Weekly Worker 566 Thursday March 3 2005

Letters

Abortion choice
Liz Hoskings would, no doubt, deny she was anti-choice. Yet the arguments she puts forward in her letter are the same arguments anti-choice rightwingers employ in their campaign to claw back the gains women have made in the area of reproductive rights (Letters, February 24).

The stock anti-choice argument used by ‘lifers’ is that abortion is a hugely damaging ordeal, physically and emotionally, for women. Just look at some of the terror-inducing words that Ms Hoskings uses: “infertility”, “bleeding”, “infection”, “emotional trauma”, “risks”, “nasty surgical procedure”, “inhuman”. I would hate to think of the effect such language would have on a woman in a crisis pregnancy situation contemplating her options. If that weren’t bad enough, Ms Hoskings drags in Hitler, the Nazis and concentration camp gassings.

I would suggest that having Ms Hoskings hop up and down screaming “Hitler” and “gassings” would not be the best way of approaching a woman who finds herself in the traumatic position of discovering severe foetal abnormality late into her pregnancy. While nobody can guarantee that abortion is 100% risk-free in terms of the physical or emotional well-being of women, the same applies to childbirth (for example, post-natal depression). However, legal abortions are overwhelmingly uncomplicated and safe procedures. All risks are explained by the practitioner beforehand and swift medical intervention is provided in the very rare cases where a problem arises afterwards. In the neo-colonial world, let us remember, hundreds of thousands of women are dying from complications arising from childbirth and pregnancy in the absence of medical intervention and illegal back-street abortions.

Ms Hoskings makes the huge assumption, allegedly based on “most women” she knows who have had abortions, that their partners pressured them into it. Undoubtedly there are cases of women who are pressurised into having abortions - not just by their partners, but also by their families and lack of resources. Undoubtedly some of these women regret it and suffer emotionally as a result. However, there are many, many reasons why a woman may decide to have an abortion and there are as many different emotional reactions to the experience as there are women.

For numerous women, the primary reaction is one of relief and there are no long-term negative effects. The anti-choice brigade, though, will never stop trying to make women feel guilty. Abortion clinics see all kinds of women, from teenagers experimenting with sex, to mothers who have as many children as they can cope with already, to women approaching the menopause. The personal choices these women make in difficult circumstances should be respected.

On the specific issue of late-term abortions, it should be pointed out that only one percent of abortions take place at 22 weeks. The reasons why this small percentage of women or girls may have an abortion at this stage are of course entirely ignored by Ms Hoskins: the young girl who is a victim of sex abuse and in denial about her pregnancy; the menopausal woman who may not realise she is pregnant; the woman who may discover she has a serious illness late in pregnancy. As abortions are illegal in Ireland, an Irish woman must first know where to access information on abortion and then come up with €1,000 before going to Britain. This is a class issue and the reason why Irish women have higher rates of late abortions than British women.

Is the foetus in this particular debate is endowed with personhood, so the woman is stripped of hers - her wishes, hopes and dreams, her difficult circumstances are all ignored and she must carry on with the pregnancy regardless. It has been a tactic of anti-choice campaigners in the US and elsewhere to chip away at time limits, rather than launch all-out campaigns against the right to an abortion, which would not get them very far.

There is one aspect of Ms Hoskings’ letter that I agree with: “giving women real choices, like financial help during and after pregnancy, maternity leave”. But in my experience it is the pro-choice left, not the ‘lifers’, who have campaigned for lone parent allowances, maternity leave, decent housing and childcare. The pro-choice left have done more to fight for the right of women to bring up children in decent conditions than all anti-choice campaigners put together. Most anti-choice campaigners separate the issue of abortion from the real material and social conditions in which women in crisis pregnancy situations find themselves. They are content to argue endlessly about embryos dancing on pinheads and direct moralistic instruction dressed up as concern for women in difficult situations.

On the issue of “choice”, I agree absolutely that the term is far from satisfactory. Since when do working class people have “choice” over any area of their lives under capitalism? However, socialists recognise the value of fighting for as many reforms as possible under the current system.

