[?]or Rarotonga's

Another Body Blow [?]or Rarotonga's Blue Laws

Ever since missionaries of the ondon Missionary Society moved ito the Cook Islands in the early art of the 19th century, the happy o-lucky Polynesians of those islands ave had to put up with a whole ookful of Calvinistic regulations nd customs that are known as the lue Laws. [JUT one by one those regulations 3 and customs are being whittled way—though not without opposition rom some of the Cook Islanders, lemselves.

In March, for example, members f several Rarotongan youth clubs ocked a snook at custom by going board a tourist liner to entertain ome 1,400 passengers —to the con ternation of their elders ( PIM, May, 65).

Now it looks as if the Rarotonga sland Council is about to repeal ection 35 of the Rarotonga Regula ions and Offences Ordinance of 1917 vhich provides that “No man and roman shall cohabit together without »eing married to each other”.

Councillor R. J. A. Ingram, of he Island Council, moved at a recent neeting of the council that section 15 of the regulations should be epealed, and this motion was carried ifter some opposition. A repealing >y-law will therefore be prepared dr the next council meeting, when :ouncillors will have another oppor unity to speak on the matter.

Archaic Speaking to his motion, Councillor [ngram said that, in his opinion, section 35 was archaic and that to ;he best of his knowledge no similar •egulations existed anywhere in the world.

The Police Department, he said, lid not pursue offenders unless it was officially notified, and even then, the department found that many complaints were lodged spitefully by people bearing a grudge, and con sequently were largely hearsay.

Councillor Ingram added that his motion to repeal the regulation was his own idea, not his electorate’s, and that he was not questioning the laws on adultery, which he fully agreed with.

Speaking against the motion.

Councillor Teariki Tuavera said the police should take more positive steps to stamp out cohabitation ,nS T He said he was concerned for the children begotten m such a relationship, because, in many cases, the father would not accept responsibility and invariably the mother and child were deserted without any means of support.

Coundllor Pa Ariki, a woman, spoke in favour of the motion. She

said that in many instances the young people concerned were not entirely at fault, and that much of the blame

£ .."Xtis

of p parents who opposed their marriage and thus forced them into th t ® of i; vine tnat Way ° r “ g ‘ Interference Decried she the right of an in dividual freely to choose his or her mate, and decried the interference of

parents to ensure that a marriage complied with their ideas.

Councillor Vakatini Ariki said that the London Missionary Society was trying to counteract an increase in unmarried cohabitation by getting the deacons in each village to enter the homes of such couples and urge them to get married.

These couples were told that if they did not get married within three

months, their offence would be brought to the attention of the police.

Councillor Ingram said he agreed with the church’s method of approaching the problem; and several other councillors pointed out that the council did not wish to relax the laws relating to cohabitation, but rather to transfer the responsibility from the police to parents.