I have been rather remiss in not posting the very prompt and excellent reply of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties to my letter.
Considering that my letter started well and degenerated into a rant, although their rather good reply does miss my point sometimes, I tend to think this was probably my fault rather than theirs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Patrick Henry
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. It is always good to hear from members, as the strength of any organisation depends on its members.
Firstly, in relation to funding, you would be aware that the AGM rejected the motion concerning the possibility of mortgaging the CCL property. That motion was on the agenda solely because it had been deferred from the previous AGM (2004), where the committee had put it up because a significant loss had been incurred in the 2004 year and it was considered prudent to ensure availability of funds should a loss be incurred in the 2005 year. As the 2005 year was basically break-even, the meeting overwhelmingly rejected the motion.
My own personal view is that it is not necessarily logical for the CCL to own an unencumbered property if it does not have sufficient cash resources to meet its necessary expenses.
[Good point.] However, I agree with you that the first effort should be made to increasing the revenue base of CCL through increased memebrship and donations. This strategy is beginning to bear fruit, and your membership is perhaps evidence of this. I am confident that CCL will be able to meet its running costs this year through the efforts that are currently being undertaken.
As to membership fees, our experience is that members come from a wide variety of circumstances, and some have difficulty affording the fees. If you are not in this position, I would encourage you to make a donation - either on a one-off basis or on a regular basis. There is provision for this on our membership forms.
[Ouch! Touche! On the other hand, I feel this reply has more rhetoric than substance but I'm not quite sure why. I think membership fees should be raised even a mere $10 - I don't accept that this is unaffordable for anyone. I think the principle is that this would keep us on an even keel, with extra donations to be used for extra activities. - PH]
As to your comments on the nature of the CCL executive, I trust are not unduly influenced by the article by Janet Albrechtsen published in The Australian in October.
[Probably they were, although not necessarily unduly. The Australian is a rightish Murdoch middle-brow paper- PH] Although I do live in Balmain
[makes me cringe at my own nastiness - PH], and most of the executive comprises lawyers, I think a fair assessment of our work will show that we engage in a wide range of issues but do concentrate efforts appropriately in "core areas" of civil liberties. Of course, it is easy to do so at present because it is the core of civil liberties that is under attack by the new Anti-Terrorism legislation.
As to other areas, such as gun control, are correct in your assumption that there is a range of views within the Council. CCL's policy on gun control is strongly in support of strong controls on gun ownership to maximise the practical ability of people to enjoy their rights in safety.
[Side issue - my fault - PH]You are most welcome to attend our committee meetings and meet the members of the committee and discuss your views and how can further contribute to the Council's work. The next committee meeting is on 25 January at 6.30pm at CCL's office at 149 St Johns Rd, Glebe.
Regards
Stephen Blanks
Secretary, NSW Council for Civil Liberties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
