Reps Theatre - "The Battle of The Toilets"

"The Battle of The Toilets"

"The Battle of the Toilets" is the nickname for a saga that started when the committee decided to hold a secret ballot to determine whether the new theatre, which was due to open in a few months, should be open to all races. An overwhelming majority voted in favour of the non-racial policy and the Reps Committee agreed.

The only problem was that the new theatre only had toilets for men and women, and there were immediate objections from the Salisbury Public Works Committee. They pointed to Section 142 of the Building By-Laws which stated that "Europeans are prohibited from using the same sanitary conveniences as Asiatics, Natives and/or Coloured people, and Asiatics, Natives and/or Coloured people are prohibited from using the same sanitary conveniences as Europeans".

On June 17, 1959, the Committee told Reps that, unless separate conveniences were provided, then they would not receive a Public building Certificate and the theatre would not open. The society was in a dilemma: the new toilets would be very expensive and would delay opening. There was also legal doubt about the validity of the Bylaw, and a debate on the issue of 'Public Conveniences' was shortly to be held in parliament. Also, this law was ignored in many other public buildings in Salisbury.

The City Council, however, pressed the issue and, on the December 14, 1959, insisted to Reps that there should not only be separate toilets, but a separate lobby and entrance. With one month until the official opening, on January 13, 1960, the Reps Committee moved to avoid a confrontation and the opening was restricted to Europeans.

Once the opening was behind them and encouraged by hints that the Public Works Committee was divided on the issue, Reps decided to stand firm. The chairman, Ken Towsey, wrote letters to the Mayor of Salisbury and Councillor J. J. Posselt, stressing the doubts on the Law's validity.

The Public Works Committee did not stand down and on March 29, 1960, the Council sought an interdict against Reps. This brought the confrontation to the fore: the Society had 30 days until the motion would be debated on the committee.

Reps sought the advice of Advocate Macaulay, Q.C. His opinion, which demolished the arguments of the Public Work Committee, was a model of precise argument. The report was about seven pages, and covered every aspect of the issue. It was said to read like an extract from Gilbert and Sullivan, as the following passage shows:

"Even if the council had the power .. to regulate the use of sanitary conveniences, the Bye-Law would still be bad in law and void for vagueness and uncertainty and unreasonableness. It prohibits the use of one race of conveniences used by another race. How can any member of the public know whether the convenience has been used, at some time, by a member of another race? Once so used the convenience becomes incapable in law of being used by the race it was intended to serve! One illegal use by a member of the wrong race would thus render it incapable in law of being used by any race at all, thus removing it altogether from the awkward problem of human relations."

On April 8, the report was privately conveyed to the Mayor, who advised them to quietly carry on with its current policy. A few days later, the motion for an interdict was defeated. The 'Battle' was over.