Maybe it’s because I’m from Ireland, where abortions are illegal, where in 1992 a 14-year-old rape victim was prevented by the state from going to Britain for an abortion and where we had to fight a referendum for the right to travel abroad for that purpose, that I can’t be as complacent about and contemptuous of the hard won right to an abortion as Liz Hoskings.
Orla Drohan
Dublin

Patriarchal spin
I read Anne Mc Shane’s report ‘Science and social choices’ and unlike Liz Hoskings I found it interesting and useful in extending the scientific debate around abortion and taking it into the political arena. Liz, like the average anti-abortionist, uses dramatic, dishonest and emotive language when describing her opposition to a woman’s right to choose. Her weird logic is to talk about “real choices”, but fails to mention abortion (Letters, February 24).

That, I am afraid, is not choice. It is also interesting how Liz mentions the issue about some men abandoning their responsibilities regarding children. But she omits the times when there have been cases when women have been taken to court to prevent them from having an abortion. What about the woman’s right there, Liz?

I also find it a contradiction that she describes herself as a socialist feminist yet is anti-abortion. No matter what kind of patriarchal spin she applies to her brand of feminism (and it is clouded by her anti-abortion stance), she is still restricting choice. Choice is about having all the options available and that includes free, safe, legal abortion. It is not for Liz to dictate to women how they control their bodies. I think she should think about her own brand of sexual politics.
Louise Whittle
email

AWL and charity
Recent material in the Weekly Worker exposing the pernicious role played by charity in today’s world has been both accurate and extremely timely. In particular, the way you have brought out the Socialist Workers Party’s growing softness on this question has been useful in emphasising the pace of this organisation’s gallop to the right.

The problem is not confined to the SWP, however. For example, I was surprised to read a small piece in the February 17 issue of Solidarity, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s rather scrappy and dull paper, that appears to actively promote Make Poverty History and the christian charity, Traidcraft. Readers are urged to buy Traidcraft’s MPH armbands as - unlike the official version, apparently - they are not produced using sweatshop labour.

Essentially, the ethos of Traidcraft is pious Proudhonism. It tries to “help the poor to trade more effectively by breaking down the barriers that prevent them gaining access to markets”. The organisation lobbies for “changes in trade rules to make them work in the interests of the poor” and agitates for “public opinion to support fairer trade practices”. To this end, the worthy folk at Traidcraft wag their fingers at the capitalists and lecture them that they “should work in the interests of all stakeholders” and “in particular” be “accountable for their impact on the poor” (www.traidcra-ft.co.uk).

This is “a christian response to charity”, as its website puts it - that is, leave capitalism in place, but make it a bit ‘fairer’ for the workers. I am reminded of Marx’s acerbic comments on “the social principles of christianity” revealed in charity, which “preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and all they have for the latter is the pious wish that the former will be charitable”.

AWLers occasionally call the SWP “Guardian readers with placards” to expose the liberal core of their rival sect’s politics. What do readers think we should now dub the AWL? How about “Guardian readers with (kosher) armbands”?
Craig Burgess
London

Sub-standard
Michael Little’s arrogance is only matched by his ignorance and evasiveness (Letters, February 24). Instead of actually discussing the issues, he prefers to throw out some insults and wave the wicked fairy of Max Shachtman at the AWL.

If Little had read the AWL book The fate of the Russian Revolution he would know that Shachtman never subscribed to ‘state capitalism’, and neither do I. However I think Shachtman was right to oppose both Nazi imperialism and Russian imperialism in World War II. The record of the USSR in eastern Europe from 1939 and especially after 1945 certainly suggests its behaviour was imperialist, in the broad sense of the term: ie, expansionary, exploitative and oppressive. To “defend the USSR” during that period makes no sense - particularly since by then the last residues of workers’ rule had long since been eliminated by Stalin.

And to define imperialism as simply the export of capital today is to cloak oneself in apparent ‘Leninist’ orthodoxy only to avoid reality - the very opposite of Lenin’s method. After all, for the past 30 years the US has imported huge quantities of capital, and is still imperialist. And plenty of other countries (such as South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc) export capital without necessarily being imperialist powers.

The point of the category ‘sub-imperialism’ is to understand the behaviour of states such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Israel, South Africa (and no doubt others) that industrialised to some degree after World War II and have had ambitions to be the dominant regional power. Generally this was under the umbrella of US hegemony, but could also involve challenges to the old imperial powers: eg, the Falklands war of 1982, the Gulf war (1990-91). We believe Iraq under Saddam had such regional ambitions - a claim Little can dispute only with sophistry.

