Letters

To do what?

Your article, ‘Breaking from Labour’ (Weekly Worker September 17), largely a polemic against the leaflet and article printed on its reverse, ‘Should socialists stand against Labour?’, picked out bits that suited your predetermined argument, and entirely ignored all references to our general programme - and to activity, organising people on a wide and ongoing basis, trade unions, hospitals, people, that sort of thing ...

Then Alan Fox’s piece on the relaunch of Greenwich SA (‘What kind of unity?’ Weekly Worker October 1) reported only half of what I said in that meeting, again ignoring exactly the same areas. I have little problem remembering what I actually said, having used the front of the SA leaflet (which I’d written) as speaking notes.

Alan accused myself and another AWL comrade, for example, of only favouring “local” campaigning and of being “localists”. This is absurd. As Alan pointed out, we advocated (seconded by the Socialist Party - something, strangely, not reported) the SA joining the Welfare State Network, a national campaign attempting to link up labour movement bodies and local initiatives into a mass movement for the defence and extension of the welfare state (a democratic campaign, furthermore, not, as stated in the article, a front for the AWL). Unless the CPGB comrades present consider Greenwich a nation and were thus confused, I fail to see how this makes us localists.

What upsets you so, Comrade Fox? That we favour any local campaigning at all? Yes, we admit it: as well as debating the class nature of the Soviet Union and Ireland, we are in favour of campaigning to save local services. We are even prepared to get up early on the odd Saturday to give out leaflets about such issues with people who supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and aren’t even in the Labour Party! Oh, the shame!

But we are not just “localists”. We exhibit “localist economism”. What of our raising of the workers’ government slogan as a key way of putting a political strategy at the centre of our work? It seems unlikely we were advocating simply a working class takeover of Greenwich Borough Council and, if I am not much mistaken, this being a slogan about the government of society, that’s economism ruled out.

Socialist Alliances are a good idea and we encourage people to get involved in them, but they as yet amount to little, don’t make the key political issues of the day disappear and are only ultimately useful insofar as they are part of an ongoing strategy for the labour movement and whole working class - much the same criteria as apply to standing against Labour.

And what of the CPGB’s perspective? In response to the idea that the SAs should not be “small organisations ... obsessed with polling small votes against Labour and little else”, Don Preston replied:

“In reality, the SAs should be ‘obsessed’ with challenging New Labour at the ballot box. This has to become the main strategic thrust of the left. The process of working together against New Labour can help overcome the very deep divisions which exist on the left.”

But working together for what? To organise people on what basis, to do what? Stand in more elections? We all hate Blair! But what is your policy for the movement? How and when and where do we fight New Labour on all fronts - the political, ideological and economic? If you have no answers to these questions, you might at least fairly represent ours.

Alan McArthur
Alliance for Workers’ Liberty

Pig in a poke

John Walsh states in his letter (October 1) that my views on the age-of-consent debate are facile and the result of deep-rooted prejudice. One would have more confidence in his judgement if he could display at least some comprehension of what I actually wrote (see my letters Weekly Worker September 3 and 24). His laughable summary of my position is that I am “worried” about incest and bestiality and believe that if you allow sexual activity below the age of 16 these two practices will follow. Eh?

Some advice, comrade: if you intend to engage in a debate with an opposing view or even pass comment on that view, attempt to understand what is being said. If the purpose of debate is the mutual pursuit of the truth, it is fruitless to simply ascribe an outlandish and ridiculous position to an opponent and then denounce it. That is demagogic, not democratic.

The essence of my position is that while I support the lowering of the age of consent (to 14 for instance) I do not support the abolition of the age of consent, as I believe it is a useful and necessary protection against the sexual abuse of children.

The CPGB position, as explained by Mary Godwin in the article, ‘End state abuse’ (Weekly Worker September 24), and included in the CPGB draft programme, is for the abolition of age-of-consent law and “its replacement with alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse”. No specifics as regards this legislation are given, but Mary states that its aim is, among other things, to protect children from non-consensual sexual interference (Mary, the good news is that at present we all have legal protection from non-consensual sex).

But, comrade, that is avoiding the crux of the debate. The rationale for an age-of-consent law is that children cannot give real informed consent to sex with adults due to their immaturity. If you think they can, then the law is unnecessary and repressive. If you believe they cannot, then the law is sensible and the debate is at what age society recognises the ability of young people to give consent to sexual relations. If the age is too high, it restricts the right of youth to have a sexual life; if it is too low, young people can be damaged through sexual exploitation by adults.

It is not sufficient to state, as Mary does, that there is no correct age, as every individual is different. This is true of all laws restricting activity by age - eg, driving a car, taking on debt, voting, etc. If we don’t have some objective criteria to determine when individuals are able to exercise certain rights and simply leave it up to the ‘good sense’ of the judges to decide in the given circumstances, then we really would be in danger of increased state abuse.

Until such time as the CPGB specifies its proposed “alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse”, I think Marxists should oppose its demand to abolish age-of-consent law. Why buy a pig in a poke?

Sandy Johnstone
Glasgow

IRSP Five

Five Irish Republican Socialist Party members were arrested a month ago in a wave of RUC publicity alleging that a Markets man who had been an RUC agent had been abducted.

These charges only came about when the RUC agent, John Bowen, revealed at an IRSP press conference that he had been encouraged by the RUC to instigate an operation that would have breached the Inla ceasefire which was called on August 22 1998.

The RUC have operated in a covert fashion to break the Inla ceasefire - this was admitted by one of their own agents. Having been found out, they then attempted to weave a convoluted conspiracy plot that would have explained their actions and would also have left five IRSP members imprisoned.

The RUC are totally unacceptable to the nationalist working class community and should be dissolved immediately. There is no place for a paramilitary police group hellbent on justifying its own existence. Democracy demands that a police force should confine itself to policing and not be involved in the political suppression of a valid opposition party.

IRSP
Belfast

New attack

The central bureau of the weekly Kurtulus (Liberation) newspaper was raided by the “anti-terror” branch of Istanbul police and, as far as we know, 24 workers have been arrested, among them Nurgül Azitas, who is the foreign correspondent of Kurtulus in Germany. During the arrests several of them were injured. Also the equipment in the bureau was destroyed.

The police have entered the building by opening a hole in the roof! This shows that the attack was pre-planned and the aim is to silence the voice of socialist opposition.

Kurtulus is a legally registered newspaper and has been subject to many similar attacks by the police. The most recent one occurred in February this year. The entire staff was arrested, tortured. Seven of them spent several months in prison and were then released without charge.

Another attack was in the summer of 1997, but with the support of progressive organisations, the Kurtulus workers resisted police brutality and did not allow them to enter the building.

We are aiming to achieve the same victory. As democratic and progressive organisations and individuals we can prevent torture by showing our deep concerns about this matter.

Committee Against Disappearances and Torture
London