Gun laws: reply
The letter by Chris Pickering, Russell Pickering and Stefan Skibicki (Letters, GL #27) seems to be predicated on a misreading of my comment on the gun law debate (GL #25), i.e., they seem to assume that I argued against a ban on the possession of guns in urban homes. In fact, I argued for such a ban, viz: "In a society as sick as ours, it is clearly dangerous and undesirable for individuals to keep dangerous weapons in their homes. The democratic right to bear arms can be exercised only collectively: through gun clubs and other social organisations." (emphasis added)
Like them, though, I also argued that, to use their words, "the basis of violence in our society revolves around economic and social factors" and therefore, as I stated in my comment "while banning the possession of guns in suburban homes might lessen the number of people killed and injured, it will not stop the plague of urban violence."
I agree with them when they state that the individual ownership of guns "will not play a positive role in the campaigns of mass political action that are required to change the structure of present society for the benefit of the majority".
But the present media furore about over gun laws is not designed to promote public awareness of the need to "change the structure of society" as the real solution to urban violence. It is, as I noted in my original comment, designed to "divert attention away from the real cause of urban violence — the -2>breakdown of human solidarity resulting from the alienation and demoralisation that capitalism creates."0>
-1>For example, on the morning of the September 3 5000-strong anti-gun march in Sydney, Murdoch's Telegraph-Mirror ran a banner headline claiming a "million" were marching. I can't recall the Murdoch press ever giving similar advance publicity to any demonstration in favor of the rights of workers, women, Aborigines, gays, etc.
0>Doug Lorimer
Dulwich Hill NSW
Vietnam and non-violence
I was shocked to read the concluding paragraph to Willy Bach's comment on the August 17 marches of Vietnam veterans (GL, Aug 28 '91): "There was no issue in Vietnam worth a single drop of blood on either side".
Has Bach forgotten that one of the Greens' four principles is social justice? The people of Vietnam undoubtedly would have preferred to achieve that end by employing that other Green principle of non-violence, but they were denied that right by a mighty war machine brought from the United States and reinforced by others like Australia.
-1>Greens, as well as socialists, should not back away from supporting the right of oppressed people to stand up for their freedom as the Vietnamese people did so heroically, as we are reminded several pages further on in the same issue of GL in Phil Shannon's book review of Vietnam Days.
0>Helen Jarvis
Sydney
'Free thinking'
Marit Hegge's article "In Defence of a Green Party" (GL #27) leaves out a large part of the picture. It's annoying that implicit throughout the article is the notion of the "free thinking individual" as the preferred participant in meetings. Anyone who is a member of or happens to agree with the DSP is by inference g individual". I was left wondering about the freeness of the 6 Queensland delegates who persistently voted along the same lines at the recent national meeting.
Marit makes some rather strange excuses for the lack of representation of some states. She argues that the criteria were determined partly by responses to mailouts and also the history of electoral activity. It was certainly difficult for Victoria to respond when information was not received, or it arrived with a very short time frame to reply.
Considering that the general participation in elections under a green umbrella really only kicked off in the 1990 federal elections, it is understandable that some groups have a more limited participation. Victoria has not had to face any other elections since that period.
During the federal election Green Alliance fielded a full Senate team running a serious campaign. Since then our activity has centred around networking. Many of our members have been more productively involved in campaigns around concrete issues such as public transport, the severe urban environmental problems, health on the job, child care and protection of the Gippsland forests. This is what I think grassroots democracy, activism and involvement are really about.
Lessons from history show that you can't establish a party simply by pronouncement. It is through working together, building solidarity and then developing an understanding of the broad links between different issues that people will be able to unite within a party. Politics is much more complex than making decisions in a room with a small group of "like minded people".
Melanie Sjoberg
Melbourne
Green party debate
I was pleased by the article by Marit Hegge in GL #27 — not because I agree with the sentiments it expressed but because this is the first time I have seen anything written which doesn't resort to a mudslinging attack on the Democratic Socialist Party in order to argue the AGWG case.
The debate over the formation of a green party is not about "Green Greens" versus "Socialist Greens". It is about what sort of green party should be formed out of the green movement. There are "socialists" on both sides of this debate.
Behind the discussion about the lack of democracy in the process is a more fundamental question of politics. Do we want another traditional parliamentary party or do we want a grassroots party of a radically different type?
Of course those who want another traditional parliamentary party will be happy to have the AGWG and friends represent them. But the Green movement is much broader than that and there are many, including the DSP, who do not have such a conception.
The fact remains that there is no need to rush to form a Green party. The proposal for a loose green network fulfills the need of the Green movement to provide an electoral face while giving us time to work out questions of policy, structure and participation. It's a process which ensures greatest control from the grassroots and least opportunity for domination of one group — whether it be Rainbow Alliance, AGWG, DSP or a small green elite.
Anyone has the right to form a party. We also have the right to criticize those who seek to own the Green movement and appoint themselves leaders over it.
Maurice Sibelle
Brisbane
DSP and greens
I was glad to see Marit Hegge's comment in the last issue of GLW, first because it demonstrated the availability of the paper as a forum for all progressive forces, and second because the tone was infinitely more reasonable than AGWG contributions to the debate have been recently.
