Tavern Talk

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 819, 7 April 1955, Page 4

Tavern Talk

FEW weeks ago we wrote 7% about six o’clock closing. As was to be expected, the edi‘torial provoked some unfavourable comment. Th subject is not easily separated from emotional attitudes, and any attempt at rational discussion is generally defeated by extremists. It was, however, a little surprising to see that irresponsible comment had found its way into the columns of a re'spected fortnightly journal, The Outlook. The views of some Presbyterians on liquor are well known, and are not being questioned here. If we do not agree with them, we can believe that they are held sincerely. We therefore concede to the editor of The Outlook the right to speak for a large and _ influential section, though on social issues he cannot be sure that he is speaking for everyone, or even for the majority. But we do not believe he is entitled to base his comment on a recklessly inaccurate precis of what has been written in another journal. : The Outlook comment begins with this sentence: "The JN.Z. Listener has not been so happy in editorially asking for ten o'clock closing-especially when using the reason that 6 p.m. closing is merely a women’s choice." We did not ask for 10 o’clock, or even mention it. The purpose of our editorial was twofold: (1) to suggest the need for reform in licensing laws, and (2) to explain why, in our opinion, reform is likely to be "slow and difficult." It was, of course, Professor D. C. Marsh who declared that women’s votes were decisive in 1949. Our own view was more cautious.."There is no’ way of knowing," we said, "how the women voted; but it is a fair assumption that most of them ‘wanted their. husbands home at night." And then, after suggesting that dislike of liquor, "simple and absolute," was one reason for their decision, we added: "These ideas were by no means confined to

women." The editor of The Outlook, ignoring the reservations, let it be assumed that we looked upon six o'clock closing. as "merely a women’s choice." The comment continued: "Since practically all New Zealanders have homes into which they can invite friends for the evening and can drink there (or in hotels if that is where they live), any call for establishing English village inns out here is either sentimentality or hypocrisy. It is sentimentality if it really expects that New Zealand bar-rooms will be turned into pleasant clubs by Act of Parliament. It is hypocrisy if what it really wants is somewhere to drink to an extent that would seem shameful if done at home." The weak syntax can be excused when it so obligingly helps to reveal weak thinking. From where, however, is the "call" supposed to have come? Our own words on the subject were quite plain: "The social graces of the English ‘local’ ... could not have been summoned into existence by a referendum." The suggestion of hypoctisy comes oddly from one who _ ventures among unspoken thoughts, and finds them unworthy, without taking the trouble to put down, or accurately report, the thoughts that were uttered. Nowhere in his comment (which has now been reprinted here in full) did the editor quote our actual words, though in an earlier paragraph he quoted extensively from another editorial he felt able to approve. If our opinions were not acceptable to him, he was free to oppose them. But his first duty as a journalist was to make sure that he had correctly ,explained the viewpoint he hoped to demolish. It is never surprising to be misunderstood or misrepresented by people who read in a hurry and take a quick leap to conclusions which satisfy their prejudices. But we should be able to expect something better than this from the editor of The Outlook.