Simply to define these states as “underdeveloped” avoids analysing the motives and behaviour of their ruling classes. And it also obscures the way imperialism since 1945 has operated, largely informally, through independent states rather than colonies and through financial controls such as debt rather than through formal empires.

This exchange started after the Weekly Worker began a discussion on imperialism today. The AWL welcomes such a discussion. Sadly I doubt Little has much to contribute to it.
Paul Hampton
AWL

Imperialism
According to Mr Little of Seattle imperialism is the “export of capital to foreign countries in order to exploit their markets and labour forces” (Letters, February 24).

So presumably Little views countries that are importers of capital as being the victims of imperialism. If this is true then it is the United States of America - which, in 2004, imported 70% of all capital flows - is the greatest victim of imperialism. This kind of cretinous logic does no favours to the British or American left.
Karal Radek
email

Military phantom
Simon Keller claims that the CPGB takes the “military side” (as opposed to the political side, of course) of the undifferentiated “Iraqi resistance” against imperialism (Letters, February 24).

Arguing with comrade Keller is like trying to engage a parrot in polemic. No matter how much we state the obvious truth - that ‘military support’ must of necessity also mean ‘political support’ (and taken to an extreme level, at that) - comrade Keller thinks our difference is all about semantics. Why don’t we come up with “alternative terms”, then everything would be OK? No, it wouldn’t. The whole ‘military’ category, as employed by the orthodox Trotskyists -‘military side’, military support’, ‘military defence’ - is a nonsensical figment of their own imagination.

Having invented this phantom, the comrades then retrospectively attempt to impose it on VI Lenin, for whom it would have been an anathema. Thus, when Lenin says that fighting the counterrevolutionary forces of Kornilov “is not the same thing” as supporting Kerensky’s government, comrade Keller virtually turns this on its head: apparently what Lenin really meant to say was that ‘military support’ for Kerensky “is not the same thing” as ‘political support’ for him!

But there is nothing in Lenin’s words to bear out this ridiculous interpretation. In fact nowhere does Lenin use the phrase ‘military support’, or anything like it, in relation to Kerensky - he merely denounces those who would give the provisional government their “support”, full stop.

At a given moment, Bolshevik guns happened to be pointing in the same direction as those of the provisional government. The Bolsheviks did not “defend” Kerensky. They defended the revolutionary situation in Russia - there is a world of difference. It is a question of doing all that is necessary for the survival and strengthening of our own side, not giving anything other than incidental “support” to theirs.

So, no, we do not take the “military side” of the islamists or Ba’athists in Iraq, even though, first and foremost, we wish to see the defeat of the imperialists. How could a military victory for reaction be anything other than a political victory for these anti-working class forces? Or does comrade Keller think that they would not seek to use their military dominance to impose their political programme?

We do, however, offer our full support and solidarity to democratic, secular and working class forces in Iraq, irrespective of what form their resistance takes - whether they contest elections, mobilise the unemployed or directly engage the imperialists in battle, arms in hand.

By the way, comrade Keller, we never claimed that “genocide was being carried out by the Serbs” in Kosova. We stated that in 1998-99 the Serbs were implementing a policy of mass expulsions, the logic of which was certainly genocidal. As in Iraq today, we opposed the imperialist assault on Serbia without giving an ounce of support or - ‘military defence’ - to Milosevic.
Peter Manson
South London

STWC vote
Geoff Collier accused me of a blatant lie (Letters, February 24). He should be more careful before throwing such insults. If he had been listening carefully, he would realise that, in introducing my amendment at the Stop the War Coalition conference, I said that I could have urged people not to vote for parties that supported the war, and that after all, a vote for Labour is a vote to keep Blair in office.

I also said quite clearly that I was not putting such an amendment, even though it would have been reasonable to do so, because I care for the unity of our movement. My amendment was simply to re-insert the officers’ original proposal, which was exactly as I reported in these pages, namely, that the coalition should urge people to support individuals (such as Jeremy Corbyn) who opposed the war and supported an end to the occupation (see Weekly Worker February 17). What we end up with is a limp ‘provision of information’ so that members can make their own minds up. This was defended by Labour members and representatives of the trades unions who do not want the coalition to support opponents of Labour candidates backing the war and imperialism.

