§ 5. Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reasons for his conclusion that it would not be in the national interest to issue visas to Professor Nguyen Van Hieu, Mr. Dinh Ba Thi and Mr. Pham Van Chuong, spokesman of the South Vietnam National Liberation Front, to enter Great Britain for discussions and to address public meetings on the war in Vietnam.
§ Sir F. SoskiceWhilst I would gladly have afforded facilities for any genuine proposals for negotiation which these persons might wish to bring, I was quite satisfied, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that their sole object in coming to this country was to conduct propaganda justifying armed incursion by the North Vietnamese into South Vietnam. I did not think I would be serving the public interest in providing them with a platform in this country for that purpose, and I am not prepared to reconsider my decision.
§ Mr. FreesonIs this not a continuation of the disgraceful abuse of power by the Executive? Is this not a question of the freedom to hear points of view whether we disagree with them or not? Is it not about time that this tit-for-tat nonsense that has been going on for years was stopped?
§ Sir F. SoskiceThe answer to all three parts of that question is "No".
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanWould my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether it is really a correct use of language to call the statement of the case of one side with which one happens to agree legitimate, and the statement of the case with which one does not happen to agree propaganda? Is it not part of the democratic right not merely of the Vietnamese but of the British people to be able to hear both sides of a case?
§ Sir F. SoskiceThat depends upon how the case is put. I am quite satisfied that if those gentlemen had come here they would not, in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, have promoted a balanced public discussion of the issue.