The Mailbag

The f o n ow i ng d a y was not pos . sible to obtain a quorum of the board. That we were well aware that we did not constitute a quorum j s made clear by our informing Mr Ragenvenu that if he chose to reimport the film he would have to inform the board which would then convene and endorse (or otherwise) our recommendations and issue the necessary certificate.

Mr Ragenvenu dwells at some length on the subject of education.

It was precisely with “education” in mind that we proposed certain conditions on the showing of the film which, to use our own words in the minute we recorded afterwards, is “a 15 minute documentary showing, factually and without emotion, something of the effects of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945”.

Mr Ragenvenu himself said that children under 12 years should not be allowed to see the film “as it could

terrify them and give them night-

mares”. In our view the shots of the terrible effects of nuclear radiation on human beings made the film un suitable for any young person; hence a “16 years and over” recommenda tion (not 18 years as Mr Ragenvenu says).

Further, the greater part of the potential audience for the film is not educated beyond primary school level so we said it would be necessary to accompany the film with an explana tion in simple terms putting the film in its proper context. Mr Ragenvenu’s understanding of the possible content of such an explanation is incorrect.

We see no reason why, for example, it should not summarise the past and present history of nuclear weapons but we do feel that it should be made very clear that the events shown took place nearly 30 vears ago and that, mercifully, since that time no nuclear weapon has been used in anger. Our reason for wishing to see the text of any explanation was to ensure that it was factually accurate

md as objective and non-emotive as he film itself.

Finally, “no speeches”. Mr Ragen renu is a responsible person and we iccepted his stated reasons for wishing 0 show the film without question.

Jut “speeches” would have converted 1 film-showing into a public meeting Dd such a meeting would be subject 0 the laws governing public order.

We must dispute strongly the alle ation made by Mr Ragenvenu that any film that makes New Hebrideans tiink and start questioning about life nd the world must be examined”.

Tiis is utterly untrue. All films estined for public screening in the few Hebrides are subject to censor lip. Many have been made subject > restrictions on age, most often be mse they contained an unacceptable icasure of sex or violence, and a ;ry few have been banned entirely >r the same reasons.

As far as we are concerned, the tore films that will encourage people 1 the New Hebrides to think, the Jtter. But would Mr Ragenvenu, as ducation Secretary of the Presby rian Church of the New Hebrides, ish to see “Deep Throat” (a itorious American pornographic m) or “The Clockwork Orange” (a m portraying horrible violence) reened freely here? We think not. hat is why we, in common with ery other civilised country in the Drld, have censorship laws.

We consider that, for the benefit PlM’s readers, it is useful to set it the original facts of the matter, id preferable that they be examined jectively.

A. R. Worer,

J. Bonhote,

J. Kalotiti.

la, New Hebrides.

Family Planning

Your publication (PIM, June, p ) contained an article on Family mning in Samoa mentioning Dr uis Heilman.

We consider Dr Heilman of the fice of Population Affairs to be a ding advocate of anti-life policies thin the Department of Health, ucation and Welfare (HEW) and Dress our agreement with Mr A. U. imaono, American Samoa Dele e at Large concerning the “myth” federal family planning volunteer i and mass fertility control experi ntation upon the poor.

Fhe Dept of HEW—Food and ug Administration has removed iPO-Provera from the market, n the months ahead we shall do ' best to expose such abuses.

RANDY ENGEL, Director.

Coalition for Life, [K>rt, Pa.