two points (or credits, as we call them) for opening a Word document and changing the font. This would be an insult to our intelligence if this were true. Despite what Black may say, there is no “easy acceptance of underachievement”.
The NCEA may not be perfect, but it is also not easy. I suggest Black revise her knowledge of the NCEA system, as it is not just the number of credits you get that decide your final mark but also how well you do throughout the year and whether you get Achieved, Merit or Excellence. Unlike her 15-year-old friend, not all students are influenced by how easy the subject is. Many of us follow our passions and do our best.
Ruby Parker (Roslyn, Dunedin)
Joanne Black replies: NCEA offers three credits for a pupil who can plan, produce and print a desktop document. There are also two credits available for being able to “describe, create, send, receive, organise and save email”. My point is that students who choose to take easy NCEA options are spoiled for choice.
SELENIUM
Selenium (Nutrition, June 21) is a trace element needed by animals but not shown to be necessary for plants. Plants will take it up from the soil and the amount depends on levels in the soil.
For instance, Australian wheat contains about 10 times more selenium than Canterbury wheat, and our blood selenium rises significantly if we eat bread made from Australian wheat.
An early analysis of Brazil nuts showed high levels of selenium but this may have been because the particular nuts were grown in selenium-rich soil.
I would like someone to analyse nuts grown on different soils, because unless all the soils growing Brazil nuts are rich in selenium, I should not expect a couple of nuts a day to meet my needs.
Professor Thomas “John” Walker (Halswell, Christchurch)
DAIRY AND TRADE
If farmers are expected to subsidise the price of milk to New Zealand consumers, why were farmers not offered subsidies for negative returns in earlier years by the green grizzlers?
Garrick Batten (Brightwater)
It’s time we came to grips with the irony that the kwila deck chairs we laze on while downing our favourite lagers often rest on rimu floorboards and boxing. Our booming dairy industry and wider agricultural sector rest on the gross deforestation of our country in the last 150 years.
When Paul Kerr (Letters, June 21) and Sarah Barnett (Ecologic, June 21) discuss the true cost of dairying and the tragedy of biofuels, they should note that the dairy industry and Government are harvesting the proceeds of deforestation through dairy pay-outs and “sustainable” biofuels created from agricultural waste.
In a globalised world, it is perhaps the treasures, biodiversity and carbon of places like West Papua that our Government and largest company should seek to protect rather than our milk prices and false carbon conscience.
Jamie Stewart (Opawa, Christchurch)
CARS ON A DIET
To all those like Julia Hartley Moore (“Wheel of fortune”, June 21) who wish to retain their love affairs with their cars in the face of climate change: did you know that by eating vegetarian an individual’s carbon footprint is reduced by a greater amount than if you gave up your car?
Leith Graydon (Christchurch)