Grow up, Geoff. We are an anti-war movement that ought to be involved in this election!
Paul Ingram
Green Party

SWP and theatre
In his haste to find the Socialist Workers Party guilty of not defending the right to free expression in the theatre, Steve Whitehall-Smith seems to have neglected to actually read the article published in Socialist Review. Patrick Connellan has in fact penned a solid defence of artistic expression and theatre’s duty to “provoke and challenge” the audience.

On the question of offence, Patrick makes the entirely correct point that “What is offensive to one person might seem benign, revealing or even liberating to another.” In other words the idea of banning “offensive” plays is nonsense because there can be no objective definition of the term. However, Steve seems to take exception to the line that “the vilification or the persecution of any oppressed group should not only be avoided, but actively fought against”. Perhaps he could tell us which oppressed groups he would like to see vilified and persecuted on the stage more often?

Steve claims that the article skims over the protests by members of the Sikh community about Behzti, when a large section is devoted to a defence of the play and the author notes disapprovingly that the Birmingham Rep was “forced to abandon the play in the face of violent threats” and that “death threats were being sent to the play’s Sikh writer”. Nor, contrary to Steve’s insinuations, is the question of religion sidestepped. Patrick writes that “those with a religious conviction view a world that is seemingly irrational and offer irrational solutions”, and opposes the government’s proposed ‘incitement to religious hatred’ law because it could be used to “attack artists’ freedom of speech”.

No evidence then for any of Steve’s assertions that the SWP has backtracked on this important issue. But, reading between his lines, plenty of evidence that some people see the new forces involved in the anti-war movement and Respect as a problem rather than an opportunity for the left.
Nick Bird
Lowestoft

Closure
Just in the interests of ‘closure’, I thought I would let readers know about a recent admission of Ian Donovan on the UKLN e-discussion list.

Comrades may recall that Ian popped up several times in our paper as ‘Brian Miller’ - a fact that all CPGB comrades were well aware of and our writers gently teased ‘Brian’ about (for example, see my letter of January 6). (Br)ian was not amused, however, and angrily retorted that these asides amounted to “boring and apolitical speculation” (Letters, January 13). In fact, ‘Brian’ told us he had valiantly taken up the cudgels, as comrade Donovan himself could not be “bothered to write to the Weekly Worker … due to the non-publication of letters and articles for reasons that, given the CPGB’s editorial claim of ‘openness’, amounts to a degree of hypocrisy (Letters, January 13).

Ian repeats his alter ego’s allegation in a UKLN posting of February 18, with the qualification that we have now become “the most amazing bunch of hypocrites”. He now admits to being ‘Brian Miller’, but justifies using a pseudonym (which is perfectly acceptable in any case) on the basis that it allowed him to sell a dummy to the CPGB censors and “get more material in the WW letters page”.

So is everyone clear now, right? Ian Donovan was forced to write as ‘Brian Miller’ because the CPGB - we “amazing bunch of hypocrites” - were censoring his trenchant criticisms. There’s a tiny problem for Ian, of course. We knew that ‘Brian Miller’ was Ian Donovan, gently took the piss out of the comrade about it in our paper and … printed the ‘Miller’ material anyway.

Readers can rest assured that the 5,000-word article from Ian we decided not to publish displays exactly this calibre of rigorous political logic and coherence.
Mark Fischer
London

Good stuff
I don’t know much about British politics in general or Ken Livingstone in particular, but Eddie Ford’s article has a ring of authenticity (‘Scumbags and reactionary bigots’, February 17).

There’s some good stuff in the Weekly Worker.
Don Franks
New Zealand

Bad stuff
So were you quite so in favour of the remarks made by Berlusconi about the German MEP at the European parliament, comparing him to a German concentration camp guard?
Nick Landau
email

Workers Unity
Nick Rogers stated: “A key task in the period ahead for socialists committed to building the broadest possible socialist offensive should be to demonstrate to wider groups of Scottish Socialist Party activists that campaigning and organising across Britain is the most effective way to fight a common capitalist state and capitalist class. This would be made easier if the Workers Unity platform reorganised itself along more efficient lines and if socialists in England and Wales were to launch a serious unity project” (‘Splits at the top and confusion all round’, February 17).

