Free speech victory
I refer you to the fight I had with the Greater Taree City Council concerning my permission to have a stall in the CBD of Taree some months ago, and my permission to sell Green Left Weekly and hand out leaflets.
Since then, I have not been interfered with, and a Christian has also started up operations in the CBD as well as a Labor Party member. They have not been interfered with either.
The council policy is as follows: "Council permits a maximum of two street stalls/button days per week for each individual town and village with each organisation limited to a maximum of two street stalls/button days per annum."
In view of the fact that the fight with the council began about a year ago and no-one has been moved on since, I feel that we can claim a resounding victory in this regard, especially given that the Socialist Alliance started the ball rolling.
I feel we have created a precedent in this matter.
Ronald Bailey
Taree NSW
Iodine! Iodine!
Iodine is necessary for the development of the full potential of the brain. Lack of it can also cause a number of diseases: goitre and thyroid deficiency are two examples.
Australia has a very low ratio of iodine in the natural environment compared to other continents such as in water, soil and salt. This lack of iodine in generations of Australian-born may be a reason for a too large a proportion of adults allowing the wool to be pulled over their eyes by politicians, bureaucrats and so-called business leaders.
Both the USA and Britain are currently having a debate and investigations into the truth or otherwise of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. It is now generally conceded that these reasons were spurious, yet Australia's prime minister, far from answering any questions, on two occasions has said, "We've moved on from that. That's behind us now". In other words, it's irrelevant!
I find that preposterous on two counts — one: that it is past and therefore the end of the matter, would be a typical response of someone who had engaged in deception and doesn't want to be found out; and two: doesn't the Australian voter/population have a right to be reassured if there was no deception or if there was deception; the right to know and condemn.
Australians appear content to be ruled by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, to be blase over deceptions such as "Children overboard", to cheer when our pollies, with no consultation with us, send troops overseas. In the latest instance, troops and police being sent to the Solomons, it is alleged that our prime minister was asked by the government of the Solomons for troops. It is, and has been, known for some time that that government is inept and corrupt.
Doesn't it follow that if you go to support an inept and corrupt government that you are showing support for inept and corrupt people. And what of the fact that a former Solomons prime minister spoke out against Australian troops coming to his country as it smacked of the reintroduction of white imperialists reintroducing colonialism to the Solomons. The British only moved out about 30 years ago.
Lately, in my own little "neck of the woods", a leaflet and petition has been circulated around Nymboida, Kangaroo Creek and Coutts Crossing area. It has no authorisation and the only address is the North Coast Water Project office. Whilst giving no information as to why one particular access route was chosen against considerable opposition, out of five allegedly investigated, to be the Shannon Creek dam access road; it urges people to sign an attached letter to be sent to Pristine Water Council.
I suggest this leaflet and petition fits into the same category as "Children overboard" and non-existent "weapons of mass destruction".
I suggest the real sponsors are the "Empire builders" using pawns to further their ambitions.
I predict that our children and grandchildren will be saying how could they have been so blind/foolish.
This very week there are two gatherings of concerned people, one in Queensland trying to find ways to rectify the damage caused by clearing and ploughing, and one on the Murray River, trying to find ways to save what's left of the Murray Darling Basin.
We can acknowledge that our forebears acted out of ignorance as they cleared, ploughed, dammed, irrigated, etc.
Our children and grandchildren will be saying some time in the future, "They knew these things back then in the early 2000s or could have known; it must have been the lack of iodine in their food. Poor things! The politicians, the bureaucrats, the power-brokers could do and say anything they wanted and get away with it. The poor things!"
Jim Knight
Kangaroo Creek NSW
[Abridged.]
Walk Against the War Coalition split
It is a pity that the Walk Against the War Coalition has split.
At the August 18 meeting, one noticed that those who "just couldn't work" with others (as Pip Hinman quotes in GLW #551) were the splitting group. The others, more tolerant, could. So it is unfortunate that the less amenable, narrower-minded members of WAWC prevailed.
As Pip Hinman also states, the splitting group claimed that the situation has changed. Invasion has become occupation; otherwise the basic issues are surely unaltered.
I hope that the one-third left of WAWC can re-build a broader coalition and perhaps bring in some of the disaffected members.
Marie McKern
Kings Cross NSW
[Abridged.]
UN, US and Iraq I
The United States-led coalition in Iraq is said to be facing a quagmire.
That may be so, but it is already in a quandary. On the one hand, it is desperately trying to extricate its forces from Iraq and pass some of the responsibility, and casualties, to other countries, preferably the United Nations. On the other hand, it cannot afford to give up control of Iraq's oil reserves, particularly with the shaky situation in Saudi Arabia.
