War crimes
The Genocide Convention Act 1949, which came into force in Australia on January 12, 1951, makes it clear that Australia had a mandatory obligation to prevent and punish the genocide unleashed against East Timor by the Indonesian military and its accomplices, the militias.
Article 1 states: "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."
Article VIII states: "Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III."
Seeing that Australia failed to fulfil its convention obligations before and after the August 30 ballot, will the Howard government act now to ensure that all those responsible receive the punishment they deserve?
Australia must roundly condemn President Wahid's decision to exonerate General Wiranto and must agitate for an International War Crimes Tribunal for East Timor.
Byron Bay NSW
[Abridged.]
Foreign interference
Howard and his government continue to proclaim that they don't want foreigners interfering in Australian domestic politics and cite the Committee for the Elimination of Racism as a prime example of such interference.
The Howard Liberal Government claims it stands for law and order. It also claims to uphold the law. It is obsessed with property rights. The liberal ideological position relies on contract/contracts between the individual and the government.
This Liberal government relies on enforcing contracts freely entered into between individuals and between individuals and organisations as the basis of property law. It is determined to promote contracts rather than awards in the workplace.
It refuses to acknowledge that Australia, acting as a sovereign state, entered into a contract with the United Nations when it signed and ratified the treaty on the elimination of racism. Around that time, the Australian parliament also enacted enabling (national) legislation which made many of the provisions of that treaty enforceable.
The contract with the UN expressly committed the Australian Government and its citizens to submit to review by the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This contract we entered freely and we have for 25 years seen benefits flowing from international recognition of our country as one which aspires to behave in a racially non-discriminatory fashion.
If the Howard Government is too irresponsible to honour contracts it has with the UN and all Australians who wish to live in a non-racist society, why then should it expect that any contracts be honoured?
Brisbane
[Abridged.]
American Beauty
American Beauty is a stunning and brutal critique of middle-class "family values" in America with its obsessive success ethic, hypocrisy and underlying dysfunction.
Becky Ellis (Write On, April 5) labels the film "misogynist", but this is an overreaction. In the film, the Annette Bening character is cold, hostile and domineering. The problem is this contradicts the "feminist cultural studies" school of reality.
The oppression of women is a reality. But the daily lives of the women and men in capitalist society are more varied, subtle and complex than the broad scale institutional oppressions which seek to control us.
I want to see rich and interesting films which explore the big issues and which portray men, women, people of colour, lesbians and gays, and all manner of people as individuals with all kinds of strengths, weaknesses, virtues and flaws. The idea that female characters must be either heroes or victims is silly.
It's so easy to label any unlikable female character as part of a sexist stereotype because there's probably such a stereotype for any unlikable characteristic a woman could have.
Perhaps Ellis objects to American Beauty because it does not take up the oppression of women as one of its themes. This is true. Perhaps American Beauty is not a feminist film, but it is a great film.
Hobart
[Abridged.]
Castro is Kennett?
Earlier this year Elaine Canty wrote an article on Cuba, after recently visiting there, for the Melbourne Age. Her story included references to medicine, education and social welfare there, and to me, seemed well-balanced and non-critical.
However, to my surprise, I don't know why, someone wrote a letter to the Age, not only criticising Canty for her bias toward the Cuban system, but accusing Fidel Castro as being another Jeff Kennett.
Well, fuck me, I thought Castro was a socialist whereas Kennett was an arrogant, right-wing dictator.
Maybe if the individual who penned that critical letter had known of Fulgencia Batista he would have likened him to Kennett instead! Maybe not.
Wantirna Vic
Miami mafia
If little Elian Gonzalez had been a black Cuban, would the American government and the Mafia in Miami be so determined to keep him in the USA? Instead of the cruel and sickening treatment to which the child has been subjected, I think a black Cuban child would have been quickly returned to his homeland.
To the Mafia in Miami: You chose to live in the USA, so you must obey its rules. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service decided that Elian must be returned to his father, you have to obey.
Hundreds of Mexicans try illegally every day to flee from capitalist Mexico, with its poverty and unemployment, across the border to Texas. If found by the authorities, they are immediately returned to Mexico (children included) as illegal immigrants. Elian is an illegal immigrant against his will.
St Kilda Vic
Sexist advertising
I am writing to congratulate you and your team on your fine work with Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly. Although I may not agree with you on every issue, overall your newspaper is very informative and headed in the right direction. I find it very encouraging to see people who really care about the state of the world and want to see things change for the better.
I am also writing to vent my anger and disgust at the sexist advertising billboard outside the "Bras n' Things" store in Hobart. This billboard is not only sexist and downright offensive to women for what should be obvious reasons, but the product being sold isn't even visible in the advertisement.
I also believe that it is extremely irresponsible to place such an explicit image in such a public place. How on earth can we ever expect children, particularly young boys, to treat women with respect when they grow up with imagery such as this flaunted in front of them? I see little difference between this imagery and those featured in magazines accessible to adults only and regulated to a certain degree.
Big companies need to learn that this is not on; not only is it damaging to women but it compromises our children's values and therefore our future. Attitudes need to change and so action must be taken.
Lenah Valley Tas
[Abridged.]
Against 'mud-slinging'
I would like to thank Kim Stewart (GLW #385) and Connie Fraser (GLW #386) for their enthusiastic and intelligent letters regarding vegetarianism.
Surely there can be no benefit to either the Democratic Socialist Party or Resistance to denigrate vegetarians as this will only alienate more people from your ideas.
I have been reading GLW for about a year now and I find that almost every week there is another article knocking someone else's opinion. Telling us why all of the other "left" groups are hopeless and inadequate, and that the DSP and Resistance are the only ones that matter. This is really beginning to get under my skin.
Exclusivity cannot be the way to a "people's revolution" (although if Lenin is your hero then you probably wish it was!). Informed debate is what is needed, not a mud-slinging tournament.
Prospect SA