Spoils of War
Dear Editor,
I thought your readers may be interested in the following letter, which I sent to Gordon Brown and Bob Blizzard together with a copy of the article 'Putting the opium to good use' from Green World 66
Dear Gordon Brown and Bob Blizzard,
I feel compelled to write to you about the killing that is going on in Afghanistan.
I was a tail gunner on Halifax Bombers during the 1939-45 War at Holme on Spalding Moor, Yorkshire, and did 32 operational duties over Germany. I had a good view from my tail turret, seeing a number of our aircraft destroyed, even by our own bombs dropping too early from above us.
After the war I went through Germany and was appalled by the damage and the human life that had been taken against Germany. At Karlsruhe there was only part of the railway station standing, all around the buildings were flattened, no human life about, only people on the station it was very eerie and somewhat frightening. Worst of all was the information about how many Germans had treated people whom they considered inferior to them, as we learned of Belsen and such concentration camps and more of the bombing of Great Britain.
There were over 55,000 Bomber Command aircrew killed, and numerous airmen injured, during the war; all volunteers. Sadly there was no Aircrew Europe Medal for Bomber aircrew who served after D-Day. Only the award of guilt for bombing Germany, from those in power. Many aircrews have gone to their graves feeling this award of guilt and many are getting very old and still feel this sense of guilt. Perhaps we ex-bomber aircrew should have an official apology for our cowardly treatment.
When one came back from a raid and discovered that some mates had been shot down, one just took it for granted and did not feel emotionally shocked. It seemed a fact of life and death then, but now seems chilling.
This is a factor that concerns me with the number of service people killed in Afghanistan that it becomes a pre-ordained happening. I am enclosing an article from the Green Party magazine, Autumn 2009. It seems to be the only way out of this terrible war, whereby everyone can win, if they want peace.
Yours, very sincerely,
Doug Begbie, Lowestoft
Doug Begbie, Lowestoft
Dear Editor,
I thought your readers may be interested in the following letter, which I sent to Gordon Brown and Bob Blizzard together with a copy of the article 'Putting the opium to good use' from Green World 66
Dear Gordon Brown and Bob Blizzard,
I feel compelled to write to you about the killing that is going on in Afghanistan.
I was a tail gunner on Halifax Bombers during the 1939-45 War at Holme on Spalding Moor, Yorkshire, and did 32 operational duties over Germany. I had a good view from my tail turret, seeing a number of our aircraft destroyed, even by our own bombs dropping too early from above us.
After the war I went through Germany and was appalled by the damage and the human life that had been taken against Germany. At Karlsruhe there was only part of the railway station standing, all around the buildings were flattened, no human life about, only people on the station it was very eerie and somewhat frightening. Worst of all was the information about how many Germans had treated people whom they considered inferior to them, as we learned of Belsen and such concentration camps and more of the bombing of Great Britain.
There were over 55,000 Bomber Command aircrew killed, and numerous airmen injured, during the war; all volunteers. Sadly there was no Aircrew Europe Medal for Bomber aircrew who served after D-Day. Only the award of guilt for bombing Germany, from those in power. Many aircrews have gone to their graves feeling this award of guilt and many are getting very old and still feel this sense of guilt. Perhaps we ex-bomber aircrew should have an official apology for our cowardly treatment.
When one came back from a raid and discovered that some mates had been shot down, one just took it for granted and did not feel emotionally shocked. It seemed a fact of life and death then, but now seems chilling.
This is a factor that concerns me with the number of service people killed in Afghanistan that it becomes a pre-ordained happening. I am enclosing an article from the Green Party magazine, Autumn 2009. It seems to be the only way out of this terrible war, whereby everyone can win, if they want peace.
Yours, very sincerely,
Doug Begbie, Lowestoft
Doug Begbie, Lowestoft
Humane Focus
Dear Editor
I'm sorry to take friendly issue with Jenny Jones in her discussion of Green crime policy. Her emphasis on what to do with people processed by the courts is misplaced. Of every hundred crimes committed in England and Wales, around two result in court sanctions. If we want to deal with the hundred crimes rather than the two, thereby reducing the carbon cost of crime and responses to it, the emphasis must be on designing and organising products and services which do not invite crime. For example, homes built to Secured By Design (SBD) standards suffer between 30% and 50% less crime than homes lacking the standard, and research shows that the difference persists for at least ten years. Visually, SBD homes are no more fortress-like than others. The techniques of designing out crime are subtle. On Jenny Jones' London patch, Central St Martins College of Art and Design is doing brilliant work on crime reductive design which we, as Greens, should support.