The UN has no role to play in Iraq, it is up to the Iraqis to solve their own problems. The US calls for UN intervention are becoming ever more strident as their lack of forward planning becomes ever more obvious.
The UN should be seriously considering the suspension of the three main members of the Coalition from UN membership because of their illegal invasion of Iraq, not condoning those actions by becoming part of the military occupation.
Col Friel
Alawa NT
UN, US and Iraq II
We should leave the US to its own demise in Iraq.
The United States of America now claims it wants to internationalise its operations in Iraq and to do this in a way that allows the US to maintain supreme authority. This is code for the US desire to have the member nations of the United Nations help pay for the continuing subjugation of Iraq.
America had the opportunity to internationalise the peaceful disarmament of Iraq but it refused to follow the decisions of the world body. The US refused because of its arrogant belief that it, with Britain and Australia, could handle the post-hostilities situation in Iraq. It can't.
In the aftermath of the First Gulf War the US was able to convince the United Nations to impose an embargo on Iraq for 11 years. This embargo contributed to the death of between 1 million and 1.5 million Iraqi children. The embargo was supposedly imposed to encourage the dismantling of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The embargo turned out to be more deadly than Iraq's weapons.
If the United Nations again dances to the tune of the Americans and internationalises the continuing subjugation of Iraq this will just encourage the US to start bombing some other country: Syria, Iran or North Korea.
The Americans need to be taught the lesson that the world will not just tag along behind each of its invasions, pacifying the victims whilst allowing Uncle Sam to pick the eyes out of the business opportunities in the defeated countries.
Dr John Tomlinson
senior lecturer in Social policy
Queensland University of Technology
Piracy
Australia's current leaders have again shown that they are incapable of making decisions that are in our national interest. Howard and his cabinet have authorised our armed forces to participate in training exercises, with a number of other countries, that would be a practise run for boarding foreign vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Such an interdiction policy, if carried out in international waters, would constitute an act of piracy and justify retaliatory action by the ships' country of origin. Such retaliation could involve a military response.
Countries like Australia and its political master, the United States, have no legal or moral right to board and forcefully detain ships that are carrying weaponry. Every country has a sovereign right to defend itself and to acquire weapons that would allow it to do so. The United States has relied on this right to amass the greatest collection of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that the world has ever seen.
The US and other existing nuclear powers are using the WMD and terrorism issues as a smokescreen to hide their real motives. These are to prevent other nations from obtaining nuclear weapons and thereby undermine the existing power balances in the world. Countries like North Korea know that if they want to be taken seriously they need a nuclear deterrent, just as the US and the Soviet Union needed it during the Cold War.
The US and Australia call North Korea a rogue state because it seeks to be on the same level military playing field as other nuclear-armed nations. The US can't on the one hand refuse to dispose of its own nuclear weapons, propose to build new miniature nuclear bombs and spend billions on a new ballistic missile shield, and then expect other nations to refrain from joining the nuclear club.
Australia participated in the callous and unprovoked attack on Iraq in March this year. This foreign intervention disaster will have repercussions for us for possibly generations to come. Mr Howard and his Cabinet will have to answer for this some day. Let's not continue to make stupid international decisions which provide a just basis for other countries to retaliate against us.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
Open letter to Simon Crean
As leader of the ALP, you have prevented your parliamentary team from presenting a range of views about the Israeli-Palestinian war. Such one-sided opportunism undermines our democracy.
Your assertion that "All Australians have applauded the government and people of Israel for their determination in pushing ahead with the peace process" is incorrect. Israel has not fulfilled its obligations under the "Roadmap".
Jeremy Jones and the pro-Israel lobby do not speak for all Jews in Australia. Growing numbers of Jews in Israel, Australia and around the world condemn the actions of the Israeli government in its continuing occupation of Palestinian land.
We condemn the murder of civilians by states or any other forces. Israel is by far the more powerful player in this war. If they cannot prevent terrorist attacks, it is dishonest to demand that the Palestinian Authority do so. The much greater daily suffering and much greater loss of life of the Palestinians merits our concern at least as much as that of the Israelis from suicide bombers.
Israel's current path is leading to its destruction. The conflict can only be resolved by addressing the need for peace, security and independence of both peoples. Our political leaders need to promote genuine solutions, not indulge in opportunist rhetoric and suppression of diverse views among elected representatives.
Paul Rubner
Jews Against the Occupation
Sydney
If fur is trendy, what's next?
Regards the recent fashion of wearing fur, particularly amongst younger women, I wonder what the next fashion will be. Sexual harassment? Child abuse? The confinement of women to the home? The persecution of minorities on the streets? Arranged marriages? The retraction of women's right to vote? The public stoning of women for misbehaving? Domestic violence? Incest? Rape? The imprisonment of gay people? Torture? Lynching of ethnic minorities? Public approval for husbands murdering wives who displease them? Public executions? The enslavement of other peoples?
