Green tinted glasses
Friends of the Earth's Peter Barker (Write on, GLW #442) says that I "neglect to understand the depth and diversity of people that make up FoE's huge international network" in my review of FoE International's document Towards Sustainable Economies (GLW #439, March 7).
Judging from Towards Sustainable Economies, FoE clearly benefits from its international network and its international outlook.
However, Barker fetishises "diversity". Conservative environmentalists in FoE with illusions in greening capitalism are no less a block to the environment movement than conservative environmentalists outside the FoE umbrella. In some ways they would be more of a block.
The difficulty is all too evident in Towards Sustainable Economies, which is an uncomfortable compromise between progressive elements (linking environmental destruction to neo-liberalism and arguing that neoliberalism must be ridded of) and conservative (arguing for trivial tinkering with the existing capitalist order). The two positions jumbled up in Towards Sustainable Economies are contradictory, whatever your politics.
Barker also seems concerned with my suggestion that a disengagement between the conservative and progressive currents within FoE might be the best way forward for the latter. But applied to the broader environment movement, this is precisely the argument coming from some within FoE, not least the national liaison officer Cam Walker whose article for the June 2001 edition of Arena is titled, "The green movement in the 21st century: Time to choose sides".
Walker (and some other FoE members) and me (and everyone in the Democratic Socialist Party) would agree that we need to dispel illusions that capitalism can be greened, not accommodate them for the sake of "diversity".
Jim Green
Chippendale NSW
Image and obesity
I agree with Alison Dellit (GLW #443) that magazines such as Who Weekly display astounding hypocrisy when they denounce ultra-thin female models and actresses as unappealing. Exactly what else Dellit is trying to say, I'm not sure.
Dellit implies that the "Hollywood women" of Who magazine's article are unreal because they are size 10, whereas an average woman is size 14.
But Australians face significant health problems. While some people in Australia are unhealthy because they don't get enough nutrition (due to poverty or "dieting"), the problem for the vast majority of us here is that we get too much nutrition, or the wrong kind.
Fifty percent of Australian women suffer obesity, while on average Australian adults are increasing their body fat by one gram every day. Capitalism is the main culprit for this: we work in sedentary jobs that take up most of the day. Many women have worked hard to gain a decent level of health and fitness for themselves and Jennifer Lopez is unremarkable in this respect apart from her fame. Is Dellit suggesting that those women are oppressed, should stop being "body conscious" and instead join the growing millions of us who suffer obesity?
Lachlan Malloch
Lilyfield NSW
Deeply flawed
I have been reading Phil Shannon's book reviews for a good many years now and have a lot of respect for his critical judgement and the quality of his writing. His review of Richard Breitman's book Official Secrets is, however, deeply flawed. The argument presented in the review — that the allies ignored the plight of the Jews living under the Nazi jackboot during World War II is patent nonsense.
Let us be clear about this — the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust — not the allies, not the Jews, not the sugar plum fairy — the Nazis. After the Nazis started World War II Jews unfortunate enough to live in areas occupied by the Nazis were captives living under a racist regime which was dedicated to their destruction. While under the Nazi jackboot Jews were cut-off from all immediate aid.
The Allies' argument that the best way — indeed the only way — to help Europe's Jewish community was to defeat the Nazis as quickly as possible was absolutely correct. To argue that the Allies did nothing to help Europe's Jews is nonsense and is an insult to all the millions of men and women who fought — and in many cases died — to bring down the abhorrent Nazi regime.
One can argue that more could have been done to help the Jews of Europe before the war — although most historians of the Holocaust believe that all Jews who wished to leave Germany and Austria prior to the outbreak of war were able to do so — but it is simply nonsense to argue that the Nazis could have been coaxed and/or coerced into freeing Europe's persecuted Jews once the war was underway — the Nazis were absolutely and irrevocably committed to the complete destruction of the whole Jewish community.
The only way to help the Jews and the other victims of the Nazi's was to defeat Nazism by force of arms.
Bill Anderson
Surrey Hills
Victoria
Pragmatic liberal-left
We are in a state of shock and disbelief in this country over the policies of the oil baron government and the total disdain of environmental responsibility. Yet in our email discussion groups we still have people who identify themselves as Greens and who voted for [Ralph] Nader saying that they were right in doing so, even if it cost [Al] Gore the presidency. I'm curious as to how Greens outside the US feel about this, because it completely baffles me.
In a winner-take all system, where a third party can be nothing but a spoiler do you applaud the tactics of the American Green Party. If you don't I sure wish you'd let them know because now Nader has said that the Greens will run about 80 candidates for seats in the House of Representatives in 2002.
Unfortunately, the American version of a group with such a strong and positive image in the world has now alienated not those who are its natural enemies but those who should be their natural friends. Green is becoming a dirty word here to many of us in the pragmatic liberal-left.
Irene Theodore Heinstein
El Cerrito
California
Contempt
The Labor Council of NSW again has shown its contempt for "the rule of law" by acting contrary to its own rules. The ALP right-wing machine aided and abetted by the so-called "left" unions steamrolled through the Labor Council approval to change its 75- year-old property rule and sell 2KY at special general meetings held on March 22.
Council president Sandra Moate refused to put a procedural motion from the floor to "adjourn the meeting" when it was pointed out to her that neither proposition was capable of being carried because the minimum number of delegates required under the rules were not present to consider the proposals being put.
Rule 44[e] requires such proposals to be carried by three quarters of the delegates.
Council secretary Michael Costa said there were approximately 350 delegates representing the 80 affiliated unions accredited to the council. Consequently, a minimum of 267 delegates and/or proxies are required at a meeting to effect the change. At the special general meeting of March 22 there were approximately 130 delegates in attendance, less than half the requirement of 267.
At the first special general meeting on February 15 (there is a rule that the proposals have to be carried at two successive meetings), which coincided with the AGM six weeks previously, there were about 200 in attendance according to the sign-on books. Therefore Moate's ruling at that the earlier meeting that the proposals were carried on the "voices" only was equally invalid.
When asked for a count, Moate also refused. This also is provided for under the rules but denied delegates who have the "hide" to ask for it.
When organisations like the Labor Council conduct their affairs in this manner it brings into disrepute all unionists in NSW. Who would want to be part of a "movement" that treats "the rule of law" with such contempt?
David Bell
Turramurra NSW