The Democratic Socialist Party is a green party. Ecological destruction is one of the greatest contradictions perpetrated by the dominant world political system. As socialists we understand this contradiction and seek to expose and destroy it.
The DSP is composed of committed and conscious political activists. We believe that our collective activity and analysis is more effective, politically, than that of any of us as individuals. No member takes "orders" from any other member. To dismiss any members as "misled" is to fall prey to the myths created by the opponents of fundamental social change.
-2>The DSP supports liberation struggles of the black majority in South Africa, the Irish in Northern Ireland, the Chinese students, the peoples of Central and Latin America and of Palestine. We despise the violence perpetrated against oppressed people. We are non-violent, but we will not condemn those who struggle against violent regimes and who are forced to take up arms to protect themselves.0>
We will throw our experience, our commitment and our resources behind the movement, and have done so time and again. We do not split movements. We have been used as an excuse to do so. The current moves to discredit and destroy the QGN are an example of this tactic.
The AGWG has shot the Queensland Green movement in the foot. It will remain lame for some time. The DSP will still be ready to collaborate in the necessary work, when the wound finally heals.
Karen Fletcher
Brisbane
[Edited for length.]
Not monolithic
-2>I read with interest "Australian Jews and the Middle East. The Suppressed Debate". (GLW 4/9/91)0>
Whilst the article contains some merit, it does tend (however inadvertently) to confirm the erroneous and widespread misconception that the Jewish community is politically monolithic.
The article fails to even mention the pre-eminent Jewish peace organization, the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. AJDS is neither anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. It is, however, closely linked with the Israeli Peace Movement and does support the creation of a Palestinian State alongside Israel.
-2>In 1989, it initiated a Statement of Concern on the Middle East calling for "a peace of mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestinians based on territorial compromise and self-determination" that was signed by over 550 Australian Jews.0>
-2>AJDS representatives have also been regularly invited to address mainstream Jewish organizations such as the Australian Union of Jewish Students and the Left-wing Zionist youth movements Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. So, it is somewhat of an exaggeration to say debate is being suppressed.0>
Secondly, your article allows Mark Leibler to present himself as the leader of the Jewish community. He is not. He is the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia; not the President or even Vice-President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the representative roof body of Australian Jewry.
-1>Mark Leibler has never been elected to any leadership ian Jewry. At a recent meeting of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (the Victorian roof body), his intolerant views were soundly condemned by — amongst others — the JCCV Chairman, the Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress and the Rabbinical delegate from the Union for Progressive Judaism. Mr Leibler was also criticized in a subsequent editorial by the Editor of the Jewish News, Sam Lipski. On the issue of debate in the Jewish community, Mark Leibler is clearly isolated.0>
-1>I believe that the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews (like the overwhelming majority of Israelis) would be willing to support an exchange of land for peace. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the other side — the Palestinians and the Arabs — feel the same way.
0>Philip Mendes
Balaclava Vic
[Edited for length.]
Political, not 'Jewish'
In the article "Australian Jews and the Middle East: The Suppressed Debate" (September 4) I am alleged to have described a political viewpoint as "un-Jewish". This is not an opinion I hold and at no time did I make such a statement. I did outline the majority opinion of the Australian Jewish community and explain the logic of this position, and although the writer of the article asked me a number of times about the inherent "Jewishness" of ideas, I rejected this conceptual framework for what is essentially a political argument.
I at no time compared the views of two University of New South Wales academics to "any Kurd who supported Saddam Hussein's use of mustard gas" in the Australian Jewish Times. In the article cited I accused the Australian Financial Review of cynicism in committing the dishonourable practice of publishing an article purely because of the ethnicity/religious identification of the writers, rather than for its argumentation or newsworthiness.
Readers of Â鶹´«Ã½ should also know that the writer's definition of "a right-wing Israeli line" encompasses the Israeli coalition government, the opposition Labor Party and all but a small minority of Israelis.
Jeremy Jones
Darlinghurst NSW
Australian nukes?
Two Australian companies are listed in "The Directory of Australian Industry Defence Capability DRB 29", 1990, as being involved in the manufacture of nuclear ordnance.
In the Directory's Section 3 — Products, the Extrusion Machine Co (Australia) Pty Ltd, Bankstown, Sydney, is listed under "Nuclear Projectiles" and "Fuzing and Firing Devices, Nuclear Ordnance", while Applied Research of Australia Pty Ltd, Technology Park, SA is listed under "Nuclear Rockets".
Perhaps Mr Hawke would care to explain how these directory entries square with what he said to Warwick Beutler during the ABC's AM radio program on 19 Feb 1990?
He said, "... I'm saying, on the fundamental question of whether you have nuclear weapons stationed in Australia or not, Mr ur adherence to the Treaty that I negotiated, which prevents that happening."
I wonder whether AIDEX 1991 will exhibit Australian nuclear weapon technology and whether Mr Hawke will have the gall to open it?
Gareth W.R. Smith
(Nuclear Disarmament Party)
O'Connor ACT