I started professional life as a forensic psychologist. One day, after interviewing inmates at Wetherby Borstal, as it then was, I heard on the news that the Ford Motor Company had made record profits the previous year. One way in which this had been achieved, I realised, was skimping on security, so that getting into and starting a Ford Cortina was easy. Many of the inmates I had been interviewing had been convicted of, guess what, stealing Ford Cortinas. Improving their security struck me as a more humane way of preventing crime than sentencing those succumbing to easy opportunities.
Ken Pease, Retd Professor of Criminology, Stockport
Dear Editor
I'm sorry to take friendly issue with Jenny Jones in her discussion of Green crime policy. Her emphasis on what to do with people processed by the courts is misplaced. Of every hundred crimes committed in England and Wales, around two result in court sanctions. If we want to deal with the hundred crimes rather than the two, thereby reducing the carbon cost of crime and responses to it, the emphasis must be on designing and organising products and services which do not invite crime. For example, homes built to Secured By Design (SBD) standards suffer between 30% and 50% less crime than homes lacking the standard, and research shows that the difference persists for at least ten years. Visually, SBD homes are no more fortress-like than others. The techniques of designing out crime are subtle. On Jenny Jones' London patch, Central St Martins College of Art and Design is doing brilliant work on crime reductive design which we, as Greens, should support.
I started professional life as a forensic psychologist. One day, after interviewing inmates at Wetherby Borstal, as it then was, I heard on the news that the Ford Motor Company had made record profits the previous year. One way in which this had been achieved, I realised, was skimping on security, so that getting into and starting a Ford Cortina was easy. Many of the inmates I had been interviewing had been convicted of, guess what, stealing Ford Cortinas. Improving their security struck me as a more humane way of preventing crime than sentencing those succumbing to easy opportunities.
Ken Pease, Retd Professor of Criminology, Stockport
Lost Contact
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the news feature ' The Rights of the Father'
Surely though the real scandal of childhood in the UK is what happens after divorce/separation with many children losing contact with their fathers.
There have been a number of proposals to reform the UK law on the model used in many US states, where parents are expected to reach agreement on post-separation arrangements for children and contested court hearings are rare. However as far as I can see these proposals have been sidelined by Government.
In my own case I am about to go back to court - at my own expense to try and sort out arrangements over my oldest son, while my ex-wife has the benefit of the free services of the CSA to chase me for maintenance (By the way, always paid on time at the right amount) My partner and I also have to run a second car so that I can collect him for his weekends with me after she moved 60 miles away, however the CSA assessment does not take this into account and the courts will not require her to bring him to me.
While it hasn't come to enforcement of the contact arrangements - yet, it seems that the most effective form of redress if her threatened breach of our contact order happens will not be via the courts but through her professional body - the General Teaching Council.
It's really pretty obvious where Government priorities have been for a long time, cash, not children's welfare.
John Boxall, Frome
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the news feature ' The Rights of the Father'
Surely though the real scandal of childhood in the UK is what happens after divorce/separation with many children losing contact with their fathers.
There have been a number of proposals to reform the UK law on the model used in many US states, where parents are expected to reach agreement on post-separation arrangements for children and contested court hearings are rare. However as far as I can see these proposals have been sidelined by Government.
In my own case I am about to go back to court - at my own expense to try and sort out arrangements over my oldest son, while my ex-wife has the benefit of the free services of the CSA to chase me for maintenance (By the way, always paid on time at the right amount) My partner and I also have to run a second car so that I can collect him for his weekends with me after she moved 60 miles away, however the CSA assessment does not take this into account and the courts will not require her to bring him to me.
While it hasn't come to enforcement of the contact arrangements - yet, it seems that the most effective form of redress if her threatened breach of our contact order happens will not be via the courts but through her professional body - the General Teaching Council.
It's really pretty obvious where Government priorities have been for a long time, cash, not children's welfare.
John Boxall, Frome
Diversity Action
Dear editor,
I read the article on Diversity in the recent edition of Green World with interest. In the co-operative movement we have faced similar problems - that our ideas and organisation do not seem to attract the attention of all communities in our society.
