This Planet

protect it,” says Bertell.

We are unable to kick this ‘nuclear habit’ because, she says remorse- fully, “We never said we were sorry.”

“We never said we were sorry for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we never said we were sorry for the Bikini (Atolls), and we never said we were sorry for Vietnam. Wenever backed down and I think it has to begin there,” she stressed.

“The military aren’t going to do it because they are being paid to pro- tect us with these horrible wea- pons. The researchers aren’t either because they are paid to produce

a

oo

the most productive weapons pos- sible. And the U.N. thinks it has to be tough,” she added.

The only way we can avert our- selves from our present destructive course, says Bertell, is if we accept the idea that “We do not solve things by war.”

During the film, she appeals to the need for international cooperation and negotiation, including the respect for the international Court of Law, treaties, and the autonom- ous rights of native peoples (ura- nium mining and nuclear testing is often done on native people’s land throughout the world).

“we have to stop operating out of fear, and activate the best part of our humaness- the peace, strength,

beauty which is at the centre of our hearts and our souls,”’ she concludes.

The film is compelling and infor- mative; Bertell tells us more about the dangers of the arms race in 20 minutes than most films convey in 90.

Ithough Nash used the same techniques and structure as ‘If You Love this Planet’ in the film ‘Nuclear Addiction’, she says she didn’t plan similarities between the two films. “it’s different because I didn’t start out to make it that way,” she said.

Nash says ‘Nuclear Addiction’, and three other of her new films, were constructed out of footage not used in the Speaking Our Peace series. “JT wanted to bring out the unique- ness of each of the women in- volved,” she said.

As a result, Nash has produced short, revealing profiles on three other Canadian women: writer Margaret Lawrence; former Ot- tawa mayor Marion Dewar; and University of Toronto meteorolo- gist and peace activist Ursula Franklin.

She contrasts Bertell’s image with the dynamism of Dr. Helen Caldi- cott. “She (Bertell) doesn’t have thesame emotional punch as Helen, but then, Rosalie’s approach to her -work is much different.”

“Rosalie is very shy. She has no vested interest in this world, no glory, no fame — it almost goes against her nature,” she said.

+N

Nash said Bertell started out re- searching Leukemia, and the ef- fects of radioactivity on the aging. It was from there that she began her present work as an activist. She is also “very dedicated” to her work with Miconesians exposed to radiation from nuclear testing, said Nash. .

Though ‘If You Love This Planet’ received an Academy Award, it was released with a disclaimer from the US department of Justice as being “foreign propaganda.” Asked if a similar situation could arise with ‘Nuclear Addiction’, Nash responded, “I don’t know.”

She said the case with her other film is presently “under litigation.” “At the first,” she said, “a Califor- nia court overruled the decision, but the Justice department ap- pealed it. On his last day in the Washington Court of Appeals, before being appointed by Reagan to the Supreme Court, (Judge) Sca- lia upheld the appeal.

“And now itis going to.be heard in 1987 in the Supreme Court, where Scalia now sits,”’ she said, “It doesn’t leave me with much confi- dence because the new Supreme court is becoming increasingly conservative with all the new Rea- gan appointees.” the director thinks the judicial system is becoming far too cosy with those actively prom- oting the development of nuclear technology — governments and corporations.

Nash says she’s worried about ‘Nuclear Addiction’ may be stamp- ed with the same foreign propa- ganda label as ‘If you Love this Planet’. “If the appeal is upheld, then I think we’re in trouble.”

THe attack on films that challenge the nuclear weapons buildup “is justified by appealing to arguments of national security,” Nash says. “But it’s not the real issue — the real issue is corporate interests and the Judicial protection of those interests — it’s terrifying.”

Facing a planet poison by the lethal material needed for the ‘nuclear fix’, and the corporate, judicial, and military interests threatened by it’s withdrawal, ‘Nuclear Ad- diction’ may bring us one step closer to re-defining “national security.”

Page 7