La Cooperación en Red desde los parámetros de la Interculturalidad

6 _{ibid, Armstrong P., A History of Save our Sons Movement of Victoria, 1965-1973, MA, Monash}

University, Clayton, 1991 p 96.

7 _{Hamel-Green M.,'The Resisters: a history of the anti-conscription movement 1964-1972', in King}

P.(ed), Australia's Vietnam, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1983, p 114.

8 _{Open Letter from SDS to City of Melbourne 18/2/69; Ralph and Dorothy Gibson collection UMA.}

A combination of police arrests using the provisions of the Crimes Act and the use of MCC Parking officers to enforce the by-law saw over 100 arrests by early March 1969.9 _{Yet there appears to have been a selective approach followed as to who was}

arrested. Some students, especially those, who were prominent activists, were charged under the more serious provisions of the Crimes Act. Other protesters, such as some trade union officials, had their names taken and were warned but not arrested. There was less discrimination in the use of the by law, with a large number of students, anti­ conscriptionists, SOS members and members of Parliament, including Dr. Jim Cairns, arrested. As a way of monitoring these actions, a prominent union official, Laurie Carmichael, brought along his tape recorder to tape police and council statements to protesters whom they were either arresting or warning. He also made it clear that there would be ongoing trade union support for students in anti-Vietnam War and anti­ conscription activities.10 Of those arrested under the by-law many chose to go to jail to

expose the unjust law and put further pressure on the council to repeal it. On weekends people rallied outside Melbourne GPO and would hand out leaflets in defiance of the by-law. 11

Further demonstrations and arrests continued throughout March. Students from Melbourne University, Monash University and Royal Melbourne Institute of

Technology organised a demonstration of over 1,000 students and workers on March 25, with active assistance from the 'Rebel Unions'.12 _{SDS members and their}

supporters sought to have a delegation meet with the Acting Town Clerk, M. Herd, on

9 _{Hamel-Green M., in King P,(ed), op cit, p 114.} 10 _{Age, 17/2/69.}

11 _{Herald, 6/3/69.} 12 _{Age, 26/3/69.}

March 31; however, this failed to influence the MCC to repeal the by-law.13 _{SDS then,}

with the support of the 'Rebel Unions', sought to threaten the mayor's commercial interests.

The Chairperson of the MCC General Purposes Committee, which had the authority

to repeal the bill, was Sir Maurice Nathan. He had initially made it clear he was not concerned with who or how many would be arrested and he would not repeal the by­ law. Nathan was one of the conservative Civic Group councilors who represented the interests of local big business, and was a director of Courage Brewery. The 'Rebel Unions' took steps to put pressure on the MCC. This included banning transportation of Courage Beer and urging their members to support a SDS proposal to boycott consumer items that could be linked to members of the Civic Group, particularly Nathan and his Courage Beer. The unions distributed leaflets headed "Boycott Courage Beer- the Health Food of a Nathan."14 _{SDS similarly urged: "We are calling} for a boycott of Courage Brewery and all other economic interests that Civic Group represents". 15 _{Courage Brewery allegedly began to suffer losses, and some activists}

believed this additional pressure led to the English owners of Courage contacting Nathan to seek a resolution to the problem. 16 _{On April 9, at a MCC General Purposes}

Committee meeting, the councilors repealed the bill.

Within the campaign to repeal By-Law 418 there were differences between sections of the newer Left groups. The differences were not so much over tactics as the

13 SDS Press Release, 30/3/69.

14 _{Michael Hamel- Green, interview, 10/4/99; Plowmasn D., 'Unions in Conflict: The Victorian Trades}

Hall Split 1967-1973 ', Labour Histor,y No' 36. On p 59 of this article he refers to a letter from the 'Convenor' of the 'Rebel Unions' Ken Carr which discusses their accomplishments, one of which was their role in the By law 418 campaign.

15 _{SDS Press Release, 2/4/69.}

ideology behind the struggle. SDS played a key role, assisted by the 'Rebel Unions' and SOS, and to a lesser degree, the Monash Labor Club and their supporters. However the Monash Labor Club position was quite different to that of the other groups. A leaflet put out at a demonstration by the Monash Labor Club and their comrades at the Latrobe University Labor Club, stated, "We are not pacifists, we are not marching to salve our consciences and we are not terribly concerned about City council by laws. There were criticisms that, despite SDS seeking a peaceful

demonstration, arrests still occurred and allegations of a meeting of students at

Melbourne University voting the action was not militant enough" .17 For the Monash

Labor Club and those who supported their position the issue was to oppose repression, as they cited examples of the crisis facing capitalism. Their message was that defeat of the imperialists in Vietnam would lead to a further crisis in the system and that, axiomatically, dissent at home would be repressed. Thus it was imperative that revolutionaries be vigilant and fight the trend towards repression.

The role of Jim Cairns also saw differences of opinion. In a biography of Cairns his biographer Paul Ormonde argues that, "The outcome of the protest show[s] the importance of having a leading public figure such as Cairns in the vanguard. Without his leadership, the issue would never have attracted much public attention. His willingness to go to jail, if necessary, ensured that the case received nationwide

publicity".18 Cairns played a key role as both spokesperson and activist. Along with

twelve other protesters, Cairns was arrested on April 3 1969, for breaching the by -

16 McLean J., quoted in Langley G., op _cit, p I 14.

11 _{Liberation, 25/3/69 A flier put out by Latrobe and Monash University Labour Clubs and authorised}

by Michael Hyde. Refer also to Lot's Wife, 3/4/69. The alleged meeting that voted the action was not militant enough is a mystery. Participants have no recollection of this meeting ever occurring, casting doubt on these allegations. If a meeting of this nature did occur it would have seemed to be a very small clandestine meeting, not one involving a large amount of students.

law and was released without bail. He was told he would be charged by summons but that never eventuated. The twelve others arrested were charged with failing to provide their names when requested. They were all released on bail of $2.00.19

The Revolutionary Socialists (RevSocs), however, criticised his role and his victory comments. To them Cairns had come into the struggle grandstanding and had taken it over. Cairns sought to portray the victory as a result of the conciliatory approach played by the councillors and insisted they should be lauded as reasonable men. He also insisted that it showed the effectiveness of the democratic system. In contrast to this position, the RevSoc's position was that it should be seen as a victory of principle and that access and control of the streets and free communication could be won by struggling against unjust laws.20

The struggle to overturn this by-law saw an increasing confidence within the anti� Vietnam War forces. Though the issue was essentially a domestic one, it was in relation to curtailing anti-Vietnam War and anti-conscription activities that the by-law was utilised. In the ensuing struggle it was the younger radicals who played the front line role, initiating a campaign of civil disobedience, and eventually, with, the support of the more established Left forces, achieved a repeal ofthis by-law. This helped set the tone for a more confident and radical year where anti-Vietnam War activists began to turn their movement to the Left and build a bigger, more radical movement.21