Letters

Only a man

Poor old Eddie Ford really gets it in the neck from Liz Hoskings - as far as I can see, just for being a man (Letters, May 27).

            Feminists have a tendency to blame men’s insensitivity for all that is wrong in the world. True, men do not get pregnant, but does that really mean that men cannot understand women? And, conversely, because women do have babies, that they cannot understand men? Are we doomed forever to alienated relationships? Or can we by struggling together in the present for real equality between men and women begin to create a world of freedom for all?

            When Liz uses the phrase “real choice”, I think she means freedom. The choices that Eddie was talking about are real choices made under real pressures in a world that is far from free.

            But those freedoms that do exist have been won through struggle by the working class, fighting together against oppressions that are faced not only by workers, but all humanity. In the case of abortion it is of course women who are oppressed, but, since Liz mentions it in her letter, “their partners” are also affected.

            I agree with Liz that women should have the right of control over their own bodies. While she is only talking of abortion, I would also include self-mutilation, drug addiction and suicide on the list, without the weight of the state’s legal system falling on their heads. I accept also that individuals that are close to you have legitimate concerns and have the right to act on them (within limits, which I will not raise here).

            Abortion law is centrally a question of state power being used to control women in a way that makes them unequal to men. This may have its roots in the past and reflect prejudices based on religion, but it also reflects the needs of the central social relationship of capitalism: namely, the capitalist workplace - a place that will not exist when we have “real choice”.

            But it certainly exists now. Childcare ties women to the home. Childcare for capitalism therefore comes as cheaply as they can get it. It is, as a result, not properly socialised.

            I know I am guilty of looking only at a narrow range of material questions and not the physical and psychological pain caused by forcing women to play a subordinate role in society.

            But I hope Liz will forgive me: after all I’m only a man.

Only a man
Only a man

Male justice

I seek to draw the left’s attention to the tabloids’ appalling sexism towards Maxine Carr. It is the same sexism that led to Ian Huntley murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.

            Before, during and since Maxine’s trial the tabloids have run the filthiest lies about Maxine (eg, calling her “Myra Hindley mark II”), clearly a conspiracy against justice (what Maxine was convicted on), but it seems the government is too cowardly to prosecute the press for contempt. They lied not for love or folly, but just to cash in on child murder.

            And now Maxine’s mother is being prosecuted for obstructing justice - clear victimisation. So she could not prove to male courts that Huntley intimidated her into lying for him (he denied this), which would have fully acquitted her.

            And, had the government prosecuted Huntley for sexual assaults (re the Bichard report) instead of prosecuting Maxine for lying on CVs (who hasn’t done that?), the Soham tragedy would never have happened.

            Contrast too the tabloids’ vilification of Maxine with their support for Louise Woodward, convicted of child manslaughter (originally murder), unlike Maxine! But Louise’s parents were much ‘nicer’ than Maxine’s.

            Maxine’s treatment highlights sexism and classism. A trial judge made sexist remarks to her. What is the left doing about this?

Male justice
Male justice

AWL and MAB

In his ‘Seeing red’ column, Ben Lewis criticised what he called “the rather odd politics of the AWL, which refused to march with the MAB, or engage with anything which involved them. ‘March separately, strike together’ was the slogan of the time - working with the MAB is fine, as long as it involves no abrogation of principle or watering down of programme” (‘Rediscover CPGB politics!’, May 27).

            I think this fundamentally misses the point. What the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty opposed was not taking part in the same demonstration as Muslim Association of Britain members, but the Stop the War Coalition’s decision to co-sponsor its actions with the MAB. This is not nitpicking, but a crucial political distinction, as an analogy will make clear.

            I don’t object to demonstrating next to supporters of the Tories, Liberal Democrats or any other bourgeois organisation (in fact I want to take the opportunity to win them over), but I do object to bourgeois politicians like Charles Kennedy being put on the platform of demonstrations. As I recall, the CPGB was inconsistent on this: it opposed the invitation to the Lib Dems, but supported the much bigger role played by the far more reactionary MAB.

            To co-organise with forces such as the MAB necessarily means abrogating our principles. Firstly, because doing so is a betrayal of secular, democratic and socialist forces in the muslim world and muslim communities in Britain. And secondly, because if the politics of the Stop the War Coalition had been more leftwing, the MAB would never have become involved; watering down the politics was a necessary precondition for involving such forces.

            Contra Lewis, the AWL did engage with the anti-war movement, despite the unholy alliance with the MAB, while reserving our right to criticise. The CPGB, by contrast, subordinated its principles to the realpolitik of the Stop the War Coalition. CPGB comrades who are interested in continuing this debate should come to the AWL’s summer school in London on July 3 and 4.

AWL and MAB
AWL and MAB

PJP and Respect

Nick Rogers’ article is factually wrong about Respect’s deal with the People’s Justice Party in Birmingham (‘Vote Respect but fight for socialist politics’, June 3).

            Rogers’ piece reads as though the PJP took the initiative in calling for a Respect vote in the Euro elections, and then when the poor innocents of Respect saw that the PJP’s literature was virulently anti-gay/lesbian, they recoiled in horror and withdrew from the deal.

            Well, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything. Respect’s deal with the Kashmiri communalists of the PJP was not rescinded and the call for a PJP vote in the local elections appears on the main Respect election leaflet in the West Midlands. I believe it’s also on the Respect website. There is no evidence that the PJP have changed their views on gay rights or that Respect has even attempted to discuss the issue within the PJP. It’s just that an embarrassing leaflet was spotted by a white lefty outside of the tightly-knit milieu it was intended for. The leaflet was withdrawn, but not the PJP/Respect electoral pact.

PJP and Respect
PJP and Respect

Aslef

Don’t make me laugh, ‘comrade’ Hooper. Martin Samways left to die in the back garden of Aslef HQ? (‘Aslef barbecued’, June 3).

            The man is indestructible. If alcohol has not killed him yet, it is not a drunkards’ punch-up that will do the job.

Aslef
Aslef