Stott Despoja
Political spin doctoring does have its limitations not the least being that facts are often so easily verifiable by reference to documents of record such as Hansard.
Alison Dellit compounds her initial errors of fact and analysis in her follow-up letter to GLW (#459) defending her comments in her earlier editorial on the Aston by-election. The letter reveals the tragic truth that Dellit seems to actually believe (or, more seriously, wants others to believe) that a non-existent Books Tax was voted on by the Senate in June 1999 and that this was the bill that Stott Despoja voted against. But there was never any such bill before the Senate.
Instead, as most others know perfectly well, it was a New Income Tax (Goods and Services) bill. And as Hansard naturally reports, because it happened, Stott Despoja along with Democrat Senator Bartlett voted with the Greens and the ALP against it while Meg Lees and other Democrats voted for it alongside the Liberals who moved it.
Moreover, as the June 25, 1999 Hansard records, Stott Despoja spoke of the reasons for her "conscience vote against the GST per se" because, as she explained, she had been consistently on record since 1993 as being opposed to such a regressive and unfair tax. As the English proverb that Lenin was particularly fond of quoting rightly says, facts are stubborn things. And it never makes life any easier or simpler to deny them.
Rose McCann
Kogarah NSW
Sex industry
We mostly concur with last week's article "A Feminist perspective on pornography" by Alison Dellit. However, we are somewhat bewildered by Dellit's statement that "The analysis that women workers predominate in porn because they have less economic power to avoid unpleasant work is one of the silliest things I have ever read", but then goes on to describe exactly how women have less economic power and how this causes the employment imbalance in the sex industry.
We can overlook this contradiction on the basis of agreement on the substantive points: (i) sex industry workers deserve full legal protection, (ii) sexual imagery and sexual expression deserves legal protection and (iii) opposition to sexist aesthetics and practice in the industry.
Where we possibly differ is our proposition that to remove sexism from the industry requires workers' control. Indeed, we strongly oppose the moral elitism in Dellit's claim that: "Understanding that sex work is not a feminist activity is not the same as regarding sex workers as too helpless to help themselves."
Whilst there are many women and some men, who due to their economic conditions and lack of legal protection, are indeed "helpless", there are also many sex workers who are not, who consider their work to be a feminist activity (e.g., Ilona Staller, Candida Royale and Nina Hartley) and who are supported by feminist theory (e.g., Wendy McElroy, Lynne Segal, Judith Butler, Stephanie Ramp, Pat Califia).
Contrary to Dellit's conclusion, the movement for liberation will indeed include emails from "Cindy" offering to show her tits — or were the people who have stripped declaring that they'd rather be naked than wear Nike just a figment of our collective imaginations?
Lev Lafayette & Anthony Leong
Melbourne [Abridged]
Aston I
Steve Painter in his (further) criticism of the Socialist Alliance's preference decision in the Aston by-election (Write on, GLW #459) makes a good point when he says "isn't there also a responsibility to tell the truth — that the Labor stick maybe a different shape but it does just as much damage?" If this had been behind the Greens' campaign in Aston, perhaps we would have found greater common cause. But it wasn't.
The Greens in Aston did not argue that the ALP and the Liberals were equally likely to cause "just as much damage". Rather, the Greens put their preferences up for auction to these parties — just as they had earlier done in Ryan — on the basis of three (and only three) environmental concerns. When they found that neither major party was willing to bid, the Greens simply withdrew the sale and refused to make any further judgement between the two major parties.
Anyhow, based on his own reasoning of equivalence between the two major parties, shouldn't Painter advocate that the Greens split their preferences in all elections?
The Socialist Alliance is the new kid on the electoral block. Our 0.46% in Aston was not an unrespectable vote for a group with no previous history, with no name on the ballot paper, and in a field of 15 candidates. The Greens however seek to take the place of "the" third party in Australian electoral politics. Their increased vote in the Western Australian and Queensland elections may have given them cause to hope. To come out of Aston, however, (despite the public preference auction) with less than one third the vote of the Democrats — this was not a success.
