Write on: Letters to the editor
Think again, Sidoti
About your report [GLW #410] by Sean Healy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner Chris Sidoti's offer to train Burma's SPDC officials (military officers) in human rights law, and the protests by the Burmese opposition people, I wish to commend the latter for their clear understanding of the Burmese SPDC's ploy for legitimating their regime.
If the HREOC thinks that this is part of "friendly persuasion" to soften the stance of the SPDC and thereby pave the way to a more benign and tolerant government, and the possible cooperation with the opposition and dissident groups, Sidoti should think again.
It is the hope of most, if not all, of us to see some rapport between the generals and the opposition, led by the Nobel laureate lady, and there may yet be ways to achieve this, or initiate something to this end.
However, according to one person well-acquainted with the generals, and who has to remain anonymous for now, it would be absolutely useless to talk sense into these top military people simply because of their nonexistent education and intellect.
In this context, Sidoti's offer is a hollow gesture and ought to be pegged as an inane, if not asinine, attempt.
Karen National League
Sydney
Hired thugs
June 27's issue of the West Australian carries the tabloid-style headline "TICKET TO FEAR" and claims in the accompanying article that "more than a third" of those who travel on public transport feel unsafe. The article then goes on to give a number of statistics showing that passengers' confidence in their safety has dropped since this time last year.
This seemingly clear message is called into doubt, however, when it turns out that these facts are derived from a survey of just 800 Perth households, 29 percent of whom do not even use public transport. It is completely misleading for this article to claim that an accurate picture of the situation can be derived from the opinions of this tiny fraction of the population.
The article identifies increased security as the best solution to this problem, quoting WA Police Union president Michael Dean who claims that the special constables patrolling the trains should be removed and replaced with regular police officers, as they command "greater training and respect".
In actuality, both special constables and police are for the most part no more than hired thugs, starting more trouble than they prevent. Especially targeted for harassment are indigenous Australians and young people.
In almost every situation in which a special constable is dealing with a minor offence, such as rowdy behaviour, a well-dressed white person will receive better treatment than a young Aboriginal person. Increasing security will not rectify this problem, indeed it will make it worse.
Any danger of violence that does exist on the public transport system is not the result of lawlessness inherent in young people, contrary to the message of the popular media.
Instead, it is the natural outcome of a system that systematically alienates and rejects young people, especially the Aboriginal or disadvantaged. This is a social problem, not a criminal one, and one that can only be rectified by rectifying the inequalities of our society.
Adoption and infertility
Unfortunately, I feel that the main thrust of my argument has not been adequately dealt with in the reply by Lisa McDonald (GLW #409). Her perception that I am in some way attacking a woman's right to control her own fertility is spurious.
In raising a child's future interests as a matter for concern I am not in any way seeking to place limits on women. The suggestion that an individual or couple should carefully consider all the future consequences before undertaking the path towards donor conception is quite different to limiting a woman's right to control her own body.
"Closed" or "secret" adoption practice and the Stolen Generation are two examples of social experimentation involving children under capitalism that have had severe consequences for many of the children involved. There is more involved in the development of a child's self-esteem than just love and care. Healthy self-esteem can be severely disrupted when fundamental knowledge and control over one's "self" is denied.
When I argue that parents need to accept infertility before choosing donor conception, the adoption experience once again has shown that adults who have not adequately dealt with their infertility can bring a lot of unresolved issues into their relationship with their child. Donor conception engineers a child — it does not "cure" infertility for the infertile partner.
In my view, an improved scenario would be: that once an informed decision is made to register for donor conception, the individual or couple concerned should first be encouraged to seek a donor from their immediate biological family or very close friends in order to ensure that (a) the child has access to as much information as possible, and (b) the child will be able to maintain contact with its other (biological) parent.
Sperm/ova clinics should be prevented from accepting sperm/ova from donors who are unwilling to provide extensive information to be passed on to the child. They must also be willing to be contacted by the child and be part of that child's life should the child so desire. These measures are already partially in place in some European countries.
Will donor conception children have to wait half a lifetime (as with adoptees and the Stolen Generation) before their interests and rights are recognised and acknowledged?
