Radioactive racism
If the Howard government is serious about reconciliation, it should repeal blatantly racist legislation. A case in point is the government's attempt to impose a nuclear waste dump on unwilling Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
In 2005, the Howard government rail-roaded the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act through parliament. This legislation provides wide-ranging exemptions from laws concerning "the significance of land, premises or objects in the traditions of Indigenous people". It specifically states that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 will not apply to site selection for the proposed nuclear dump.
Then in 2006, the government rail-roaded amendments through parliament that state that a nuclear dump site nomination is legally valid even without consultation with, or consent from, traditional owners. The amendments also remove the right to appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and it removals all legal rights to "procedural fairness".
This pattern of "radioactive racism" is incompatible with Howard's new-found interest in reconciliation.
Dr Jim Green
Friends of the Earth
Melbourne
Sexual assault
It's ironic that the area that has had a 45% increase in reported sexual assault incidents in the past 12 months is the northern beaches suburbs of Sydney, according to figures released by the Bureau of Crime Statistics to June 2007. This is the area covered by the Manly, Warringah and Pittwater councils with some of the wealthiest households in Australia.
Other than one article in the Manly Daily in September, there has been little outcry from the federal government about this situation. The northern beaches also remain the worst drink-driving area in Sydney.
And where's the outcry over the NSW Rape Crisis Centre reporting a 55% increase over the past two years in calls to its crisis line. With 6695 requests for help in the 2006-07 financial year and a further 2000 callers diverted to its answering service, where is the money urgently needed to meet this demand? The NSW Rape Crisis Centre urgently needs $180,000 per annum to meet existing service levels and a further $1.2 million to meet the 30% increase in demand.
With an election-focused assault on remote Aboriginal communities, the Howard government studies ignores the high levels of domestic and sexual violence statistics for the rest of (white) Australia. Did anyone say "racism"?
Kerry Vernon
Sydney
Sami Haj
Sami Haj is a Sudanese journalist jailed without trial by the US government in Guantanamo Bay for five years. He's just written a message to his young son, as he doesn't expect to survive the daily force feeding, which has continued for the last nine months. And to "punish" him, a 109 centimetre tube is unnecessarily re-inserted twice a day.
I'm a registered nurse, and the medical people involved in this should hang their heads in shame.
Kim Bax
Cedar Vale, Qld
Nuclear power
David Walters (Write On, GLW #726) presents nuclear power as the answer to the global environment/energy/social development conundrum. In doing so he simply ignores the best arguments against his own position — not because he is unaware of them, but rather, because they are inconvenient truths for anyone who pushes the atomic wheelbarrow.
Walters accuses GLW of being fixated with renewable energy. The irony of this accusation — given his own fixation with nuclear energy — escapes him. He presents the usual lie that nuclear power is CO2 emission free. Every stage of the production cycle, from mining uranium to processing to enrichment to waste removal and storage, relies on large inputs of energy, most of which is sourced from fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future.
Another lie is that only nuclear power can provide reliable baseload electricity. Photovoltaic and wind alone are not the most practical sources of baseload. But combined with geothermal, solar thermal, tidal, wave, and other "new development" renewables and transitional fossil fuel usage (like natural gas-powered turbines) and energy efficiency developments (like urban re-design) we can readily meet our baseload and peak energy requirements.
In fact, the main obstacle to energy sustainability is not technical. The real obstacle is our capitalist political economy with its subordination of social and environmental needs to corporate profits.
In the, at times, complex energy debate it is important to be frank about all the realities, including those that are inconvenient to one's own position. For example, the three traditional objections to nuclear energy — bombs, accidents and waste, are now rendered less scary in relative terms because we face the even more frightening prospect of an unstoppable runaway greenhouse effect.
One might conclude, therefore, that nuclear power should be added to socialists' environmental program — as a lesser evil. But this path leads us into a major political trap. In Australia, the US and many other countries we are not offered nuclear power alongside the realistic implementation of renewable energy sources. What we are presented with is nuclear power and the fiction of "clean coal" instead of vigorous renewable energy development. In this political context, Walters' support for nuclear energy and his discrediting of renewables follows the status quo which would lead us (literally) into a dead end.
Rohan Gaiswinkler
Hobart
Socialist vote
In their respective publications, Socialist Alternative and the International Socialist Organisation are both calling for a straight-out vote for the Greens in the November 24 federal election.
Some ISO members are now even handing out Greens material and the Socialist Alternative has been blasting campuses with posters that read, "Building a Socialist Alternative — Vote Greens".
Now this would not seem so strange were there no better (read "socialist") alternative to support in the elections. But there is. Socialist Alliance is running nationally in the Senate and in many lower house seats and the Socialist Party is standing a candidate in the seat of Melbourne.
Socialist Alliance is running on an explicit anti-capitalist platform calling for a socialist transformation of society. Socialist Alliance also has the best policy to combat climate change putting us ahead of the Greens on "green" issues.
So why is Socialist Alternative totally ignoring socialist voices in this election, instead opting to support a reformist party — the Greens? It makes no sense and smacks of sectarianism towards other socialists. Even Greens members can see through this and are quite perplexed and amused.
We all want to get rid of Howard and know that the ALP is hardly different. That's why Socialist Alliance will preference the Greens second and put the ALP before the Coalition.
Time is running out as we are experiencing the increasingly harsh effects of climate change. We know that only socialism can save humanity and the planet from destruction. If we want to win the battle against corporate power the question of unity on the left and the progressive movement will have to take centre stage. We hope you will be there with us. Voting socialist in the upcoming federal election is a good start.
Margarita Windisch
Socialist Alliance Victorian Senate candidate
Melbourne
Climate Change Coalition
If, like me, you wish to see an end to the nuclear industry (firstly) on moral grounds, followed closely by environmental grounds, and clearly not needed on financial grounds), then expanding the mining of uranium in Australia is not wanted, needed or necessary. Of course if you are a Rio Tinto shareholder, you may think otherwise.
The Labor Party won't commit to nuclear power stations (yet), but they will however commit to an expansion of uranium mining to supply the growing nuclear industry.
The Greens, Socialist Alliance and Australian Democrats are clear where they stand. They stand in favour of sustainable development, social justice and equality.
The new party Climate Change Coalition (CCC) stands in favour of many things that will mitigate the worst effects of climate change in the long term but so are the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and the Australian Democrats.
But they leave the door open for the nuclear industry when they state: "Does nuclear power have a role to play in a climate change reduction strategy? James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia Hypothesis, thinks that it can be a useful element in a greenhouse reduction strategy for some countries. Others, such as Australian scientist and climate change campaigner, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe sees nuclear power as a cure as bad as the disease. This debate is unavoidable and essential. The CCC encourages our best and brightest minds to state their cases — realising that any debate on nuclear power immediately involves alternative power."
In other words, when it comes to the nuclear industry and nuclear power, the CCC sit on the fence.
There is no need for further debate. Expanding the nuclear industry is avoidable and not essential.
Anne Goddard
Bundaberg, Qld [Abridged]