Letters to the Editor

November 24, 2006
Issue 

Packer protesters trial

The abbreviated report on the trial of Packer protesters in GLW #689 may have given some readers the impression that everything is rosy. In fact, only one charge was dropped — the charge of failure to obey a police direction to stop protesting. This was a real victory but the other charges remain. Six out of seven defendants continue to face trial, which has been adjourned until April. We are still calling for the remaining charges to be dropped.

Alex Bainbridge

Sydney, NSW

Greenhouse emissions

The prime minister's refusal to join a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless all nations participate is a serious mistake. Lower Australian emissions would probably benefit the world. Consequently, we should reduce our pollution regardless of what other nations do.

Curtailing emissions in Australia would not lead to a mass exodus of industry. It is not practical for most businesses to relocate overseas and supply Australian consumers from there. Companies often want the skilled labour and infrastructure available in rich nations like Australia.

Anyway, if some corporations moved to poorer Asian countries, this would desirably advance economic development there. Technology transfers can promote environmentally efficient production overseas. However, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam are already roughly as energy efficient as Australia is.

In a fair world, people in different countries would produce similar levels of greenhouse gases per capita. But Australians generate five times the world average. Howard's attempt to maintain Australia's highly privileged status epitomises short-term nationalistic greed.

Brent Howard

Rydalmere, NSW

G20 protest

Organisers of the November 18 Stop G20 demonstration and march can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. The Stop the War Coalition took the initiative of a mass rally into the G20 collective because we felt that the planned "Carnival against capitalism" was not enough to attract a large layer of people prepared to show their public opposition to the policies of the G20.

In the lead up to the G20 summit, the mainstream media worked themselves up into a frenzy, working hard to manipulate people from staying away, as did the state apparatus with their unjustified security measures. At the same time we have seen a split in the movement with sections drawn to the conservatising "make poverty history" phenomena as an acceptable way to protest corporate greed.

In this context, a turn up of around 3000 people at the rally was a real success.

The protest was very political and people had an excellent time, with most of the protesters entirely missing the isolated skirmishes of a small group with the cops.

It should come as no surprise to us that the corporate media will spin the facts and only show footage of fights with the police to manipulate the broader public's opinion in their favour.

Since the protest, the police have gone on a rampage of arbitrary arrests with "snatch squads", fully supported by some media outlets which have conducted a witch-hunt of protesters reminiscent of the 1950s anti-communist hysteria!

There is much welcome discussion on the left now about the tactics of the movement as part of the fall out from the G20 protest. It is important to note that protesters did not "storm" the barriers even though there was nothing there to stop them. The fact that this did not happen clearly indicates that a direct confrontation with the police was not a tactic that struck a chord with the 3000 protesters.

The discussion about tactics is important and necessary if we actually want to achieve our aim — changing the status quo of capitalist oppression. At the same time, it is also critical that we condemn the actions of the police and media alike in the interest of our civil liberties and our right to protest.

Margarita Windisch

Yarraville, Vic

Milton Friedman

The exploitative practices of rampant, uncontrolled capitalism have been downplayed in the generally gushing obituaries of Milton Friedman, whose influence during the past three decades or so has been greater than his friend and ideological (and defeated or at least "surpassed") rival John Kenneth Galbraith.

John Maynard Keynes' influence, however, is arguably greater than that of Friedman, since Keynes' theories supposedly "saved" capitalism (by modifying it) in the 1930s and 1940s.

One wonders whether economic theories — like that of economic trends — go through "cycles". If that be the case a revival of Keynesian economics and even Galbraith's liberalism could become the main trend again in the future, if not in America then at least in other less "Friedmanite" economies of the world.

Myint Zan

Burwood, Victoria

ABC anti-'bias'

The policy recently announced by ABC managing director Mark Scott, at the Sydney Institute, the home of Liberal Party orthodoxy, objectively can only be described completely unnecessary and impractical. Scott pretends to "get serious about any bias" — a phoney justification by an official appointed by an ABC board full of Howard stooges.

All programs now have to be tested on "balanced" presentation ostensibly to protect the ABC but in reality to protect the Howard government. This idiocy is the latest phase in government interference in the ABC and it is both laughable and dangerous.

We now have to endure additional drivel by right-wing commentators the likes of whom already dominate much of the extensive commercial broadcasting sector. The cause of this situation surely is the political system itself which consistently produces incompetent governments — and oppositions — while the Westminster system is supposed to do the opposite.

The nonsense about diversity which, supposedly is Scott's aim to protect, doesn't exist at the political level to begin with. We have a two-party tyranny of look-alike parties and amateur ministers. New entrants and new ideas are effectively barred from entry. This is the opposite of democracy.

Are the people powerless to change that? Not at all. In every election they have two votes. They can use their Senate vote wisely next time and vote for minor parties or independents so that the effective control shifts back to the Senate. Could Australians start thinking about how the system works just in time before the wool is pulled completely over their eyes?

Klaas Woldring

Pearl Beach, NSW [Abridged]

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.