So we are excited and energised by the recent establishment of Co-operative Diversity Action, which aims to provide strategies, resources and guidance to encourage more people from Black and Minority Ethnic communities to get involved in community enterprise.
http://www.diversityaction.coop/diversityaction
It may be that some of these strategies would be equally applicable in Green politics, or at the very least there may be the potential for sharing ideas.
I hope this information is useful.
Kate Whittle, Bristol
Dear editor,
I read the article on Diversity in the recent edition of Green World with interest. In the co-operative movement we have faced similar problems - that our ideas and organisation do not seem to attract the attention of all communities in our society.
So we are excited and energised by the recent establishment of Co-operative Diversity Action, which aims to provide strategies, resources and guidance to encourage more people from Black and Minority Ethnic communities to get involved in community enterprise.
http://www.diversityaction.coop/diversityaction
It may be that some of these strategies would be equally applicable in Green politics, or at the very least there may be the potential for sharing ideas.
I hope this information is useful.
Kate Whittle, Bristol
Some solutions
Dear Editor,
Why aren't the working classes and ethnic minorities voting Green?
Samir Chatterjee's article about breaking down barriers was brilliant. I think though we could go a lot further.
The working classes need a simpler message. Here are some of my ideas:-
RADICALISE & SIMPLIFY THE MESSAGE
If I was running the Green campaign I'd simplify it and radicalise the message: ONE LEADER; ONE NATION; ONE FUTURE: GREEN & CLEAN.
The working classes like strong single-minded leaders. They like a positive message that hits their emotions. This might need to contain an element of national pride and something to look forward to that is better than here and now.
All other parties must be portrayed as CRIMINALS; THIEVES; & CORRUPT. The slogans should be punchy and contain a little dark humour. THEY PAID FOR THEIR MOAT USING YOUR MONEY etc.
All policies to be designed to provide: CLEAN CHEAP ENERGY; CLEAN WATER, AIR AND FOOD; and NEW JOBS FOR THE FUTURE
The working class don't care about climate change. Mentioning it is in many ways a way to lose votes because they see it as another way to get taxed.
The threats to their future happiness should be told simply:
OUR SOCIETY NEEDS TO ADAPT, OVERCOME & SURVIVE: THE GREENS WILL CREATE A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM BASED ON CREATING NEW TYPES OF JOBS
GAS, OIL & COAL ARE RUNNING OUT. DON'T LET THE WAR-MONGERS OBTAIN MORE ENERGY BY WAR: VOTE GREEN
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A REAL THREAT FOR YOUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE: VOTE GREEN TO SAVE THEIR WORLD. ACT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
DEVELOP A GREEN YOUTH MOVEMENT
Then on top of this it is important to recruit and pay for a Green Youth movement. These could be volunteers who are given the training to observe houses and test to see what kind of micro-renewable energy and insulation they can have to lower their fuel bills. This would be done by looking at the house's orientation and garden size etc. These youths could then write to all the houses they surveyed to provide this kind of advice carrying the Green party logo on it.
One could pay for these Green Youth's by obtaining funds from local micro-renewable and insulation installers and managing agents. Many would only be too happy to chip in!
John M Clarkson
Dear Editor,
Why aren't the working classes and ethnic minorities voting Green?
Samir Chatterjee's article about breaking down barriers was brilliant. I think though we could go a lot further.
The working classes need a simpler message. Here are some of my ideas:-
RADICALISE & SIMPLIFY THE MESSAGE
If I was running the Green campaign I'd simplify it and radicalise the message: ONE LEADER; ONE NATION; ONE FUTURE: GREEN & CLEAN.
The working classes like strong single-minded leaders. They like a positive message that hits their emotions. This might need to contain an element of national pride and something to look forward to that is better than here and now.
All other parties must be portrayed as CRIMINALS; THIEVES; & CORRUPT. The slogans should be punchy and contain a little dark humour. THEY PAID FOR THEIR MOAT USING YOUR MONEY etc.
All policies to be designed to provide: CLEAN CHEAP ENERGY; CLEAN WATER, AIR AND FOOD; and NEW JOBS FOR THE FUTURE
The working class don't care about climate change. Mentioning it is in many ways a way to lose votes because they see it as another way to get taxed.
