Letters
Disappointing
Whilst I have not studied in detail the recent plans to vet the approximately 11 million adults who work with children in one form or another, I do have some disagreement with the notion that it represents a form of reactionary offensive limiting individual liberty (‘Farcical and reactionary’, September 17).
James Turley trots out a number of issues in a black and white way. That most sexual abuse of children occurs in the home is not an issue for dispute. Likewise, however, it is also true that paedophiles (for want of a better term) do seek work or roles that put them into contact with children on a regular basis and that this has been the vehicle for abuse of a multitude of children in the past. Having worked with sex offenders, I can testify to this personally.
Whilst this legislation on its own will not stop sexual abuse per se, I feel that it will stop some abuse. That some Daily Mail-reading types may feel affronted at being queried about any ‘worthy’ work they do in schools or with young people more generally is not a primary issue of concern, in my view. It strikes me that this represents an affront to the ego of some individuals rather than a concern for policies aimed at reducing risk to children.
I don’t know of any social workers, teachers or probation staff who feel anything but total ease about having to go through police checks prior to taking up posts. Generally, it is understood that roles involving work with young people or vulnerable adults require some scrutiny for what strike me as obvious reasons.
Following the logic of this article, should these checks be viewed in the same light? Should the socialist left call for an end to police checks, full stop? I don’t think so. There may be issues to discuss around police checks, the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the age of consent and so on. Simply taking a polar opposite view, however, strikes me as ill-informed and disappointing.
Lawrie Coombs
Stockton-on-Tees
Draconian
I find SKS’s letter most confusing (September 17). He (or she) is against draconian age of consent laws but in favour of age of consent laws generally, without saying how the two differ.
His letter claims that child and adult sexuality are two very different things, but that teenagers are between the two. Three distinct and incompatible sexualities. Does that mean that he is in favour of consensual sex amongst infants, teenage sex amongst teenagers and adult sex amongst adults? If so the present age of consent laws make all three illegal - unless, of course, you think 16-year-olds aren’t teenagers. And if 16-year-olds are sexual adults, is he in favour of mutually consensual sexual relations between teachers and students, or is that unprofessional even if carried on entirely outside the school environment?
I accept his point that the question of consent is a complex one and that we live in a society where all sorts of power relations between people exist that muddy the waters; and he is right to call for social action to tackle these problems. However, mutual consent is still the best method of regulating human relations of all sorts (not just sexual ones).
So mutual consent should be the starting point and concrete analysis of the actual relationship the method of enquiry. Blanket proscriptions are not the answer. They are just an arbitrary, authoritarian way out. While consensual sexual relationships should normally be private, there are many situations where this may not be so and it is reasonable for other concerned and responsible people to check it out. They might be right; they might be wrong - but if the relationship is based on mutual consent they should normally respect it, unless, of course, it involves practices that are injurious to life or health. Then maybe we need to think again. Nothing is simple about human relationships and no easy answers are available.
On the subject of Helen Goddard, she has now been sentenced to 15 months in prison and banned from teaching for life for having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old pupil. If the girl had been a few months older, no criminal offence would have been committed. That is arbitrary. There was no evidence submitted that any physical or emotional harm has befallen the younger girl.
What is the point of this law in this circumstance? Banned for life! That is irrational. Do people never learn from experience? The effect of arbitrary laws is that they have draconian effects on individual lives. They take power out of the hands of the individuals directly concerned and give arbitrary rights to the state.
Arthur Lawrence
email
Age of consent
The mysteriously named comrade SKS from New York (September 17) argues at great length that age of consent laws are needed “in a society where sex goes hand in hand with power”. In effect this is a defence of the status quo and therefore of state control and snooping on the sexual relationships of young people. The comrade puts forward no alternative to what exists in Britain, the United States or anywhere else.
