Write on: letters to the editor

Euthanasia

I disagree with those who argue that the prohibition of euthanasia should
be maintained and by implication the law does not need to changed.

There is, unfortunately, a grey area in the Crimes Act in several states
under which doctors who prescribe liberal doses of painkilling drugs to
terminally ill patients and nurses who administer these drugs could be
charged with manslaughter if the coroner finds that the treatment contributed
to the death of the patients concerned.

While these doctors and nurses would almost certainly be acquitted if

the matter comes to a trial, it does not prevent these doctors and nurses
from having to undergo a long ordeal in the courts because they acted with
compassion to relieve the suffering of dying persons. The threat of being
prosecuted under the Crimes Act may prevent doctors and nurses from providing
patients suffering terrible pain with adequate pain relieving medication
in the final stages of a terminal illness.

The law needs to be changed so that the best palliative care can be
provided to terminal patients. Doctors should be able to prescribe painkilling
drugs freely to patients suffering from terminal illnesses and in great
pain without fear of being investigated and charged under an outmoded,
archaic law.

Jim Coates

Farrer ACT

Sorry for terrorism?

It is very nice to know that President Clinton has said sorry for the
terrorism in Central America and that the US must not repeat this mistake!

Indeed, this terrorism on a grand scale is called a “mistake”! It is
also nice to know that all the time the air-strikes and bombing in Iraq
have continued so that maybe future presidents can one day call this a
“mistake” also!

It is also nice to know that the CIA, responsible for this terrorism,
is still fully operational and undoubtedly planning similar adventures
elsewhere in the world!

Is there any difference between Central America and Auschwitz apart
from a difference in time?

And it is also nice to know that the US regime right now is resuming
the so called star-wars program which may lead to another arms race and
yes ... a nuclear holocaust!

Doing another Hiroshima is maybe what the US has had in mind all the
time, eh? When it comes to self-interests, politicians stop for nothing
isn't it?

President Clinton thinks he has done Central America a valuable service
but maybe words like “sorry” and “mistake” have a different meaning in
the US when it comes to the interests of the nation!

Henk Hout

Sydney NSW

Stamping them down

In the year 2000, Australia Post plans to issue a series of stamps depicting
what it describes as “ordinary Australians”. The 25 people chosen are intended
to portray the “Face of Australia at the end of the 20th century and characterise
the nation at the turn of the second millennium. The list below should
meet the selection criteria.

• 
  A long term unemployed

• 
  A homeless young person

• 
  A victim of crime

• 
  A starving pensioner

• 
  A dispossessed Aboriginal

• 
  A poverty stricken worker

• 
  An exploited worker

• 
  A survivor of child abuse

• 
  A disillusioned voter

• 
  A frustrated welfare worker

• 
  A bankrupt bush dweller

• 
  A flood victim

• 
  A rejected de-tox addict

• 
  An unrepresented defendant

• 
  An interned refugee

• 
  A marginalised youth

• 
  A struggling student

• 
  A forgotten war veteran

• 
  A vilified whistleblower

• 
  An angry ratepayer

• 
  A jailed protester

• 
  A work for the dole conscript

• 
  An ignored environmentalist

• 
  An imprisoned fine defaulter

• 
  A refused hospital patient.

Should the stamp series be expanded to accommodate other similar ordinary
Australians?

Ron Baker

Eight Mile Plains Qld

Double standard

Throughout its approach to the crisis in Yugoslavia, leaders of the
US-directed Western community have exhibited the egregious hypocrisy and
destructiveness that routinely characterise their foreign policies. The
Clinton administration's deployment of NATO troops for bombing campaigns
against Serbia demonstrates the disparate standards applied by the heads
of powerful Western nations, with the criteria for punishment or exoneration
ultimately determined according to the offending state's relations with
the US and its allied governments.

The US posture represents a continuation of its historic double standard
towards allies and adversaries. Generous US and Western support in the
post-World War II epoch for despots including the Shah in Iran, Indonesia's
Suharto, Chile's Pinochet, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, brutal Central American
authoritarian regimes and armed rebels in Nicaragua, Angola and Mozambique
has been counterbalanced with righteous denunciations of several states,
most notably the Soviet Union, Cuba and Iraq latterly. While repeatedly
violating international law, the US continues to practice consistent inconsistency
in its attacks on Yugoslavia.

Joseph Raso

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

SCLC 1

I felt I must respond to Wollongong DSP branch secretary Andrew Hall
regarding his article on the South Coast Labour Council elections. In the
article Andrew asserts that Arthur Rorris, who ran for the SCLC secretary's
position, had support from “business circles”, an incredible claim which
I have neither seen nor heard from any other source. From where did you
get this information, Andrew?

Andrew also said that if Arthur was successful the SCLC's green bans
would probably be lifted. This is a charge of the existing leadership and
has been denied by Arthur and his supporters. Why does Andrew repeat this
allegation as fact? Andrew also states that “it remains unclear whether
Rorris will be accountable to local unions and the community, or will serve
the interests of the NSW Labour Council and the ALP”. No explanation for
this statement is given, but it is clear who Andrew is listening to.

