|
-professional homosexuals are operating an “old boys club”
in the corridors of power;
-homosexuality itself is a ruling class degenerate state, linked
to the decadence of late capitalism.
These are serious allegations - indeed they amount to the presence
of a homosexual conspiracy, which is more than either the National
Front or the BNP claim. Curiously though, scant evidence is offered
by Mr Bull to back up his claims. The tale of a paedophile allegedly
protected by a council’s gay equality policy, and insinuations
from Private Eye magazine and outlandish TV programme Bo Selecta
do not a watertight argument make. Indeed they point to utter desperation.
The Weekly Worker (pot-smoking, homosexual Zionists, according to
the EPSR, so heaven alone knows what he makes of the Alliance for
Workers’ Liberty!) should invite Bull to present his evidence
for this interpretation of human sexuality. He has the chance to
persuade the rest of the left that we were wrong to move away from
what a previous correspondent described as the “pseudo-Freudian”
explanations of gays (Letters, July 14).
Or maybe it’s just that the EPSR is now supreme in its isolation,
at war with every other current of left thought, and destined to
languish in obscurity, screaming deranged abuse to a non-existent
readership.
Sion Griffiths
Aberystwyth
Beenie Man
Virgin Records have issued a statement on behalf of Jamaican reggae
star Beenie Man (real name: Anthony Davis) over his songs that incite
the murder of lesbians and gay men. Outrage is orchestrating a US-wide
and Europe-wide campaign to cancel Beenie Man’s concerts and
get his records taken off the air.
Beenie Man’s so-called apology is so vague that it does not
even mention what he is apologising for. It reads: “It has
come to my attention that certain lyrics and recordings I have made
in the past may have caused distress and outrage among people whose
identities and lifestyles are different from my own. While my lyrics
are very personal, I do not write them with the intent of purposefully
hurting or maligning others, and I offer my sincerest apologies
to those who might have been offended, threatened or hurt by my
songs. As a human being, I renounce violence towards other human
beings in every way, and pledge henceforth to uphold these values
as I move forward in my career as an artist.”
This could be an apology for anything. It contains no explicit regret
for his incitements to murder gay people, and no specific affirmation
of his respect for homosexuals and for homosexual human rights.
It is not a sincere expression of remorse. In fact within 24 hours,
Clyde McKenzie, head of public relations for Beenie Man’s management
company, Shocking Vibes, told Radio Jamaica that the statement was
“not an apology”, that it was initiated by Virgin Records,
not by Beenie Man, and that Beenie Man reserved his right to continue
criticising “the homosexual lifestyle”, of which he did
not approve. He insisted the statement was just a general condemnation
of violence.
All Beenie Man’s ‘kill queers’ songs are still in
circulation. He has not withdrawn them and he is refusing to buy
up stocks of the offending CDs. He is still profiteering from his
murder music. His apology rings hollow when he is still making money
from his incitements to kill homosexuals.
Taking our cue from South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, the first thing Beenie Man has to do is acknowledge
the suffering he has caused and apologise to the people he has victimised.
Then he needs to make a positive statement affirming his respect
for gay people and his condemnation of homophobic violence. Finally,
he must either come to an agreement with the record companies to
withdraw his murder songs from circulation or, if this cannot be
agreed, donate his royalties from these songs to a gay organisation
campaigning against homophobic violence.
The release of ‘kill gays’ songs by Beenie Man and other
Jamaican dancehall music artists has been followed by a wave of
anti-gay assaults in Jamaica and Britain. Jamaican lesbians and
gays have been shot and stabbed, macheted and stoned to death, doused
with petrol and set ablaze, and chased into the sea and left to
drown.
Brett Lock
Outrage
Al-Qaradawi
Peter Tatchell says that he never called for Yusuf al-Qaradawi to
be banned from Britain, but merely proposed that the muslim cleric
should be “challenged” (Letters, July 22).
However, he goes on to say that it was a “grave mistake”
to allow Dr al-Qaradawi a platform at London’s City Hall. So,
while Peter wasn’t in favour of excluding him from the country,
apparently he does believe that Dr al-Qaradawi should have been
banned from the headquarters of the Greater London Authority. Although
Peter’s fellow Greens on the London Assembly evidently agreed
with him here, it is worth noting that their stance caused some
conflict within the Green Party itself.
Hugo Charlton, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, made
the following statement: “I regret the decision by some assembly
members to attempt to deter the distinguished muslim scholar, Dr
al-Qaradawi, from speaking at City Hall. Among those human rights
issues which are championed there, freedom of speech does not seem
to be one they are prepared to prioritise in this instance. Dr al-Qaradawi
is widely respected in the muslim world and to decline him this
venue can only send a negative message to both the domestic and
international islamic community. I strenuously support all attempts
to build bridges and increase understanding - this is best done
through dialogue, an essential component of which is allowing other
people to speak.”
Robert Wilkins
email
In limbo
For over two weeks, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has prevented
around 3,000 Palestinian residents from returning to their homes
in the occupied Gaza Strip. By closing the border with Egypt at
Rafah, the IDF is forcing children, patients, pregnant women and
the elderly to stay at the border with no shelter and little in
the way of food or sustenance. They are holding them in limbo without
any clear reason.
Holding these Gaza residents prisoners is collective punishment
and is a blatant violation of the most basic human rights. In a
mockery of the urgency of the situation, the Israeli high court
gave the IDF 30 days to respond to a petition from Israeli and Palestinians
human rights groups demanding that the crossing point be reopened
immediately.
European Jews for a Just Peace expects that European citizens will
share their outrage at these latest restrictions added to the plight
of the Palestinians living under military repression and occupation.