Does the above seem fantastic? I think not. Most of those were standard features of society until quite recently. In many parts of the world they are everyday experiences. These are all symptoms of the mentality that is endorsed by wearing fur — the belief that one's ability to exploit another sentient creature gives one the right to do so.
I have one piece of advice to women who endorse the exploitation and killing of other animals for amusement (wearing fur) — what goes around, comes around. Do not be surprised to find yourself increasingly treated as sub-people, as a mere object at the disposal of other people's amusement, dehumanised, abused and a helpless victim. After all, if you wear fur, you openly approve of regressing to such a medieval mentality. You help to create the world around you. Choose wisely the messages you send to others.
Robert Ryan
Ngunnawal ACT
'Help get our sons home'
Would you please do a story on the marines who are now being delayed in Iraq for the third time. These are the marines of 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. They were part of the same division that left Kuwait on March 19th and toppled Baghdad that day in April. Their return has been put on hold, this time because of the bombing in Najaf.
I understand that there is a need for more security in Najaf now, but this was the reason why we are bringing in all the coalition troops. Our government says there's enough troops in Iraq. If this was true they would be able to allow the troops who fought this war, who have been there now for 10 months and who are tired, to come home.
The US Army's 3rd Infantry Division made enough noise and they were brought home. We now need to get the marines home. They now say that the marines are staying in Iraq because of the bombing and if they were to pull out now it would be like we were deserting [the Iraqis]. What about us? Why as Americans are we always the ones who take a back seat and suffer so that they don't have too. These Marines did the job they were sent over there to do and they did it well.
The marines are fighters not peacekeepers. They are now expected to guard and protect the same people our government sent them over there to kill. Their replacements are there now and still they are on an indefinite hold. Please help get our sons home, please.
Barbara Sandefur
A 'marine mom'
USA
Re: Israel facts twisted
In reply to Dan Meijer's letter ("Israel Facts twisted", GLW #552 web edition) criticising my "Apartheid in Israel?" letter:
Meijer states: "That's only half the story. Jewish Israelis usually can't buy land either. Jewish and non-Jewish people equally hold the limited land available for sale."
Not exactly. It is one thing not to be able to buy or lease land because of its scarcity and presumably elevated price; it is a different thing to be prohibited from buying or leasing land at any price.
Just as it is one thing not to be able to afford the prices in an expensive restaurant, and quite a different thing not to be permitted to dine there because you are the "wrong" gender or "race".
Meijer states: "Palestinian number plates differ in colour from Israeli number plates; just like NSW plates differ in colour from Victorian ones. This doesn't indicate anything bad."
Again, not exactly. Victoria doesn't issue different coloured plates based on your religious/ethnic "identity". Unless it can be shown that Jewish colonisers in the settlements in occupied Palestine have the same coloured plates as the Palestinians, this looks like apartheid.
Meijer states: "While Israel must certainly do more regarding water in the Palestinian territories, James' statistic is misleading."
The fact is that Israel is doing nothing to improve water supplies for the Palestinians, for obvious reasons.
Meijer states: "Most governments confiscate accounts etc when they've been used for criminal activities."
Indeed they do, but occupied Palestine has the distinction of being the only territory in the world where being Palestinian is in and of itself a "crime".
Meijer continues: "As for Sharon, James omitted Sharon's refusal to pursue and kill or capture Egyptian forces in 1956, instead allowing them to return home. Many leaders in the world have been associated with terrible events ... it's incongruous to single out the Israelis."
Why is it "incongruous" to single out Sharon (not "all Israelis", by the way)? That's as if someone charged with murder said "many people have committed murder — why single me out for prosecution?". The answer is: "because you're the one we caught!"
The Israeli government considers that it has the right to rule and ultimately annex all of the occupied territories. It is pursuing an "informal" but deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing, making life a living hell for the Palestinians so they will "voluntarily" leave.
Meijer states: "I'll never say that Israel is a perfect state, free of any wrongdoing; I will always say that any story needs perspective."
Every story has perspective — the point of view of the writer. There's no escaping that.
What you are really asking for is "balance" — someone who will offer moderate and restrained — in other words, "harmless" — criticism of Israel while reaffirming the Israeli conviction that the Palestinians are sub-human terrorist monsters who need to be crushed.
For "criticism" of this type, may I suggest you apply to George W. Bush, the White House, Washington, DC, USA.
James Kyriazis
Melbourne
From Green Left Weekly, September 10, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.