Andrew's article was a sad and pathetic attempt to appear impartial,
while, in fact, distorting the truth and parroting claims of the existing
leadership as if they were fact. It is a shame the Wollongong DSP branch
has supported such an ignorant attack on a left candidate and the many
left activists who support a change in the leadership of the SCLC.

Nick Southall

Fairy Meadow NSW

SCLC 2

Andrew Hall's article (GLW #354) concerning the South Coast Labour
Council (SCLC) “leadership challenge” fails to mention an important point.

The SCLC led by Paul Matters and Neville Hilton has long been in the
forefront of the Bougainville freedom fight.

In January-February 1994 the Port Kembla dock workers (in this case
Australian Workers Union members) blacked the SS Gopali, loading
cargo for Papua New Guinea, specifically to protest against the Bougainville
war.

The SCLC was attacked by both ACTU and ALP leaders for this black ban,
but stuck to its guns and insisted that Australia's war against Bougainville
— to recover CRA's Panguna copper and gold mine — was disgusting and
disgraceful.

On many other occasions the SCLC supported the Bougainville Freedom
Movement and the Bougainville Interim Government/Bougainville Revolutionary
Army (BRA) both morally and financially.

This contrasts favourably with most other union bodies, which long failed
to give such support.

Max Watts

Sydney

SCLC 3

We want to respond to the political issues raised in Nick Southall's
letter.

The election process and ongoing discussion here continue to be ambiguous
and emotional rather than focusing on what would be the best way forward
for the working class in Wollongong.

Nick's response is to an article in which the Democratic Socialists
state they do not support either the Matters or Rorris factions above the
other in the struggle for the leadership of the South Coast Labour Council.
There are strong reasons not to support each, as well as some good reasons
to give support to one or the other.

Lack of information from the Rorris camp on their proposals for the
direction and policy of the SCLC has made stating clearly what it stands
for difficult. All Arthur Rorris would say, when contacted by me, apart
from general comments about unity, was that his challenge seeks to “manage
the union movement better”. Had the Rorris challenge outlined a plan to
actively involve local unions in the SCLC and continue the SCLC's support
for progressive environmental and social campaigns, we would have gladly
included this in our article.

The best solution would be for Arthur Rorris or his supporters to outline
a clear political program for the advancement of unionism on the South
Coast, and reasons why the Democratic Socialist Party and others should
support such an alternative ticket. We are sure that GLW would be
pleased to provide space for this.

Andrew Hall

Secretary, Wollongong branch

Democratic Socialist Party

Men can be feminists

Mary Merkenich writes (GLW # 354) that she was “surprised to
read in GLW that men can be feminists”. We believe that men can
and should be feminists because we understand feminism is a political belief,
not a biologically determined value. Here we agree with the Macquarie
Dictionary: “A feminist is someone who advocates equal rights and opportunities
for women.” Anyone who actively campaigns for equal rights for women is
a feminist, regardless of gender.

Mary advocates an “autonomous women's liberation movement in which men
cannot be members”. She also suggests, and we agree, than men should be
“involved in the campaigns and actions” of the women's liberation movement.
But that, surely, would make those men members of the movement.

Maybe Mary is talking about women-only organising as the women's movement?
Resistance and the DSP say that women and men have different roles within
the women's liberation movement. We believe that there is a difference
between the membership of the movement and the leadership of it. We believe
that women themselves must politically lead the struggle for women's liberation.
The decision of the exact organisational form of the campaign should be
made by women, on the basis of what is in the best interests of building
the strongest campaign for women's liberation.

In many circumstances, Resistance and the DSP support women-only organising
as a way to help overcome women's under-confidence in politically leading,
created by women's socialisation. Resistance and the DSP support women's
rooms on campus, but we don't think that these spaces should be counterposed
as a “safe refuge” from sexism to building campaigns to eradicate sexism
on campus.

If we accepted the argument that men cannot be feminists, Resistance
and the DSP would not call themselves feminist organisations, since both
organisations consist of men and women. But both organisations do, proudly,
see themselves as feminist organisations, which seek to convince all their
members and all people of the need for feminist consciousness and action.

Margaret Allan and Wendy Robertson

Democratic Socialist Party National Executive

[Abridged.]

Correction

In an article I wrote in the April 7 edition of Green Left Weekly,
the following sentence was attributed to me: “Under the mandatory sentencing
laws, if during a previous protest an individual was charged and fined
for some 'offence', a second offence could attract a minimum two-week sentence”.

This sentence is incorrect and I never wrote it. The Northern Territorian
mandatory sentencing act imposes a minimum two week sentence for any crime
of theft or property damage. The mandatory two-week sentence is never imposed
upon protesters unless their crime involves theft or property damage. Incidentally,
the three Jabiluka activists charged with “unlawful use of a motor vehicle”
had their charges withdrawn after it was established that they were not
using a motor vehicle, but rather preventing it from being used.

Robert Milne

Darwin