Abolition of age of consent laws is not an isolated demand, but forms part of the communist programme. It is not about “imposing” the sexual needs of adults upon young people. Nor is it a paedophiles’ charter, nor a green light for teachers and lecturers to make sexual demands in return for extra tuition and good exam marks. It is one of a comprehensive set of demands designed to empower youth in capitalist society.
Communists want the education system for all over the age of 16 to be thoroughly democratised. We want 16-year-olds to have the vote. We also want to encourage a healthy and natural attitude towards sexual relations. That means full and honest information, non-judgmental health advice and free contraception on demand. Knowledge is power. So if someone who is 25 happens to have sex with someone who happens to be 15, that should be their business. Ditto if both partners happen to be under 16.
Young people should be free to decide when they want to start having sex ... which is the case with the vast majority anyway, whatever the law says.
In countries like Bhutan, Egypt and El Salvador it is illegal to have sex until you are 18. In many places gay and lesbian relationships are outlawed or treated differently to straight relationships. Doubtless this is done in the name of preventing the powerful exploiting the weak, protecting the young from making silly mistakes and, all in all, promoting moral behaviour.
Many other countries have adopted a more flexible and, dare I say it, rational approach. Mostly homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence and is, with very few exceptions, treated equally with heterosexual behaviour nowadays.
In Japan and Spain that goes hand in hand with an age of consent of 13. In Austria, Denmark, Italy, Israel, Hungary and Germany, it is 14. And, yes, there are laws against coercion and offering inducements. In Mexico 18-year-olds are, I believe, free to have sexual relations with partners as young as 12. Even in the USA, the state of Indiana allows young people between 14 and 16 to have sex without breaking the law. And civilisation has not come crashing down.
Communists seek to empower youth and build a healthy relationship between the generations. This has nothing to do with the media hounding of Helen Goddard, let alone sentencing her to 15 months in jail, putting her on the sex offenders register and banning her from teaching for the rest of her life … for having a loving and consensual sexual relationship with a 15-year-old pupil.
Sections of the left, it seems, share the irrational, anti-sex attitudes and prejudices of the rightwing moral crusaders. The state should keep its nose out of the bedroom. Sex should be an entirely private matter. Helen Goddard committed an error of judgement, not a high crime against humanity.
Vicky Starr
Herts
Youth U-turn
Over recent years the Liberal Democrats have been attempting to present themselves as pro-youth.
Primarily, they have gone about this by getting involved with the so-called ‘youth parliament’, calling for votes at 16 (to give them an electoral edge) and the scrapping of tuition fees. However, at the Liberal Democrat conference this week, Nick Clegg announced that in order to be “realistic” the demand to end tuition fees will be dropped. In consolation, he said he would treat students like “grown-ups”. Cheers. Clegg went on to say that the Liberal Democrats would have the most progressive policies “of any mainstream party” - but this is not exactly difficult, considering the policies of New Labour and the Tories.
This is a stab in the back for student activists who have been campaigning alongside the Liberal Democrats on this issue. However, it should not come as a surprise. The bourgeoisie and youth do not share the same interests; only through Marxism can youth liberation be achieved.
Callum Williamson
email
Written out
John Masters (‘Battle of the ballot box’, September 3) wrote the Militant Tendency out of history!
He claimed that “the last time the left achieved more than 1,000 votes per candidate was in 1966.” Former MPs Dave Nellist and Terry Fields got 10,551 and 5,952 votes respectively, standing as independent socialists in the 1992 general election after being barred from standing again for Labour due to their links to Militant and their role in the anti-poll tax campaign. Tommy Sheridan got 6,287 votes for Scottish Militant Labour in the same election (and there was, incidentally, a rumour that he was criticised by the Militant leadership for mentioning that he was a revolutionary in an interview in his election literature).
The prospects for socialists in the upcoming general election are very good, even without such ‘big names’. New Labour is now promising public spending cuts, like the Tories and Liberal Democrats. And, with £175 billion of predicted borrowing this year, excluding bank bailouts, getting anywhere near balancing the books would require savage cuts and big tax rises, despite Labour and Tory claims that they wouldn’t damage frontline services. The leaked document containing Labour’s plans for 10% cuts shows there’s virtually no difference between them and the Tories.