Brisbane
[Abridged.]
Refugees' chances
I don't wish to criticise the letter from Sue Harris in GLW #409 because I thought it was very good.
She did however state that refugees have a good chance of having their claims for asylum approved. As far as I am aware, looking at the figures provided by the UN High Commission on Refugees, about two-thirds of those seeking refugee status are rejected. Maybe this is something that deserves some investigation.
What I am aware of is less than 10,000 people were listed as seeking refugee status in our country, and yet thousands of refugees are displaced every year in countries like Colombia, Sierra Leone, the Kurdish territory in Northern Iraq, and in countries where there is extreme violence, like Kosovo. 80% of refugees are women and children. The total number across the planet amounts to some millions of people.
At the same time, the capitalists are fulfilling a historical class agenda to strip the rights of refugees to appeal deportation orders and tighten the capitalist legal distinction which is "illegal entry".
In Austria, the far-right government is going even further down the imperialist road, and saying that "secrecy" should prevail over refugee conventions, so that the humanitarian organisations should be kept ignorant on what the state is up to.
In Britain, there has been much outrage recently about the Blair government's determination to deport refugee-seekers back to war-zones.
Like all things, Ruddock and Howard will attempt to give racism and inhumanity a dignified face, and lend a few rags of ideological respectability to detention, which is a chauvinistic and cruel practice — in fact, a form of racial segregation.
That's why it's essential for workers of all social backgrounds to get together to support a humane immigration policy which ensures the dignity and particularly the equality of those workers forced to flee oppression.
[Abridged.]
Bully boy Abbott
The attitude and behaviour of a government minister has a significant influence on a portfolio, policy application and public opinion.
The unemployed would not be surprised by the abusive and close-to-violent outburst which lead to employment services minister Tony Abbott being ejected from Parliament during Question Time on June 21. This minister has a history of subjecting job seekers to unjustifiable insults and generalised vilification with his "beat them into submission" approach.
Rather than address the problems evident in his portfolio, Mr Abbott shifts the blame down the line until it reaches the most vulnerable, the unemployed. The minister's usual response to reports of injustices is to defend the culprits and vilify those who dare to speak out.
The focus seems to be on unpaid labour schemes, draconian penalties and finding new ways to exclude job seekers from receiving social security payments.
If Tony Abbott were to apply his political tactics to his boxing activities, he would be disqualified for hitting below the belt.
The hostility and prejudice which Mr Abbott publicly displays towards the unemployed is reason for him to be excluded from any portfolio responsible for employment or welfare services.
The minister's performance also demonstrates why the social security function should never be placed in the same hands as employment services, be it government or private enterprise.
If John Howard fails to discipline Abbott and remove him from his portfolio, we are entitled to assume that the Prime Minister endorses and supports the minister's actions.
More than one million unemployed Australians need and deserve a strong national voice that cannot be ignored. UNEMPA is moving ever closer to achieving this long-overdue objective.
Vice-president, Unemployed Persons Advocacy
South Brisbane
[Abridged.]
Equality of opportunity?
Readers may have seen a recent series in the Australian on inequality.
Much rubbish was written, some of which I hope to address later. However, particularly striking was the consensus amongst conservative commentators that, so long as equality of opportunity (EOP) exists, there should be no concern about inequality of outcome.
In fact, EOP is an incoherent, unattainable and (in some respects) unattractive notion.
EOP for children is incompatible with EOP for adults, given that the latter will produce inequality of outcome between adults and hence differences in the domestic environments in which children are raised.
Furthermore, EOP would require that fortuitous differences in genetic endowment and the social environment outside the home be fully offset by large cash transfers and massive educational expenditures favouring the disadvantaged.
Plainly, at one level then, EOP demands radically egalitarian redistribution. Yet, at another level, EOP is extremely non-egalitarian. For if people really did have equal chances, EOP would place no limits whatsoever on how much wellbeing they could achieve — or on how much misery they could experience. A slight difference in people's choices could produce vast differences in their lives
Our primary objective should be greater equality of wellbeing, not the egalitarianism/anti-egalitarianism of equality of opportunity.
Rydalmere NSW
[Abridged.]