ibid, p 115, this discussion was raised in an interview conducted between Goldbloom and Ormonde.

59 _{Saunders M.,1975, op cit, p 21, Age, 17/11/69; Australian, 17/11/69.}

60 _{Ormonde P., op cit, p 115.}

61 _{Saunders M.,1975, op cit, p 21.}

62 _{Secretaries Report, CICD AGM, November 4 1970 UMA.}

JULY 41970

Though the Moratoriums dominated most of 1970, differences within the anti­ Vietnam War movement continued to manifest themselves in other forums. As has been discussed the two previous July 4 demonstrations with theirhigh level of violence and militancy had caused differences within the movement. Again this was manifest in 1970 though the differences took on a different shape this time. July 4 was to fall on a Saturday and to substitute the Maoists wanted to hold the demonstration

on the evening of Friday July 3.63

At the July 4 Committee meeting on June 5 a narrow majority voted 91 to 87 that the demonstration be conducted on July 3, starting with a march from the Treasury Gardens to the US Consulate. The march on the Friday would mobilise more people coming from their workplace, rathei: than coming from their homes on a Saturday morning. The meeting also elected a 32-member executive that was given the task of promoting the demonstration. However, the result of the vote caused consternation amongst sections of the movement and a further meeting was held on June 18 as there was a push to alter the date and destination. In a leaflet circulated by the State

Executive of the July 4 committee criticisms were made of the Monash students planning the meeting in advance and stacking it. The role of Ted Bull as chairperson was criticised, Bull being a CP AML member and favourable to the militant position.

For the CPA and others who were not Maoists there were allegations that he only allowed certain speakers, limited what debate there was, and chaired the meeting in a very parochial manner. There was the intimation that the agenda for the Friday demonstration was to seek a violent confrontation with the police as a way of revolutionising young people. 64

The subsequent meeting on June 18 saw the move to hold the march on the Saturday. The position put was that the demonstration commence outside the US Consulate at 10.00 am on July 4 and subsequently march down St. Kilda Rd and Swanston St to a

destination to be chosen by those in attendance at the meeting. 65 The vote in favour of

this was 243 - 168. At the same time the 32-member executive voted 22-10 to perform the task of promoting and supporting both demonstrations. The July 3 demonstration was to commence at 4.00 PM with a rally at Treasury Gardens and a march to the US consulate. The July 4 demonstration would assemble outside the US Consulate at 10.00 AM and would march to the American airlines, Pan Am,

Melbourne office.

Not suprisingly the CPA played an active role in seeking to change the date and

direction of the demonstration. 66 In the words of a Party organiser George Zangalis,

"There has been a split on the left over this but it is not so much a political split as a split over what the nature of the demonstration should be". 67 The party mobilised large

63 York B., Student Revolt, Latrobe University 1967-1973, Nicholas Press, Campbell, ACT,1989, pp 92-93 characterises this as being a result of a leadership struggle between the CPA and CP AML. In light of most other information this seems a fairly accurate appraisal of events.

64 _{This information is taken from a flier dated 30/6/70 put out by the State Executive of the July 4} Committee. It is held in the Ralph and Dorothy Gibson collection at the UMA.

65 Tribune, 24/6/70.

66 York B., 'The Australian Anti-Vietnam War Movement 1965-1973 ', Melbourne Journal of Politics, Vol 15, 1983-1984, p 35.

61 _{Sunday Observer, 517/70.}

numbers of members to ensure that they would have a strong presence at the June 18 meeting. Their concerns with the violence of previous demonstrations and the

influence of the radicals, was quite obvious by this time. They viewed the push for the Friday night as being "motivated by a conscious seeking of confrontation with the

police outside an empty consulate building". 68 CICD also supported the Saturday

demonstration since it was fearful of the scenes of the previous two years and was possibly feeling threatened about its role in the movement. CICD was critical of how the first meeting was run and was supportive of the June 18 meeting and its

direction. 69

Of interest is the role of SDS whose members and supporters expressed a number of

diverse viewpoints in their Catch 22 newsletters. Ted Poulton, Harry Van Moorst and

Alan Walker all produced copies of the SDS flier Catch 22 showing a diversity of

views to the schism over July 3 versus July 4. Van Moorst outlines the rationale behind changing the demonstration from the Friday evening back to the Saturday. He outlines the case of those who wished to change the rally from Friday to the Saturday. Those who were arguing for the Friday rally are accused of wanting 'nothing more meaningful than a confrontation with the police outside an empty building;' adding that it will isolate the most militant section of the anti-Vietnam War movement; it would fail to mobilise workers; and due to the small attendance it would not provide an opportunity to raise issues of anti- imperialism to a wide number of people. In the end it would play into the hands of the police, who would outnumber the

demonstrators and result simply ih a clash that would not benefit the movement.70

68 _{Tribune, 17 /6/70.}