The threats to their future happiness should be told simply:
OUR SOCIETY NEEDS TO ADAPT, OVERCOME & SURVIVE: THE GREENS WILL CREATE A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM BASED ON CREATING NEW TYPES OF JOBS
GAS, OIL & COAL ARE RUNNING OUT. DON'T LET THE WAR-MONGERS OBTAIN MORE ENERGY BY WAR: VOTE GREEN
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A REAL THREAT FOR YOUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE: VOTE GREEN TO SAVE THEIR WORLD. ACT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
DEVELOP A GREEN YOUTH MOVEMENT
Then on top of this it is important to recruit and pay for a Green Youth movement. These could be volunteers who are given the training to observe houses and test to see what kind of micro-renewable energy and insulation they can have to lower their fuel bills. This would be done by looking at the house's orientation and garden size etc. These youths could then write to all the houses they surveyed to provide this kind of advice carrying the Green party logo on it.
One could pay for these Green Youth's by obtaining funds from local micro-renewable and insulation installers and managing agents. Many would only be too happy to chip in!
John M Clarkson
Really pro-poor?
Dear Editor,
In Samir Chatterjee's otherwise perceptive article, he declares that "all the Green Party policies are pro-poor".
Really? Take two examples:
Will insisting on organic farming, even if it were feasible to feed every mouth entirely organically through the supply chain, do anything but massively increase prices?
Will insisting on 100% renewable energy do anything other than make energy beyond the pockets of most people on current projections?
Of course organic food and renewable energy are vital. But leaving their production in the hands of private capital they will result in massive price increases - definitely not "pro-poor".
Daniel Carins, Sandwell Green Party
Dear Editor,
In Samir Chatterjee's otherwise perceptive article, he declares that "all the Green Party policies are pro-poor".
Really? Take two examples:
Will insisting on organic farming, even if it were feasible to feed every mouth entirely organically through the supply chain, do anything but massively increase prices?
Will insisting on 100% renewable energy do anything other than make energy beyond the pockets of most people on current projections?
Of course organic food and renewable energy are vital. But leaving their production in the hands of private capital they will result in massive price increases - definitely not "pro-poor".
Daniel Carins, Sandwell Green Party
Making priorities
Dear Editor,
Samir Chaterjee's recent article was a timely foray into the reasons for the victory of Nick Griffin.
Samir writes that: 'Greens are united in the belief that human society should be a product of equality and justice.' The leadership of the party may be united by this premise, but many of its activists are perhaps more passionately driven about the environment.
The assumption that Planet comes first and Society second is the opposite of the view of the majority of people, whose daily struggles are around employment, housing, financial dependence, stress, family breakdown and fear of crime. These issues are as much the waste products of global capitalism as effluents and radiation. Yet the public perception is that Greens care more about sunflowers than people. Everyone knows the Greens care about the environment but it's the fairness agenda where we stand to make the most progress.
This has led many to fear that the Greens will struggle to fill the political vacuum, and other small parties will be seen to advocate for groups that feel disenfranchised (especially the BNP).
I would argue that the BNP have a perverted version of the same problem - Race first, Society second. This means that they will hijack legitimate concerns by blaming them on political correctness and open-door immigration. I believe that this racist spin-doctoring rings false to the majority of people, but can appeal to a layer of about 200 voters in any urban ward.
In Carlisle the population is 96% White British and the average income is under £20,000 - on the face of it an ideal BNP scenario. Yet in 2009 we outpolled the BNP in most seats where we stood against them. We did not do this by an aggressive anti-BNP campaign, but worked hard in the streets of our target ward and argued on the practical issues that make people feel that they are not being treated fairly. We heard people complaining about how unfair it was that young people could not get a home, and some blamed migrants, but we pointed the finger at the lack of housing for anyone on low incomes. This kind of argument validated people's sense there this is something unfair about the world, and allowed us to build common ground and open people up to Green policies.
I think this shows that we should not build up a myth of the industrial north as being natural BNP territory. Yet to do that we have to connect with people's real concerns, and that means starting with the splits in our own value base.
We should not fall into the trap of reducing Black and Minority Ethnic people to victims or exotic plants that require special cultivation. We must also avoid the parallel trap of giving up on White British people in ex-industrial areas. We need instead to adapt our Target to Win mindset to meet different demographic groups.
If we learn to value equality 'equally' with the planet, then we will develop the credibility to sound convincing when campaigning in areas like Carlisle. The key to this is being able to link a greener, more sustainable future to job creation, affordable housing and the policies we include under the banner of 'Fair is Worth Fighting For'.
We need to show that only the Green Party has policies for making life fairer and more affordable, as well as greener, for those on low incomes - that Planet and Society are one.