We require that European governments and the EU should demand that
Israel reopens the border at Rafah without further delay.
European Jews for a Just Peace
Amsterdam
Change record
For Ian Mahoney’s benefit I have never been a member of the
Socialist Workers Party (Letters, July 29). However, I like to read
all left newspapers. Every week I am saddened that the Weekly Worker
spends so much time attacking the SWP instead of the Labour Party.
Ah well, I give you 10 out of 10 for consistency though. How many
members?
Shaun Tinsley
email
Not rejected
Stuart Richardson’s analysis of the publicity produced by Respect
on the one hand and the campaigns of Steve Godward and Alison Brown
on the other fails to spot two key differences (Letters, July 22).
Firstly, the latter two campaigns were local elections where many
issues, although they may still be raised, are of little direct
relevance. Demanding open borders and withdrawal of troops from
Iraq in a local election is rather less important than in a Westminster
or European election. The leadership of Respect seemingly fails
to acknowledge the different approach required. A BBC survey showed
that around 90% of people who voted in the Euro elections thought
that the major issue was either “whether we stay in the EU”
or “which direction the EU will develop in”, which may
explain Respect’s poor performance across most of the country
in these elections.
Secondly, although, as Stuart correctly points out, Steve’s
and Alison’s campaign material did not contain mention of some
key principles, these had not been explicitly rejected, as they
were at the Respect conference. Moreover, leading members of Steve’s
and Alison’s campaigns did not speak out against abortion and
socialists in these campaigns were prepared to challenge reformist
and reactionary ideas rather than holding their tongues for fear
of offending career politicians or religious hard-liners.
Phil Pope
email
Poverty
Just in case anyone thought things were getting better, here’s
the Institute for Public Policy Research’s social injustice
audit conclusions.
Britain is still far from being a fair and just society. Parental
social class and ethnicity still heavily influence life-chances,
whilst democratic participation is falling and political influence
is polarising according to class and wealth. Women continue to be
more likely to live in poverty, while between 1990 and 2000 the
percentage of wealth held by the wealthiest 10% of the population
has increased from 47% to 54% over the last 10 years.
Since 1997, the richest have continued to get richer. The richest
one percent of the population has increased its share of national
income from around six percent in 1980 to 13% in 1999. Inequality
in disposable income (after taxes and benefits are accounted for)
appears to have slightly increased since 1997 after significant
increases in the 1980s. The Gini coefficient has increased from
33 in 1996-97 to 36 in 2001-02 (the higher the number, the greater
the inequality). In 2001 23% of children in Britain were living
in households earning below 60% of median income, compared to just
five percent in Denmark, 10% in Sweden and 14% in Germany.
Although the gender pay gap has narrowed, only very slow progress
has been made since 1994. In 1994 women in full-time work earned
on average 79.5% of what men earned; by 2003 this had only increased
to 82%. For part-time work the pay gap is even wider: in 1998 women
earned only 59.1% of what men earned; by 2003 this had only slightly
increased to 60.4%.
Intergenerational social mobility appears to have declined. One
survey on social mobility found only a gradual increase between
1972 and 1992, before a decline in the period up to 1997. Sons born
to fathers from the richest fifth of the population in 1958 earned,
on average, 13% more than those from the bottom fifth of the population.
In comparison, sons born to wealthy fathers in 1970 earned 37% more
then their poorer contemporaries. People from a professional background
remain over two times as likely to end up professionals as someone
from a manual background.
The poorest continue to be more likely to suffer from crime and
the fear of crime. Around 4.8% of individuals earning under £5,000
a year were burgled in 2003-04, compared with approximately 2.7%
of those earning over £30,000. Deprived communities suffer
the worse effects of environmental degradation. Industrial sites
are disproportionately located in deprived areas: in 2003, there
were five times as many sites in the wards containing the most deprived
10% of the population, and seven times as many emission sources,
than in wards with the least deprived 10%.
Dave Edwards
email
Proposal
I would like to put forward a proposal with regards to the Weekly
Worker online.
Obviously the CPGB wants to encourage people to buy the paper as
a whole instead of downloading it or reading it on the website.
While the paper in its entirety is available for free on the website,
then this appeal may fall of deaf ears to some. Instead, I thought
that it might be better if you allowed the first couple of paragraphs
from each article to be viewed for free and if the reader wishes
to read the rest then they can buy the paper or pay a small fee
to download the whole thing (perhaps something in the region of
10p-50p: it may not seem a lot but it is more funds coming in).
Also, can I request that the letters section be posted on the Party
website, along with some sort of mechanism that would allow readers
to reply to the letters online and stimulate healthy discussion?
(It may be best to limit the size of the letters and reply posts
to 300 words, as sometimes they can be too lengthy and lose all
relevance/interest of the reader).
Liam Pritchard
email
Something better
I agree with the points Roy Hughes (Letters, July 28) raises about
my original letter (July 21).
The aims and objectives of the Labour Representation Committee are
to give “socialists within the Labour Party an organised, consistent
and coherent voice”. Comrade Hughes asks what the “something”
is that socialists and trade unionists should fight for. To me it
is democratic socialist policies to take on the rightwing neoliberalism
of New Labour. I won’t quote all the objectives of the LRC,
but they include ending the illegal occupation of Iraq, fighting
oppression, repealing the anti-trade union laws, opposing privatisation
and so on.
Finally I do not want a rerun of the betrayals of Labourism and,
as a current and past member of the Labour Party, I am only too
aware of what can happen. For the LRC to be a success we need to
be serious about building a genuine opposition to New Labour, which
also appeals to all sections of society. I don’t want to see
a flash in the pan, nor various groups trying to take it over. I
too want “something a little better this time”.
Louise Whittle
London
|
