LL:ART: Wearing a T-shirt Makes You a Terrorist
believe it or not... Wearing a T-shirt Makes You a Terrorist by George Monbiot Published on Thursday, February 22, 2001 in the Guardian of London Britain, Tony Blair announced at Labour's spring conference on Sunday, is on the brink of "the biggest progressive political advance for a century". To prepare for this brave new world, two days before his speech Mr Blair bombed Baghdad. On Monday, the progressive era was officially launched, with the implementation of an inclusive piece of legislation called the Terrorism Act 2000. Terror, in the new progressive age, is no longer the preserve of the aristocracy of violence. Today almost anyone can participate, just as long as she or he wants to change the world. Beating people up, even killing them, is not terrorism, unless it is "designed to influence the government" or conducted "for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". But since Monday you can become a terrorist without having to harm a living being, provided you believe in something. In that case, causing "serious damage to property" or interfering with "an electronic system" will do. Or simply promoting or encouraging such acts, or associating with the people who perform them, or failing to tell the police what they are planning. Or, for that matter, wearing a T-shirt or a badge which might "arouse reasonable suspicion" that you sympathise with their activities. In his speech on Sunday, Tony Blair called for a "revolution" in our schools, and spoke of "noble causes... asking us to hear their cry for help and answer by action". So perhaps we should not be surprised to learn that you can can now become a terrorist by supporting government policy. British subjects writing pamphlets or giving lectures demanding a revolution in Iraq can be prosecuted under the new act for "incitement" of armed struggles overseas. The same clause leaves the government free to bomb Baghdad, however, as "nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the crown." By such means, our new century of progressive politics will be distinguished from those which have gone before. There will be no place, for example, for violent conspiracies like the Commons Preservation Society. The CPS launched its campaign of terror in 1865, by hiring a trainload of labourers to dismantle the railings around Berkhamstead Common, thus seriously damaging the property of the noble lord who had just enclosed it. The CPS later split into two splinter groups called the Open Spaces Society and the National Trust. Under the new legislation, these subversive factions would have been banned. Nor will the state tolerate dangerous malefactors such as the woman who claimed "there is something that governments care far more for than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy" and "the argument of the broken windowpane is the most valuable argument in modern politics". Emmeline Pankhurst and her followers, under the act, could have been jailed for life for damaging property to advance a political or ideological cause. Indeed, had the government's new progressive powers been in force, these cells could have been stamped out before anyone had been poisoned by their politics. The act permits police to cordon off an area in which direct action is likely to take place, and arrest anyone refusing to leave it. Anyone believed to be plotting an action can be stopped and searched, and the protest materials she or he is carrying confiscated. Or, if they prefer, the police can seize people who may be about to commit an offence and hold them incommunicado for up to seven days. Under the new act, the women who caused serious damage to a Hawk jet bound for East Timor could have been intercepted and imprisoned as terrorists long before they interfered with what Mr Blair described on Sunday as his mission to civilise the world. So could the desperados seeking to defend organic farmers by decontaminating fields of genetically modified maize. Campaigners subjecting a corporation to a fax blockade become terrorists by dint of interfering with an electronic system. Indeed, by writing articles in support of such actions, I could be deemed to be "promoting and encouraging" them. Which makes me a terrorist and you, if you were foolish enough to copy my articles and send them to your friends, party to my crime. I don't believe the government will start making use of these new measures right away: after all, as Mr Blair lamented on Sunday, "Jerusalem is not built overnight". But they can now be deployed whenever progress demands. Then, unmolested by dangerous lunatics armed with banners and custard pies, the government will be free to advance world peace by bombing Baghdad to its heart's content. © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 -- Left
LL:ART: remembering my enemies enemy is not always my friend
a bit of salient history: 18 March 1921 - 18 March 2001: The Kronstadt Uprising 80 years ago, the workers' movement and rebellion at Kronstadt, near Petrograd in Russia, was bloodily suppressed by the state-capitalist regime of Lenin and Trotsky. The article below, produced for the old "Workers Solidarity" (South Africa) in 1996, outlines the story. Further online references and links, including an online "Izvestiia," newspaper of the "Provisional Revolutionary Committee of Sailors, Soldiers and Workers of Kronstadt" are listed below. Comments, debate etc. welcomed. Lucien van der Walt Bikisha Media Collective South Africa [EMAIL PROTECTED] KRONSTADT 1921: THE THIRD REVOLUTION March 1996 marks the 75th Anniversary of the Kronstadt Revolt of 1921. In March 1921, the revolutionary sailors and workers of the Kronstadt army base rose in protest against the Communist government in Russia. The tragic event clearly shows how the Communist Party (the Bolsheviks) destroyed the worker- peasant Russian revolution and replaced it with one- party rule and state capitalism. PETROGRAD STRIKES. The revolt followed a visit by a Kronstadt delegation to investigate workers' conditions in Petrograd. At the end of February, the workers of Petrograd struck against forced austerity. The government responded with martial law and mass arrests. Despite these conditions, the Kronstadt delegation was able to find out about the repression and starvation that the workers faced. They heard that workers were