S11 protests
I am a long-time Labor voter and a delegate of the Community and Public Sector Union at my workplace. Last weekend I travelled to Melbourne to visit my family, and to attend the non-violent protest against the World Economic Forum.
Having been at the protest, I was astounded and very disappointed to hear the commentary of Steve Bracks, Labor Premier of Victoria. Bracks condemned the protesters in the widest sense, declaring their actions to be "un-Australian", while praising the efforts of the Victorian Police.
Not only was Premier Bracks not at the demonstration, and did not see the police wielding batons, throwing punches, grabbing people by the throat and hair, riding horses into crowds of people, and committing numerous other acts of assault and battery, but he contributed to the perception generated by the media that the protesters were violent, and ipso facto, the reasons for the protest baseless.
When violence occurred at Crown Casino, it occurred when the police moved in to physically remove picketers from the positions they were passively occupying.
I am disappointed with Mr Bracks comments in particular because he was dishonest in the way that he described the actions of the protesters and the police. Coming from a Labor man, the man who represents a party that has traditionally provided political representation for unionists and disadvantaged Australians, this is especially disappointing.
When I vote for the ALP, I expect it articulate concerns and adopt policy positions different from those adopted by the Liberal Party. I also expect it to speak on behalf of people who have different views from those of the business community represented at the World Economic Forum. In this instance, Mr Bracks may as well have been Mr Kennett, and the Australian Labor Party may as well have been an empty shell.
After generations of family support of the ALP, the party is at risk of losing me. If the ALP does not start standing up for the basic principles upon which it was founded, and for which it gained the support of people who value principle and honesty above political expediency, it will thoroughly deserve to be by-passed.
Nick Houston
Phillip ACT
[Abridged.]
Increased military power
It would appear that both political parties are becoming apprehensive about new unrest in the community, about globalisation and its deleterious effects on Australia.
I find the willingness of our political "masters" to employ troops against the people horrific. I recall that when the National Guard was deployed against US university students in the 1960s, innocent unarmed people died from gunfire when the soldiers went "feral". Thankfully the public outcry to these murders was extreme, and this measure is unlikely to be used again in the US.
If this legislation had been in force in the 1970s, when we had our own "coup d'etat", and was used against protesters the coup may not have been bloodless.
Peter O'Brien
Olympic mercenaries
Overspecialised, unnaturally developed mercenaries, essentially working for the corporations, are performing for a national orgy of gold, gold, gold, Australia! (or wherever).
How much have the corporations, mafiosi and ordinary citizens contributed for each gold medal?
Too many millions.
Meanwhile, so many children are without the most elementary sporting and recreational facilities.
Insane? You got it.
Alan Lender
Inverloch Vic
NCC speaker
There are two points that need to be clarified in Roberto Jorquera's article (GLW #419, September 6).
Firstly, I attend the N25 meetings in an individual capacity as a member of the WA Stop MAI group. I do not attend for the Greens WA and the Community and Public Sector Union. In fact, I have not discussed my involvement in N25 with the Greens WA.
Secondly, there was at no time any pressure put on the Democratic Socialist Party by myself.
Roberto undertook responsibility to organise a workshop called "Global Injustice, Global Solutions and Solidarity". As a member of APHEDA, I asked Roberto in a private side discussion at the meeting whether it was possible for APHEDA to have a speaker in this session. APHEDA, as the ACTU-sponsored overseas aid agency, is involved in providing practical assistance to workers and communities overseas. I felt that an APHEDA speaker would make a positive contribution in such a workshop.
Roberto told me that he wanted this session to be solely focused with a Resistance viewpoint. I told him that I thought this was a political mistake and that having a broader range of speakers in this workshop would result in more people participating. It was in this context that I stated to Roberto that participation could be limited if the workshop was seen as "just a DSP session".
Roberto stated that this didn't matter and that he felt comfortable about this. I said "OK" and dropped the matter.
At no time did I raise any criticisms of Roberto in the main course of the meeting about this workshop. It was at all times a private conversation between the two of us.
I have no complaints about Roberto raising criticisms of me in supporting an NCC speaker for the N25 Convention. Roberto and the DSP have a point of view, I expressed differing views about this in a public forum, and like anyone involved in the political process, one is open to be criticised. I still believe that the N25 organising committee made the correct decision in having an NCC speaker.
However, it is really a sad day for the Left, when one activist has a private and friendly discussion with another activist about an aspect of the struggle and this turns into a big news item in Green Left Weekly.
Jan Jermalinski
Perth
Waterfront dispute
Bob Carnegie's review of Waterfront: The Battle That Changed Australia (GLW #417) is right to point out that it is focused on the evolution and resolution of the conflict at the institutional level (not a bad thing in itself!). However, I think that Bob is equally remiss in his readiness to dismiss the astonishing feat of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) leadership in snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
The federal government thought the MUA could be crushed just like the commercial airline pilots during the Hawke years. This view was premised on a widely held belief that the MUA members were a self-interested, work-adverse and overpaid elite.
The turn around in public opinion was critical for the MUA's survival. It was the strategic decisions of the union leadership that turned the MUA from villains to folk heroes. This was an important theme in the book that your reviewer has neglected.
The waterfront dispute demonstrated that union strategy can no longer be confined to the withdrawal of labour or the picket line. Strategy is also about winning public support to overcome the threat of executive, legislative and judicial power being used against a small, unpopular section of the organised working class.
Jeff Richards
Evandale SA