Freedom to hate … injustice
Regarding Steve Gumerundji Hodder's article, "Freedom to hate is not free speech" (GLW828). I believe we do have the freedom to hate injustice, tyranny, cruelty and racism, and to say so.
I think, too, that the site actively promoting contempt on racial grounds is not desirable — one thinks of the crude anti-Jewish propaganda published in Nazi Germany, which any sensible person would discount and find very distasteful.
Censorship is a thorny issue. Surely incitement to commit violence is a criminal offence, as it should be. As far as tolerance and the desire for universal justice are concerned, education must go a long way to promote these.
Let's hope those who've looked at a "site promoting extreme racism in the guise of humour" are educated, balanced people. Personally, I wouldn't miss random, unprovoked violence and crude humour if it were removed entirely.
Back to hate —if we do not hate evil, are we really good?
On another matter, I strongly endorse Ann Gunning in the same issue: "Educations should be free for everyone, and anyone who wants to study should be able to." Let's change our society — our system.
Marie McKern
By email
Population
Australia's annual population growth of 2.1% will quadruple our population by the end of the century. Anyone who considers this to be sustainable or desirable clearly thinks that this country is still a terra nullus.
The main reason for Australia's population growth is to prop up the flagging capitalist system. If our population were stabilised, we would now be in a recession.
Without population growth the price of land would collapse. The rich would lose trillions, while the poor would be able to buy a house. This really makes me wonder why most on the left take the side of the capitalists and property developers, with their support for perpetual growth.
This is not some anti-immigrant rant. Immigration is still necessary to sustain the population, reunite families and provide a home for refugees.
Australia's negative birth rate makes it possible for us to significantly increase our refugee intake, even while we stabilise our population.
Alex Milne
Melbourne
Not a nuclear 'nuclear renaissance'
As author of the study on The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030, I was dismayed read the letter from Marya McDonald (GLW #829) criticising the study for seeking to be unbiased and claiming that it advocates a nuclear "renaissance" as a solution to climate change.
As an academic research project, the study certainly had neither a pro- nor anti-nuclear stance but sought to be objective and independent. If McDonald had read further than this disclaimer she would have discovered that far from predicting a "renaissance" (a term we deliberately avoided), the study found there are likely to be significant impediments to a major revival of nuclear energy in both existing and aspirant nuclear energy states.
Moreover, the study refutes the notion that nuclear energy can significantly address climate change since it is too expensive and too slow.
Our central recommendation is that if nuclear energy, despite our predictions, is to stage any type of revival it should only be permitted to do so if global governance is strengthened to make it safer, more secure and more proliferation-resistant.
We make the case that one more Chernobyl, a nuclear 9/11 or one more state that acquires nuclear weapons through a purportedly peaceful program would be a disaster, not least for the future of nuclear energy.
The report may be found at the website for the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Canada
Trevor Findlay
Nuclear Energy Futures Project director & Carleton University professor
Ottawa, Canada