demanding new elections to the Soviets (workers councils set up in 1917). RESOLUTION. After hearing and discussing delegations' report, the crew of the battleship Petropavlovsk voted for what was to become the "Petropavlovsk Resolution (see below for the full text of this document). The Resolution was later adopted unanimously by a mass meeting of 16, 000 Kronstadt workers and sailors. The demands were presented to the "Communist" government. The demands of the resolution included: new, free and fair elections to the workers councils; freedom of speech for workers, peasants, anarchists and socialists; free trade union activity; the release of left wing political prisoners and peasants rights to control the land (without employing wage labour). In other words, Kronstatdt was calling for workers control and free socialism. These were the original aims of the Russian revolution of 1917 in which the Kronstadt garrison played a leading role (Leon Trotsky, one of the Bolsheviks leaders, had called the Red Kronstadt "the pride and glory of the revolution."). COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY? Yet the Communist Party and government responded by saying that the Kronstadt was being controlled by counter- revolutionary forces. They said the demands would destroy the gains of the Russian revolution. The Communists tried to pretend that the sailors and workers of Kronstadt were no longer the same revolutionaries of 1017. Somehow, the Kronstadt revolutionaries had been replaced by "coarse peasants". The Communist government, and Trotsky in particular, demanded that the Kronstadt rebels surrender or be "shot like partridges". They militarily isolated the base to prevent links being made with Petrograd workers, and tried to prevent workers from showing solidarity with Kronstadt by supplying emergency rations of food and clothing. SLAUGHTER The Kronstadt rebels could have blasted Petrograd with their cannons, but they waited for help in the form of a mass working class uprising- a "third revolution". But for years peasants and workers with revolutionary views like Kronstad's had been imprisoned and shot. Early March, the Communist government sent about 50,000 troops against Kronstadt. The troops were accompanied by 3,000 Communist cadre, there to make sure that the soldiers did not go over to the Kronstadt revolt. After 8 days of battle, Kronstadt fell and mass arrests and executions followed. SOCIALISM FROM ABOVE It is important that we understand what was at stake at Kronstadt. None of the Communist slanders against the revolt have any factual basis. At least 91% of the Petropavlovsk sailors, and 75% of the Baltic fleet, had been recruited before October 1917 Russian Revolution (1.). There is no evidence that counter- revolutionaries controlled Kronstadt. The real threat of Kronstadt was political. The "Communists" believed that socialism must be imposed from above by the "revolutionary party" using the State. They had no conception of workers control from below. Their ideas led directly to the creation of a one party State and a new class system- State capitalism. The "Communists" failed to realise that the State is an authoritarian structure that concentrates power in the hands of a small elite. It cannot create socialism- only result in a new group of bosses and rulers. Also, their idea of "revolutionary leadership" was authoritarian and destructive to workers democracy. According
LL:URL: Petition to protect the Tasmanian Eucalyptus Regnans
-Original Message- From: Richard Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The tallest flowering plants in the world are in Tasmania (Australia). The trees in the Styx valley are the second tallest trees on the planet - just behind the giant redwoods in California. These trees average 500 years of age. One of these Eucalyptus regnans, which means 'king of the eucalypts' measured 134 metres in height and is registered in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's tallest tree. Please help to save this living breathing forest of giants. These magnificent forests are being logged for woodchips for the Japanese paper mills by the Howard Government and the Tasmanian State ALP Government. The Wilderness Society and the Greens in Tasmania are fighting back with the best weapon they know - public opinion. Each weekend, the Society hosts busloads of visitors to the Valley of the Giants. Pictures of the splendour, as well as the slaughter, of these forests are being sent to scientists, politicians and environment groups around the world. The aim is to have the Howard Government and Labor Opposition drop their support for logging and, united, declare the Valley of the Giants a national park and World Heritage Area. There is a beautiful collection of photos of these trees at: http://www.wilderness.org.au/member/tws/projects/Forests/valgiant.html Please sign the petition to save them from logging, at: http://www.gopetition.com/info.php?currentregion=12&petid=195 Please pass this on, and perhaps the massacre can be stopped. -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:PR: Federal Police Need to apologize
-Original Message- From: mm than [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 11 May 2001 9:37 To: gavin Subject: Federal Police Needs to apologize MEDIA RELEASE May 10, 2001 Attention: Chief of Staff Foreign Affairs Reporter Federal Police attack Burmese protest in Canberra, linked to Burma visit Federal Police last Friday, May 4, attacked a peaceful protest by 80 Burmese people and supporters outside the Burmese Military Embassy in Yarralumla, on the pretext that the burning of the flag of the military dictatorship was a threat to order. At the same time, the AFP Director General, Michael Keelty and a police delegation were in Rangoon (Yangon), where they visited the Criminal Investigation Department and attended the opening of an Australian Police Force Public Relations Office at the Australian Embassy. Keelty's group flew home on May 5. "The AFP became more aggressive to our protest to facilitate their cooperation with the Burmese police and military regime," said Maung Maung Than of the Free Burma Action Committee, who was among those kicked and beaten by the police in Canberra. "We call for a parliamentary inquiry into the attack by the AFP against our protest on May 4, and for a parliamentary review of the AFP