Tommy Sheridan
In reply to my article on the Scottish Socialist Party crisis (GLW #679), Chris Edwards (GLW #680) accuses Alan McCombes and his supporters in the SSP of adopting a "phony moralistic stance" on Tommy Sheridan's sexual activities.
Edwards should read my article again, especially the paragraph where I quote McCombes: "The EC's concern was not with any moral issue pertaining to Sheridan's admission, but with the strategy he proposed for dealing with the newspaper's allegations, which was to deny them regardless of their truth or falsity and to pursue legal action against the newspaper". Events since then have amply borne out the EC's view that Sheridan's pursuing the action by lying in court could only bring damage to the SSP, both politically and financially.
Of course, Edwards is right to say that lying in order to defeat the class enemy may sometimes be necessary and legitimate. But lying to defeat the class enemy is one thing, lying about one's comrades and damaging one's party merely in order to cover up a personal sexual indiscretion is entirely another. In thinking that he had no option but to cover up his visiting swingers' clubs, it is Sheridan who has been engaging in phony moralising.
The EC's actions were dictated by the need to protect the SSP, Sheridan's were dictated by his purely selfish concern with his own status as a "media personality".
Alex Miller
Birmingham, Britain
Terrorists
Terrorists, we are told, may one day detonate a dirty, i.e. radiological, bomb.
Depleted uranium munitions have been used in the Balkans by NATO forces, in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US and Britain, and by Israel in Palestine and Lebanon. By definition these are dirty weapons with radiological consequences lasting 4.5 billion years. Doesn't this make their users terrorists?
Gareth Smith
Byron Bay, NSW
Refugees
Remember the hand-wringing in the wake of the Howard government's re-election in 2005? The prediction that we wouldn't be able to stop any regressive legislation from getting through both houses of parliament now that the Coalition controlled the Senate?
This rather liberal fatalism frustrated me because it completely ignored the role of mass popular opinion and the extent to which the government considers the likely public reaction — particularly the potential for public opposition to become more organised — before it passes regressive legislation.
The spectacular split in the Liberal and National parties over the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill, and the decision by five MPs and three senators to abstain or vote against the bill, has provided the most resounding confirmation that a Senate majority does not guarantee the passage of government bills.
It's a tribute to the enduring ripple effects of the refugee rights movement, which has had a profound effect on public opinion over the past five years; such a profound effect that conservative MPs — including Family First Senator Stephen Fielding and the Nationals' Barnaby Joyce — feel there's sufficient room, and perhaps some political advantage, in taking a stand against further attacks on asylum seekers' rights.
Sarah Stephen
Marrickville, NSW
Press bias
Even though he hates GLW, Peter Panania must still be buying it if only to see his name in print. Presumably he'll be buying the next few issues to see if there is any response to his latest letter (Write On, GLW #679).
He complains that the freedom to debate issues are shut down. This may be so, but GLW acts no differently from the mainstream press which occasionally "allows" the odd critical letter to the editor of the press. I know if I had written to the Brisbane Courier Mail or (heaven forbid!) the Australian, complaining about press bias, I know where my letter would have ended up. At least GLW has given you a hearing, Peter. Twice so far.
By the way, GLW is doing excellent work in exposing the unfairness of Work Choices and the exploitation of foreign workers under the 457 visa system. The mainstream press, apart from the odd high profile case, has shut down on criticism of Work Choices. In fact, articles are appearing with regularity on how good Work Choices is for us all. Heaven forbid we should lose publications like GLW. Keep on reading Peter, there must be something that attracted you to the publication in the first place. And for the record, I don't have anything to do with the production of GLW.
Ken Cotterill
Mareeba, Qld
Nuclear weapons
Congratulations to Jim Green ("PM's nuclear dreaming: enriching Australia?", GLW #679) for making the connection. It should seem obvious to Australians that expanding the uranium industry eventually means expanding the weapons industry. Yet that particular "elephant in the room" doesn't seem to have been noticed by the mainstream media.
When you see how John Howard fawns over George Bush, it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination. The dream of the "peaceful" nuclear industry for Australia is likely to turn to the nightmare of Australia's participation in the US military machine and the nuclear weapons industry.
Christina Macpherson
Via email
Lebanon
Your decision to highlight Human Rights Watch comments on Israel's bombing of Lebanon ("Israel's war backfires", GLW #680), contrasts sharply with the absence of any condemnation of Hezbollah for provoking the war and deliberately targeting civilians with its rockets.
The collateral damage caused by the Israelis was minuscule when compared to bombing campaigns of a similar scale across a similar period in any previous conflict — demonstrating their determination to minimise civilian casualties to anyone with a flicker of military knowledge but strangely ignored by the media.
I felt profoundly sorry for the Lebanese who seemed close to becoming an independent and democratic country. However, their cause is not helped by organisations such as yours choosing to blame one side for the conflict, while ignoring the participation of the other.
As for insinuating that Israel (a country which has fought for its very existence in four major wars since 1948) by having a plan to attack Lebanon, somehow caused the war, you overlook an important fact. Israel knew that Hezbollah was likely to start a war and would have been negligent not to have a plan of attack. During the 1950s the US drew up a plan to invade the UK. The existence of a plan is not evidence of an intention to do so.
Perhaps the left's inbuilt distrust of the military means you feel unable to employ someone with a little army experience. They might put you straight on the realities of war, which would give your articles more credibility.
Jim Falkus
Via email