What are your ideas on “reorganising the Workers Unity platform along more efficient lines”?
Peter Burton
email

Good Samaritan
People who provide genuine asylum-seekers with false documentation to save them from destitution, homelessness and deportation are acting as good Samaritans.

BBC Radio Five Live has claimed that the head of the Detainee Support and Help Unit, Comfort Afolabi, offered to help someone she believed to be an asylum-seeker - but who was, in fact, an undercover reporter - get a fake passport and national insurance number. She denies helping asylum-seekers work illegally.

The system is failing thousands of genuine asylum-seekers. They are living in dire poverty and face forcible repatriation to countries like Zimbabwe, Iran, Jamaica and Algeria, where they are likely to suffer terrible persecution. Breaking the law to help modern-day refugees is the moral equivalent of illegally aiding refugees on the run from the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s. Every citizen has a moral duty to help hide and prevent the deportation of refugees at risk of being returned to countries where they could face jail, torture, rape or execution. It is ethically defensible to do whatever is necessary to feed, clothe, house and employ asylum-seekers who are penniless and homeless - as many are - because of the failings of the asylum system.

The real solution to these problems is to create a fair and just way of supporting genuine asylum-seekers, so they do not have to resort to law-breaking in order to survive. We remember the tragedy of gay Iranian asylum-seeker Israfil Shiri, who had his benefits cut. He was forced to sleep rough on the streets of Manchester and scrounge discarded food from rubbish bins. Facing deportation back to Iran, where he was due to be stoned to death for being gay, he burned himself alive in the Manchester Refugee Centre in 2003. Providing Shiri with false documents to enable him to support himself and evade deportation would have been ethically justified.

We do not know whether the allegations against Ms Afolabi are true or false. It appears she failed to make adequate checks to verify the genuineness of the person she offered to help. That was a mistake. It can never be justified to break the law by assisting someone who is not a genuine refugee and at risk of serious harm. Before anyone offers illegal help to an asylum-seeker, they should be absolutely certain the person’s claim is genuine and they are in genuine need. It would be totally wrong for asylum charities and their staff to make money or take kick-backs from providing false documentation.

I would defend anyone who helps arrange fake documents for genuine asylum-seekers who are destitute as a result of cuts in their benefits, or who are at risk of deportation to a country where they may face imprisonment, torture or murder.

Immigration rules that prevent asylum-seekers from working are utter madness. Many refugees are highly qualified and have skills that Britain urgently needs. They are dentists, mechanics, teachers, builders and nurses. They could be making a huge positive contribution to our society while they await the outcome of their asylum applications.

The best way to cut the costs of the asylum system is to allow asylum applicants to work. That would take them off benefits, put them into productive jobs that contribute to the economy, and result in them paying tax and national insurance. Far from being a drain, having asylum-seekers in gainful employment would be a net financial asset to the UK.
Peter Tatchell
Outrage

Iraq women
The Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) is holding its conference in Baghdad under the title ‘Women and the constitution’ on March 9. This event is an important step for us. If will greatly enhance the fight to bring together activists and organisations around demands for women’s rights to be enshrined in law and to have an egalitarian, secular constitution which recognises women’s rights as equal citizens in society.

This demand has a crucial and growing importance. With the ‘victory’ of the Iraqi United Alliance, composed mainly of shi’ite groups, in the recent sham elections, the demand for the islamisation of Iraq and its constitution will grow.

Women have been suffering for nearly two years, both under the occupation and from the terror of the islamic groups. Their rights have been eroded, but despite that they have been organising and their determination to fight for secularism, equality and freedom has been shown through the work of OWFI, the true voice of women in Iraq.

The conference will demand a constitution based upon secular values, full equality between women and men, as well as the abolition of all discriminatory clauses and laws against women. We want representation of women in all political, social and economic spheres.

We call on comrades to support the conference both politically and financially, to help women win a secular constitution that will allow them a voice in shaping their own future in a new Iraq. We call on all to send messages of support to OWFI to show your solidarity with our struggle.

Your support is vital during this crucial period of our work.
Houzan Mahmoud
houzan73@yahoo.co.uk

Print this page