Privacy and NSW prisons
In the last year, the [NSW] Government has permitted the introduction of an unnecessary, expensive and intrusive biometric identification system for all people visiting prisons, in which visitors must submit to being photographed and fingerprinted. On each subsequent visit, their identification is checked against an image within the Department of Corrective Services' visitor database. Last month, the Department released a draft regulation which would authorise these identification systems as well as offer safeguards.
The supposed impetus for this new scheme was the "escape" of George Savvas, who was subsequently recaptured and died in custody. Instead of looking at corruption and incompetence within their own organisation, the department is taking the opportunity to criminalise visitors to prisons. Nowhere has the Department justified the need for such expensive, intrusive and inefficient technology.
The safeguards presently offered do not adequately address who will be authorised to access the information, nor do they prevent hard copies being made and passed onto other agencies. There are also no direct provisions for liability in case of misuse or impropriety.
Many Indigenous peoples have expressed opposition to the present unregulated system, as many of their customary beliefs prohibit images of people to be stored after their death. This is of particular concern given the disproportionate numbers of Indigenous people in custody.
There is no Privacy Act in NSW, merely a Privacy Committee Board, which can offer advice to Government Departments and deal with certain complaints. Their silence on this issue has been noticeable and highlights the need for comprehensive privacy legislation with a system of enforcement.
Please contact your local state MP and lobby them to oppose the Regulation. If you are interested in joining the campaign, then please contact the Criminal Justice Coalition, PO Box K365, Haymarket, NSW 2000, or phone (02) 9281 5000.
Sydney
[Abridged.]
Terrorism 1
Doug Lorimer took a bit of a pasting in Write On, GLW #289. He deserved it for making a general statement about what he conceives as socialists' attitudes to poorly defined specifics.
For sure, socialists would oppose random violence applied merely for the sake of getting media attention or embarrassing a government. Its very randomness is as likely to do direct violence to allies or potential allies as to enemies. Random violence is for us a fairly safe definition of terrorism.
Equally, socialists with an analytic bent would argue much about whether a given situation needs us to apply any violence at all, even if well-directed. We see this in the current controversy between the DSP (and others) versus the ISO (and others) in regard to how to deal with Pauline Hitler's mob.
The time may come — and sooner than we think — when we may have to re-enact the street brawls in London's East End between Blackshirts and Redshirts in the inter-war years. In those days, the police did more damage to us than the blackshirts did.
A two-front war is harder to fight. In the past few years, we have seen examples of very poor police liaison (AIDEX in Canberra) and very good police liaison (Nurrungar). In Canberra, some protesters and the police were much into mutual terrorism. All that did was create a very scary and explosive situation with lots more police violence than protester violence. The media ignored the former and beat up the latter.
At Nurrungar, we and the police mainly treated each other with respect. There was one instance there of police holding back one of their own (from a unit that hadn't been in on police liaison) when he was going troppo. We had convinced police beforehand that we: a) weren't terrorists; b) were exercising democratic rights; c) had a grievance that could be seen as legitimate.
It's worth remembering that we shall probably have to take command of the existing state apparatuses before we can change them. This will be easier for us if we can beforehand get many members of those apparatuses to see that we are not terrorists as defined above.
Brompton SA
Terrorism 2
Doug Lorimer's critique of terrorist tactics (GLW #290) is timely. As negotiations in the Six Counties begin to take the gun out of Irish politics, supporters of the nationalist cause should be asking themselves what factors contributed to the recent rise in republican support.
These talks are about ending the military conflict because the nationalist community (and for that matter, Sinn Féin) have essentially judged the IRA strategy of terrorism to be a failure. In fact, traditional republican loyalty to military acts has been a millstone around the collective neck of Irish nationalism.
Today's successes have been achieved through mass mobilisations and not guerilla activity. Only the naive would suggest otherwise. The IRA's role in defending nationalist communities against the British army and the RUC should not be confused with its other actions of sabotage and assassination.
The recent successes gained in curbing the Protestant marching season had nothing to do with the military activities of the IRA. Rather, the mobilisation of thousands of nationalists forced the cancellation or re-routing of traditional Orange marches.
Similarly, Sinn Féin's employment of electoral opportunities — local, British and in the 26 Counties — has consolidated and harnessed its burgeoning support precisely because it has remained true to its program while rejecting a military solution to the conflict.
The high points of the Irish freedom struggle during its current phase cannot be judged by how active the volunteers have been on manoeuvres, but by the obvious successes wrought by the people themselves: the civil rights movement of the sixties, the mass support for the hunger strikers in the early eighties, and the determination of nationalist residents to protect their communities from loyalist harassment today.
