Racial Hatred Bill
Lisa Macdonald's "Issues" story (GLW 19th May 1995) "What's wrong with the Racial Hatred Bill", is spot on.
Whilst not wanting to get up the nose of a group of people who seem to take great delight in bashing the shit out of the Palestinian people in their own misguided "we're the greatest" bullshit recording of history — who also just seem to think this is nothing compared to their own wailing about others ridiculing their holier than thou attitudes — note I didn't mention them — lucky me — it just seems rather ironic that they appear to be the driving force behind this legislation.
Whilst I'm sure "groups" such as the long term unemployed and single mothers could have a field day with "shared history, separate cultural identity, common literature etc" and government or Department of the S.S. draconian measures could be exploited by astute lawyers as racial hatred — after all a group is a group is a group. Imagine Australia's policy towards the East Timorese and Bougainvilleans (very life threatening) being seen by the Australian courts as racial hatred — "and what do you have to say on East Timor, Senator Evans?" "Err ... nothing".
So I'm sure we'll be able to "use" the legislation if it comes in — but the less articulate, less aware and those who'd like to speak their minds but aren't quite sure ... they'll surely become a very very silent majority.
Robert Wood
Surry Hills NSW
First Stone
It was certainly not my intention, in reviewing the Helen Garner book The First Stone (GLW, April 26) to dismiss or discourage healthy debates within the feminist movement. Such debates can and should challenge conservative views regarding the motivations for men's behaviour and solutions to violence, even if they emerge under the banner of feminism itself.
However, Tim Anderson's letter (GLW, May 10) accuses me of being unable to deal with the issues Garner raised. What issues did she in fact raise? What are the consequences of how she raised them?
The article pointed out that Helen Garner herself refuses to deal with the very real issue of healthy debates within feminism. She states clearly that she regards young feminists today as perpetrators of "ghastly punitiveness". She feels that it is only a select few older feminists who, by virtue of their age, are wiser than their younger counterparts and know better. This is not a discussion, it's a caricature.
There are others who dismiss discussion within the women's movement from a different perspective — they may regard all women as weak and unable to differentiate between fact and fiction, for example.
Regardless of the motivation behind the caricature, caricatures as a whole do not provide the means with which to analyse complexities, nuances and differences of opinion. They simply serve as the writer's straw person. Once created, they can be all the more easily dismissed.
This is what Helen Garner has done. She has not, as Tim Anderson claims, "dealt with the issue as a writer concerned with complexity and contradictions". Please, read the book.
Tim's assertion that feminism is not "innocent" because that would render it "powerless and ineffectual" takes one phrase from the entire article out of context. The article claimed that feminism was "innocent" of the charges which Helen Garner had laid against it — that it was ghastly and punitive. I would certainly be the last to propose that "innocent" means "powerless and ineffectual" in regard to the women's movement. History tells us otherwise.
The issues raised by Tim in relation to calls for harsher sentencing and penalties by some feminists do warrant serious debate and discussion. I am pleased that debate around the book is moving on and tackling some of these very serious issues, which have previously been omitted, and I agree with some of the concerns raised.
In order to give the discussion more meaning, ongoing involvement by many feminists in activities such as the Reclaim the Night marches will be important. These provide the best means to discuss out the consequences of various proposals for tackling the issue of violence against women and children — in and open and democratic forum in which we can all participate. Kath Gelber, Glebe NSW
Sustainable forest industry
The crunch has come for the timber industry. The massive undertaking of clearing our land must finally cease and the equally massive task of revegetation must begin.
The State Government's incentive to stop logging identified Old Growth must be complemented with employment strategies, moving workers from harvesting to planting. For many, this is an opportunity to take control by establishing a locally based, sustainable forest industry.
For towns such as Dorrigo and Tenterfield whose primary industry is based on timber, the closure of mills and scaling down of the timber industry need not be as painful as some would assume. In fact if an imaginative approach is taken, the present situation could be a boon for these communities.
One of the major areas of growth will be in the nursery and plantation industries. As the demand for these forest products increases healthy seed stocks will become more valuable. Healthy seed depends on a variable gene pool. This means maintaining the seed stock of all endangered forest species. The viability of these industries will depend on maintaining large areas of diverse forest. Developing these industries will create healthy sustainable economies because they are based on a sustainable resource use.
The industry must diversify if it is to remain viable. This means the exploration of a wide range of forest products and developing niche markets based around these products.
An important part of this process is value adding within the community. These towns' reliance on a small number of primary industries and their dependence on corporate investment has left the community, and the resources, vulnerable to exploitation. These communities must now be given the incentive to start their own local industries on a scale that they can manage and control.
Information and resources must be made available to allow these new industries to establish themselves. The present generation of timber workers must be retrained and financial assistance must be given to the plantation industry before this resource comes on line.
David Julian
South Lismore NSW
[Edited for length.]
Bitter vindication
It was with a sense of bitter vindication that we witnessed the rejection of the very first shipment of live sheep to Saudi Arabia, since the lifting of the ban on exports. For those 75,000 hapless sheep on board there is only one thing that is certain now — the longer they stay at sea the more they will suffer and die.
The trade to Saudi Arabia was halted in 1990 after 11 shipments were rejected due to the terrible condition of arriving sheep. Death rates on board tripled during the delays. In 1990 the Mawashi Al Gasseem was forced to remain at sea for an incredible 4 months before a country could be found to accept the surviving sheep.
At that time the government stated that the trade should only be allowed to resume once strict protocols were in place between our countries to safeguard the condition of the sheep. Yet on 21st March federal Primary Industries Minister Bob Collins announced the resumption of the trade despite the fact that no such protocols had been established! With the onboard squalor and filth causing outbreaks of disease rejections such as this are inevitable.
It is time the barbaric exploitation of these gentle creatures, for the financial gain of the few, was ended! Besides inhumanly cruel, the live sheep trade is also environmentally harmful and is costing Australian meatworkers hundreds of jobs nationwide. It is time the trade was immediately banned and replaced by the frozen carcass trade.
Please join us in our opposition to the trade — just call (09) 341 2304.
Andrew Connard
People Against Cruelty in Animal Transport
South Fremantle WA