Asylum seekers
The vilification of asylum seekers as "queue jumpers" continues. How hypocritical is it that this epithet comes from people who have never queued. Most Australians either had the good fortune to simply be born here, or had access to comparatively favourable migration opportunities. How many of those condemning asylum seekers are volunteering to move overseas, undergo trauma and then patiently join a lengthy refugee queue?
Philip Ruddock highlights the refugees living in squalid camps around the world. He says asylum seekers "steal" their places. But it is the government's totally voluntary decision to cut the Special Humanitarian Program (which is not exclusively for offshore refugees anyway) as successful onshore claims rise.
In the May 7 Canberra Times, Ruddock was quoted as saying that taking more overseas refugees would make a "tremendous" difference to the Australian government's budget. So, despite emphasising their terrible plight, the government won't commit extra funding for resettlements.
Offshore refugees constitute a useful political tool in a campaign against onshore asylum seekers, but how much help does this government really provide for most of them?
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
Aston by-election
The last sentence of Graham Matthews' article on Socialist Alliance preference policy in the Aston by-election (GLW #455) says it all: "We hope that the Greens in Aston and elsewhere will join us in that fight." What an empty piece of rhetoric.
The Greens are already in the thick of the fight for social justice and the environment, and have used the platform of the Aston by-election very effectively to raise and popularise vital issues that the Lib-Labs didn't want raised.
No point in the Greens joining your lot, Graham, they're already doing it better than you.
As for preferences. Aston is a by-election that will not change the balance of power in parliament, so the question of government does not arise and lesser-evilism is irrelevant.
It won't matter if jellyback Beazley Labor loses in Aston.
Labor is not automatically entitled to preferences from forces to its left.
In these circumstances, preference-splitting is a legitimate tactic.
If the Libs are "the party of the GST", etc., Labor is the party of the Accord wage freeze, forced amalgamations of trade unions, fees for higher education, and many more crimes against working people.
The Socialist Alliance shows by its preference decision in Aston that it hasn't got a clue about how to shed the Labor ball and chain. The Greens are dancing rings around you.
Steve Painter
Carlton NSW
Left Labor conference
I was sure that Graham Matthews attended the Left Labor Activists and Supporters Conference held in Melbourne on July 1. However, since reading his letter in last week's GLW I consider it more likely that he actually exists in a parallel universe. In an attempt to drag Matthews back from the ethereal plane to this realm of existence it is necessary to enlighten him with a few facts.
Firstly, there were 125 people at the conference, not 60 as Matthews claims (although it was down to 75 by the final session). Knowing how to count heads is a very useful political skill. Learn it.
Secondly, it is considered most impolite to give people quotes that they didn't make. If Matthews wants to work on a quote that provides a similar opinion however, he can try this one: "It is also worth noting that neither the WEF nor Nike blockades were acting according to principled behaviour, although the protests themselves are legitimate." This is from the transcript of my presentation, available at: <http://www.angelfire.com/zine/laborleft/strategies.html>.
Thirdly, the Socialist Alliance was not excluded from the final session. Indeed, they were the first people contacted. When a week past with no return phone call the position allocated to the Socialist Alliance was given to the (electorally more successful) Progressive Labour Party.
Lev Lafayette
Melbourne