Graham Matthews
Melbourne [Abridged]
Aston II
I'm glad to see that Steve Painter (Write on, GLW #459) isn't trapped by Labor's "preference prison" or any other illusions in the ALP. Trouble is, I've had close friends who are vintage Greens activists just as earnestly tell me that the ALP is the lesser evil and should be supported against the Coalition.
The Socialist Alliance preference policies are designed to lead people out of those illusions and towards radical political activity. Would that you were with us in that activity Steve. Unfortunately, you have locked yourself into the Greens parliamentarist prison.
Barry Healy
Springwood NSW
Aston III
Steve Painter (Write on, GLW #459) comes across as very defensive in his letter about GLW's criticism of the Greens' preference decision in the recent Aston by-election. Could this be because he has forgotten the elementary ABC of contesting bourgeois elections? It is much harder to expose the ALP when it's in opposition. That's why we call for them to be preferenced over the Liberals. That is, if the ALP is government, then the true ALP comes out.
Sure, this by-election was not going to change the government, but the fact that the Liberals were able to claim a victory this close to a general election was surely a boost to the Liberals' hopes of being re-elected. They certainly went about claiming as much.
For Painter to accuse the Socialist Alliance of being, simply, left vote catchers for the ALP when the Greens have given preferences to the Nationals in Queensland and to the Liberals in the ACT in elections which cost the ALP government, is rich indeed.
We don't support the ALP and that's the reason why we're building the Socialist Alliance.
Painter says we're irrelevant, etc., but the Aston result was the first electoral foray that we've had. The Greens, on the other hand, are well known. If we're so irrelevant, Steve, why write letters to GLW complaining about our preference policy?
Melanie Shanahan
Eltham Vic [Abridged]
Detention centre guards
As a subscriber to GLW, I was recently disappointed with your article "Detention guards: the real victims?" by Sarah Stephen. I do not agree with the use of detention centres in Australia, however I feel that the demands being put forth by the AWU were relevant and could become a positive step forward in more humane treatment for those asylum seekers that are forcibly detained.
Demanding better training and safe working environment for the guards would benefit both the asylum seekers and the camp guards. Many of the incidents that were cited — abuse/bashing of asylum seekers, racial insults, lack of respect for basic human rights — should and could be prevented with higher standards, expectations and limitations of camp guards.
Perhaps rather than criticise and provide "solutions" that will be not quickly realised in the current political atmosphere in Australia, GLW should be supporting the AWU in its campaign and applying further pressure for the camp guards to receive training in working with torture and trauma victims, non-violent conflict resolution, critical incidents management, multiculturalism and respect for human rights.
Continue to protest and fight against forcible detentions, but better trained and qualified guards are surely a step in the right direction, especially for those asylum seekers that currently have to live beneath the rule of camp guards in their daily lives.
Sarina Kilham
Darwin
Drugs policy
Sean Martin-Iverson ("A socialist drugs policy", GLW #458) made an important contribution to the search for a socialist drugs policy, and I certainly see no contradiction between my points and his. Unfortunately, there is only ever so much space, and GLW should be applauded for a clear willingness to explore these issues fully.
In an article carried in the (now infamous, thanks to the corporate media) Whack (VIVAIDS' magazine) Autumn 2001 edition, I speak specifically to the exploitation of poppy and coca growers in developing nations, and call for drugs being provided through a legalised system to be sourced directly from collectives of small farmers and chemists, at rates that represent a real living wage for them, while ensuring affordability for drug users here. Given that the estimated mark up between producer and street consumer under the current system is estimated at around 15000%, a fair price for all is surely achievable.
Sean is quite correct in saying that we shouldn't limit our demands to what is achievable under the current system, and that there are significant reforms that can be achieved now that would create fundamental improvements in the day-to-day existence of drug users.
Serious drug law reform is a real possibility within the next decade. The extent to which this reform establishes a socially just means of allowing access to drugs for recreation and self-medication, or creates just another market for the commodification of pleasure, will undoubtedly depend on the strength and goals of the drug law reform movement. The willingness of socialists to support drug user activists will be
an important factor in the way the struggle develops.
Michael Arnold
Melbourne