program in Burma," said Maung Maung Than. "We appreciate the support of Wayne Barry, Labor Leader in the ACT Legislative Assembly, and Jeremy Pyner of the ACT Trades & Labor Council for an inquiry, and a formal police apology to the Burmese community. "The Australian government is making the same mistake in Burma that it made in Indonesia and East Timor, by placing trust in a brutal military dictatorship," said Maung Maung Than. "Instead of cooperating with and legitimising these generals who have imposed forced labour on two million Burmese people, the Australian government should join the global movement to fully isolate and discredit the military dictatorship in Burma." For further comment: Ko Maung Maung Than - Central Coordinator, Free Burma Action Committee Phone / Fax: +61-2-96435646; mobile 0411337816 Email. [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.actionfreeburma.com ++ -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:DDQ: Reith seminar 17 November
for those in qld: Peter Reith is giving a seminar on "new directions : industrial actions and the second wave; reith on strikes, pickets and union liabilities" the seminar is on wed the 17th of november at customs house in queen st brisbane. it starts at 3pm. it costs $175 to attend. perhaps peter should be given a taste of his own bombastic bullying? gav LL.QK -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:ART: Unitax
this article is a little heavy in places but is well worth a read. Unitax Farel Bradbury Farel Bradbury has been promoting Unitax for many years, and this version of an energy tax seems to have several advantages over other more recently proposed Green taxes and Carbon taxes. 'The Unitax alternative to VAT is absurdly simple: you just measure the net input of energy in units such as gigajoules into any geographical area and divide it into the public sector budget for that same area. This yields a Unitax of so many pounds sterling per gigajoule' The Unitax alternative to VAT or other taxes, national or local, is absurdly simple: you just measure the net input of energy in units such as gigajoules (eg 15,000,000 GJ per year) into any geographical area and divide it into the public sector budget for that same area (eg L40m per year). This yields a Unitax of so many pounds sterling per gigajoule (eg L2-67 per GJ, that is about 39 pence on a gallon of petrol, for an average UK rating district; and all domestic and commercial rates are abolished). Unlike sales, income or local council taxes, the Unitax is administered at the very few initial energy-supply points (and at points of import or export). Energy is already measured at the points of import and export, so there is little new bureaucracy and we are dealing with a bulk commodity which it is difficult to hide - so evasion is difficult while economies are to be welcomed. The Unitax works its own way through the systems of distribution and consumption without further paperwork, yet the amount paid is inescapably linked with the standard of living. That is the gist of it. Two further points arise. First, this is not just an 'energy policy'. It is true that we will 'save it', cut waste (and pollution), recycle, find alternatives, revolutionise transport, and the heat-pump will become economically viable. Because Unitax is raised at source - where the prime energy first has a price placed on it - it becomes a constituent of all other material resources: plastics, steel, fertilisers, paper, electric light - hence the term 'Resource Economics'. Nor is it a system of rationing for scarce commodities, although it may do that - I think it will moderate some of our more intensive and artificial uses of materials and the way we use capital intensive methods to oust labour. But energy must continue to flow where there is life; likewise we must raise taxes. Even if energy were abundant and free, therefore, Unitax provides an essential social valuation of resources linked at all times to the quality of life. Secondly, this is not just a welfare policy. It is true that the proposal includes a provision of a non-selective Basic Income for all citizens - at least in the developed stages of Resource Economics. This is because a certain amount of energy consumption is required to support life. Consumption above this 'threshold' will then vary with the quality of life: the higher the lifestyle, the more Unitax that is paid in that consumption. This threshold is the point at which the 'regressive' nature of so-called energy taxes becomes 'progressive' and the Basic Income is calculated as its energy equivalent (about L55 per week for all adults if all other taxes - including the funding of the Basic Income itself - were today replaced by a Unitax of about L15 per GJ). The Basic Income does away with much painful bureaucracy: replacing pensions, the dole, child allowances, student grants, etc. Such a distributive mechanism also holds out the solution to many modern problems - not least 'unemployment' - gives 'wages to housewives', minimum income, and paves the way to 'no-fault' compensation for loss and, important in this technological age, a copyright income. The 'poverty trap' disappears because you keep all you earn without forfeit and, of course, there are neither 'Black Economy' nor Social Security fiddles. Readers may also see the solution to the EC CAP problem: a Basic Income to farmers would allow free-market food price and distribution without intervention. 'It is quite wrong that revenue is raised on price or earnings or wealth; it should be derived from consumption which is prolific, not from the enterprise of labour and investment which is limiting' The Resource Economics Proposition has been designed as a comprehensive economics system. Indeed, it has yielded the proof of where classic economics have become screwed up and shows how national budgets may be balanced and world imbalances corrected. This age is characterised by 'consumerism' and needs this new set of rules. In context, it is quite wrong that revenue is raised on price or earnings or wealth; it should be derived from consumption which is prolific, not from the enterprise of labour and investment which is limiting. The one common constituent in all consumption is energy. It is not labour-added value that should be taxed (as by VAT), but energy-added value (by Unitax) if you want a happy economy.
