Factually correct
Your article by Sean Healy (GLW #453) contains a large number of factually incorrect statements. Let me point out a few as pointed out by the eyewitnesses quoted in Aftonbladet and the Gotenborg Posten, and also fellow residents of Gothenburg who filmed the events from their apartment.
"The protester picks up a rock and throws it..." The protester was carrying three street cobbles and a club. The first cobble knocked a police officer unconscious. The second just missed a second officer, the third was thrown immediately before the target returned fire. This is clearly shown in the news footage.
The statement that the riot police were in "no great danger". If this is the case, why was the officer knocked unconscious by the protester, and was still in hospital three days later. Not to mention the second shooting victim who was shot in the act of kicking the officer on the ground. Furthermore, Gothenburg locals who live in the apartments surrounding the area reported that the protesters would target individual police officers (identified by the numbers on their helmets) and strive to take them down.
Does the statement "Protesters' actions, including property damage and stone throwing, were in nearly all cases a response to police operations" include the looting of the fashion boutiques and the watchmakers, and the burning of the chairs from the caf? Or perhaps in some way small businesses represent big business on a local level? I am sure you were aware of these facts, but as they did not suit the warped version of the truth you chose not to give them. Please tell me, in what way are you better than the large corporate networks which change the news in search for ratings, or the politicians and big business who seek advantage in lies?
Prior to these riots many in Gothenburg were sympathetic to the protesters and their views, including myself. Now, having seen the ends to which you are prepared to go and the disrespect that you have for the truth we ask ourselves: is the alternative better than what we have? I do not think so.
Warwick Carter
Gothenburg, Sweden
ALP and racism
Sarah Stephen (GLW #450) did very well in her article to expose some of the lies of Mr Ruddock in his defence of racial segregation.
The ALP, Australian history's most racist political party, also supports racial segregation similar to the situation where Aboriginal people were kept in concentration camps until quite recently â although it should be pointed out that public shaming has brought about an about face on keeping women and children in what Malcolm Fraser called a "hell-hole".
The ALP's position is no genuine opposition either.
In the old days of absolute monarchy, a beggar-boy accompanied the Prince of England and whenever the prince did something naughty, he used to cop a belting for it.
It's time people in the ALP asked themselves the same question the beggar-boy probably did â why do I have to suffer from capitalism's laws?
Censorship, racial segregation, thrashings of poor people, racism, American security firms, laws to deny freedom of movement â there has to be better.
We all really know there is an alternative because we can tell they are telling us lies. That alternative is where nobody is illegal. That's what people believed in in 1951 when the Refugee Convention became the international law, and that's what I believe in today.
Matthew Davis, Perth
Geoff Clark
Discussing the rape allegations against Geoff Clark, Sarah Stephen (GLW #453) writes: "There is no legal basis for the corporate media to declare Clark guilty on the grounds of the published accusations of rape. Last July, a case involving one of the four women was dismissed for lack of evidence. The most recent allegations, which relate to alleged incidents between 17 and 30 years ago, have not been tested in a court of law".
This passage could be taken as implying that because there was no successful prosecution, the accusations are probably untrue. But the legal system is notoriously bad at dealing with rape. Most rapes are not reported, and only a small proportion of reported rapes lead to convictions. We should not draw any conclusions one way or the other from the lack of a successful prosecution in the Clark case.
We should not automatically accept the Age's report as valid. But nor should we automatically dismiss it as a frame-up designed to discredit Clark because he is perceived as a relatively radical Aboriginal leader. I don't deny that this is a possibility. But GLW has not supplied any real evidence of such a conspiracy.
We are not in a position to judge the correctness of the accusations against Clark. It is up to indigenous people to decide who they want as leaders. We should defend Clark's right to remain in his position if it is clear that most Aboriginal activists support him. But it will take some time before this becomes clear.
Chris Slee
Melbourne