A sentimental view of the courageous fight for freedom should not blind us to the core reality that people and politics, not weapons and individual acts, no matter how brave, change the world.
Brisbane
[Abridged.]
IRA
I think Denis Kevans (GLW #289) needs to update his knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland. The IRA is waging its "war" in Northern Ireland on people who consider themselves British and not Irish.
The one million non-Catholics of Northern Ireland (the majority) do not want to be part of the Irish Republic, hence they want no part of the IRA. In 1969 the Wilson Government ordered British soldiers to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic minority who were protesting against Protestant discrimination. The discrimination ranged from housing, jobs and political boundary rigging.
In truth the IRA is waging a "war" in Northern Ireland against majority who despise it. Denis seems to have got confused about the situation in Ireland. We are not back in the Michael Collins days. Ireland is an independent republic and has been since 1949. Many in Ireland despise the IRA and all it stands for, which is a united Ireland under IRA control.
Finally, if placing bombs in litter bins that kill children in Northern England is "war" then Denis is suffering from a definition problem as well as historical amnesia.
Mareeba Qld
Capitalism and democratic rights
Nick Southall (Write On, GLW #288) asks: "if as Doug claims 'freedom of political expression (free speech) does at present exist in Australia' ('Fostering illusions', GLW #287), how does he explain the jailing of Albert Langer or the criminal charges against the Rabelais editors?"
Quite simply. As Sean Healy pointed out in his article on "Socialists and free speech" (GLW #285), capitalism "in spite of all its pretensions ... is forced to continually try to restrict democratic rights".
In his first letter (GLW #286), Southall disputed this point, arguing that opposing such restrictions only fosters illusions in capitalism since, according to Southall, democratic rights do not exist in Australia today. What does not exist cannot be restricted (reduced).
Southall's whole argument rests on an all or nothing view of the world: if, under capitalism, democracy is "curtailed, wretched, false" (Lenin, The State and Revolution) then, in Southall's opinion, no formal democratic rights exist at all. His arguments rest upon an inability to distinguish between capitalist democracy (in which some democratic rights do exist for working people) and totalitarian capitalist regimes (e.g., Nazi Germany), in which democratic rights are completely suppressed.
According to Southall's "logic", socialists should not fight to defend the existing legal right of workers to join a trade union against any attempts by the capitalist rulers to abolish this right. Doing so would "foster illusions about the true nature of capitalist society". It might, for example, foster the "illusion" that in present-day Australian capitalist society workers are legally entitled to join trade unions. Instead, pointing to the restrictions that exist on exercising this legal right, we should tell workers that no such legal right exists!
Summer Hill NSW
[Abridged.]
Basque struggle
Over 30% of residents in Euskadi are not Basques but Spaniards, yet 67% of those born in Euskadi vote for left-independentist abertzale parties. 86% of those born in Euskadi but of Basque parents also vote for the same. The majority of those defined as Basques vote for parties such as Herri Batasuna, and others which are all part of the Movement for Basque National Liberation (MLNV), as is ETA.
The armed struggle exists today because there are no democratic means to achieve independence from the Spanish state. The Spanish Constitution states that no part of Spain has the right to self-determination. Furthermore, the Basques opposed this constitution in the 1978 referendum, yet it was still imposed on us.
The Spanish state's "brutal suppression" continues in Euskadi but ceased in the Spanish state with the death of Franco and his dictatorship in 1975. There are 600 Basque political prisoners dispersed throughout jails in the Spanish state and 2000 Basques are living in exile.
The Basque nationalist parties of the right (PNV and EA) have sold out to Spanish interests. PNV formed government with the Spanish PSOE. The Spanish state has moved from Spanish against Basque to Basque against Basque, a strategy used widely in other battle grounds. Before we had the Guardia Civil on the street battles during rallies, now we have our own Ertaintza (Basque police) used against us.
The media has become the Spanish government's tool, to manipulate people's opinion in order to create favourable conditions for the repression to escalate. Despite all this and other dirty strategies the MLNV remains strong.
Like other suppressed ethnic group, songs and literature play an important role in lifting the nation's hurt morale. Asserting with pride that our language is the oldest of Europe and that we are the indigenous people of the Basque Country does not imply superiority. Unlike the Spanish and French states, with their legacy of imperialism, assertion to be a superior race and language has never been part of the Basque movement for sovereignty.
Canberra
[Abridged.]