Condolence and commendation
For many years I worked in the Hunter Valley and Central Coast, and secured a modest livelihood from the splendid people who ran small businesses there. I was extremely upset at the loss of life that came about from the recent floods. I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to those whose family and friends are no longer with us.
I would also like to express my admiration to the courageous men and women who took part in the rescue operations. They deserve the highest commendation.
Bernie Rosen
Srathfield, NSW
Stop Bush protest tactics
Benjamen Standing (Write On, GLW #715) argues that those who want to emphasise the non-violent nature of the Stop Bush protest at the APEC summit are "ideologically, not tactically" driven. He believes this position "comes from pacifist tendencies, deep rooted in the Australian left". Standing is of course entitled to his opinion. However, as activists arguing for a non-violent approach, we cannot agree.
Surely Standing must have noticed the recently announced APEC police powers legislation, the almost daily "security" announcements for the summit and the heavy-handed police response at recent protests that are arguably preparation for the APEC summit?
Does he seriously think that these are not aimed at trying to intimidate the thousands of people who would potentially be prepared to protest when Bush and Howard share the APEC limelight? Is it not sensible for protest organisers to consider this context — which Standing neglects to mention — when deciding on tactics for the protest?
Standing writes that publicising the non-violent nature of the planned protest will "alienate" and even "demonise" activists who wish to pursue other tactics. Further, he implies that the Stop Bush Coalition is not prepared to extend solidarity to other activists in the face of a police crackdown. Nothing could be further from the truth!
However, our primary obligation as activists is to find the tactics to mobilise the largest possible number of people (and inspire into future action the broader layers watching on).
Emphasising non-violent tactics may not satisfy the desires of some for personal adventure and notoriety but it is surely the best way, in these circumstances, to build a large and politically effective protest against the projects that Bush and Howard represent.
Raffaele Fantasia & Alex Bainbridge
Sydney
Child abuse
Today, a child protection report is made in Australia every two minutes — a rate that has more than doubled over the last four years. A child is substantiated as having, or being likely to have, suffered abuse or neglect every 11 minutes, which was more than 34,000 individual children in 2004-05 alone, according to the Child Protection Australia 2004-05 report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare last year.
The crisis of child abuse is nation-wide, getting worse and has been ignored by federal, state and territory governments for at least the past decade. Using PM John Howard's logic, does this mean that the federal government should take control of all publicly and privately owned land for the next five years, or seek to complete nation-wide ban on alcohol sales for the next six months, or the sequestering of 50% of all wages of all parents to ensure that they are all spending their incomes "appropriately", or station army units in every neighbourhood?
Non-Aboriginal Australians would not accept these extreme measures and would question how they would address the problem of child abuse and neglect.
Howard has presided over a steady decline in social services in remote Aboriginal communities for a decade now. Despite numerous reports presented to his government highlighting the problems this has caused, why has it become an emergency now?
It seems that in the absence of refugees or terrorist threats, Aboriginal people must bear the brunt of desperate politicians in this election year.
The sense of hopelessness that leads to substance abuse, violence and child abuse is a legacy of the protectionist policies of governments toward Aborigines during the first half of the last century. These policies were designed to destroy Aboriginal culture and to steal more of their land.
Howard, with support from Kevin Rudd, wants to bring back these policies and finish the job of "assimilation" stopped by people power in the 1960s and '70s.
Hamish Chitts
Brisbane (via email)
Howard's 'help'
Those who are applauding PM John Howard on his latest authoritarian ideas for the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory, while he bangs on about "power" and "responsibility", should remember what happened in East Timor.
In 1999, with huge and mounting public pressure to end Australian betrayal of the East Timorese, under illegal occupation since 1975, Howard finally sent in Australian soldiers, at the 11th hour. He was forced to do that by ordinary-people-turned-activists standing up in solidarity with the East Timorese.
Howard, ever the opportunist for his corporate friends, then ignored international law to steal the lion's share of East Timor's oil and gas.
With his new-found concern for the Indigenous communities of the Northern Territory, what will Howard and his friends steal? Their rights? Their rights to their land?
Without cooperation, real partnership, there is no real help; just grandstanding, posturing, bullying. From what I hear, the people of NT are already deeply alarmed, and understandably. We must stand in solidarity with the Indigenous people. Any "help" given without partnership, without equality, without deep engagement, will be no help at all. And what we can expect from Howard is much worse than "no help".
Stephen Langford
Paddington, NSW
'Collective bargaining'
Who could believe it — federal government newspaper ads promoting collective bargaining! But on closer reading, they are never for the slaves who make it all happen, but for businesses to bargain among related businesses for their own financial advantage!
Ken O'Hara
Gerringong, NSW
GM crops
I have been incensed by the comments of federal minister Peter McGauran that state bans on genetically modified crops (GMC) are putting the future of Australia's agricultural sector at risk. Quite the opposite is the case, as overseas markets scream out for clean green unadulterated organic food, that Australia is ideally placed to provide.
Why is the federal government seemingly so intent on selling out our health and our environment to grand overseas interests that only want to make billions of dollars at our expense?
British bio-tech companies have covered up negative GMO health effects and have even silenced their own scientists. One well known giant US company has even admitted at its board meeting that its priority is not to feed the world's hungry people but to control the world's food supply and make billions of dollars profit for its shareholders.
The fact that the federal government appears to be encouraging these unethical corporations at the expense of our lucrative organic markets is deeply disturbing to say the least.
Alex Hodges
Birdwood, SA
Light globes
The fluorescent globes we are all being urged to adopt, and which will eventually be the only globes available, are rumoured to have a serious negative aspect. If accidentally broken, usually during attempts to insert or remove them, they release significantly dangerous amounts of mercury. Clean up is difficult, dangerous, and can result in contamination of a wide area. This is particularly so if a vacuum cleaner is used as the fine dust is disseminated into the atmosphere of the home.
We are advised to use "disposable brush and dustpan", sticky tape, presumably in copious quantities, to pick up the dust, then bag and double bag it and take it to specialised hazardous waste disposal centres. Is this true, or is it scaremongering by somebody with a vested interest in incandescent globes? If it is true, what steps can be taken to make clean up and disposal easier? Why, if it is true, have we not been told about it?
Colin Burt
Hervey Bay, Qld