There has been a £1.3 trillion bailout of the banks in the UK alone, with $15 trillion in Europe and North America. Moody’s credit ratings agency predicts further losses by British banks of at least £130 billion on top of the £110 billion already written off in the credit crunch, so further bailouts may be necessary to maintain the capitalist system. And this will probably turn into a double-dip recession or depression, even if Labour clings onto power and makes cuts more slowly than the Tories would.
With the mainstream parties taking votes off each other, the left will have a great opportunity at the 2010 general election if we adopt a bold socialist programme (and unite in some sort of federation to avoid standing against each other).
So what demands should socialists put forward? Nationalise all the banks, with compensation only for pension schemes, and run them democratically with most control in the hands of borrowers and savers. That way the bailout money already spent can be used for the benefit of all rather than for bankers’ profits and bonuses.
With the hatred of mainstream politicians and bankers, such a transitional demand could be a great vote-winner. Whereas I particularly advocate a democratic revolutionary socialist party putting forward the idea of socialism with proportional representation, as well as participatory democracy and online referenda (if nobody advocates a revolution, we’ll never have one), I want more moderate left parties to do well too, and the above is also advice for them.
Finally, I should clarify that my last two letters (and this one) contained my personal views rather than those of the Democratic Socialist Alliance whose name appeared below mine. The DSA does support PR, however.
Steve Wallis
DSA (personal capacity)
What tactic?
Ben Lewis is wrong to claim that “One of the greatest poisons of the workers’ movement of the 20th century was the so-called theory of socialism in one country” (‘What sort of party and how to get it’, August 27). Those who hold this view show that they are unable to distinguish between strategy and tactics in the struggle for socialism on an international scale. This places them in the camp of ultra-leftism. Why? Because defending socialism in one country was a tactical rather than strategic goal.
There were various factors which conspired to hold back revolutions in other countries, but this tactic, first illuminated by Lenin and followed by Stalin - correctly in my view - is not one of them. The problem is that ultra-leftists want us to follow the same tactics in periods of counterrevolution as those which we follow in periods of revolution. The strategic goal is always international socialism, but this proceeds through tactical stages imposed by uneven development.
With the retreat of world revolution after 1924, and with the further delay of revolutions, particularly in the technically advanced countries for whatever reason, Ben should explain to us what tactic he would have argued for, in preference to the one argued for by the Stalinists.
Tony Clark
London
Doomed
Barry Curtis (Letters, September 17) misunderstands Jim Moody’s meaning in his article ‘Geoengineered for growth’ (Weekly Worker September 10). Of course, communists believe that human ingenuity and engineering expertise are necessary in creating conditions for a balanced, sustainable Earth.
But patches across the sun and ocean bacteria that can eat all our excess carbon dioxide and bury it at the bottom of the ocean are not only more science fiction than science fact: they also reveal a mindset that has no intention of cutting back carbon emissions, but merely mopping them up. For defenders of capitalism, the Earth is a free recourse to be exploited as far as they dare, not something to be cherished and cared for.
Capitalism’s push for ever-increasing surplus value has turned the human species into an insatiable beast. It is a mater of principle for capital that human wants can never be satisfied. Every scientific invention or engineering breakthrough is negated in practice by the never-ending search for profit.
Carbon dioxide emissions are only one problem created by capitalist production. Capitalism is emptying the seas of fish, destroying the fertility of the soil, tearing down the forests, polluting water supplies, and is behind runaway population growth in the third world, not to mention the possible disasters that may be produced by the destruction of biodiversity.
All these problems have market solutions, of course, which only the wealthy can pay for. War, famine and disease can be left to sort out the rest of us and perhaps save the world for a little longer - but the logic of capitalist accumulation means that we can never be sure.
Phil Kent
Haringey