John Reardon, Carlisle Parliamentary Candidate, johnbreardon.blogspot.com
Dear Editor,
Samir Chaterjee's recent article was a timely foray into the reasons for the victory of Nick Griffin.
Samir writes that: 'Greens are united in the belief that human society should be a product of equality and justice.' The leadership of the party may be united by this premise, but many of its activists are perhaps more passionately driven about the environment.
The assumption that Planet comes first and Society second is the opposite of the view of the majority of people, whose daily struggles are around employment, housing, financial dependence, stress, family breakdown and fear of crime. These issues are as much the waste products of global capitalism as effluents and radiation. Yet the public perception is that Greens care more about sunflowers than people. Everyone knows the Greens care about the environment but it's the fairness agenda where we stand to make the most progress.
This has led many to fear that the Greens will struggle to fill the political vacuum, and other small parties will be seen to advocate for groups that feel disenfranchised (especially the BNP).
I would argue that the BNP have a perverted version of the same problem - Race first, Society second. This means that they will hijack legitimate concerns by blaming them on political correctness and open-door immigration. I believe that this racist spin-doctoring rings false to the majority of people, but can appeal to a layer of about 200 voters in any urban ward.
In Carlisle the population is 96% White British and the average income is under £20,000 - on the face of it an ideal BNP scenario. Yet in 2009 we outpolled the BNP in most seats where we stood against them. We did not do this by an aggressive anti-BNP campaign, but worked hard in the streets of our target ward and argued on the practical issues that make people feel that they are not being treated fairly. We heard people complaining about how unfair it was that young people could not get a home, and some blamed migrants, but we pointed the finger at the lack of housing for anyone on low incomes. This kind of argument validated people's sense there this is something unfair about the world, and allowed us to build common ground and open people up to Green policies.
I think this shows that we should not build up a myth of the industrial north as being natural BNP territory. Yet to do that we have to connect with people's real concerns, and that means starting with the splits in our own value base.
We should not fall into the trap of reducing Black and Minority Ethnic people to victims or exotic plants that require special cultivation. We must also avoid the parallel trap of giving up on White British people in ex-industrial areas. We need instead to adapt our Target to Win mindset to meet different demographic groups.
If we learn to value equality 'equally' with the planet, then we will develop the credibility to sound convincing when campaigning in areas like Carlisle. The key to this is being able to link a greener, more sustainable future to job creation, affordable housing and the policies we include under the banner of 'Fair is Worth Fighting For'.
We need to show that only the Green Party has policies for making life fairer and more affordable, as well as greener, for those on low incomes - that Planet and Society are one.
John Reardon, Carlisle Parliamentary Candidate, johnbreardon.blogspot.com
The source of debate
Dear Editor,
I was pleased to see that the majority of respondents reject nuclear energy generation for the simple reason of it being environment-unfriendly. I am less pleased that the debate should even be taking place and feel it is largely as a result of our inveiglement into infatuation with 'carbon' instead of concentration on the fundamental problem which is energy usage; profligate in rich countries, the measure of poverty in poor countries.
It is over 40 years ago that the international correlation between energy consumption and wealth was noticed and over 30 since it was recognised that the chance to bring into balance was lost: poor countries could never hope to catch up while it was fossil energy that was being used. At that time it needed only 1 unit to bring 100 units of fossil energy to end-use. The ratio is now rarely better than 1 to 10 and in the case of shale oils about 1 to 2.5. And that does not take into account the cost of 'co-lateral damage' in the form of wars and social disruption nor the limits of what is left net, not gross. Figures for renewables are difficult to come by and again lacking in assessment of on-costs.
In what ever way the energy we use is defined as 'green', it adds to the total fossil needed. Calling such technologies as biofuel and nuclear 'green' ignores the input of primary energy input before a single unit is usefully obtained. In the case of biofuel the original input is not regained. In the case of nuclear, the government(s) that sponsor it refuse to even look at it as it would mean honestly estimating the public cost of side-effects and disposal. Making 'carbon' a unit of measurement muddies the waters and postpones the day when the calculations can be made in energy units alone.
There is no point in working for the election of the Green Party if the 'Animal Farm' syndrome is allowed to run and in order to be elected it has to drop its green-ness as the Labour party had to drop its socialism; this seems inevitable while it is 'her majesty's' not ours and a government, not a representative assembly.
So we might as well keep the policy green. It contains the seeds of one essential ingredient of energy reduction, the dissociation of paid work (bonded labour?) and reward. Much of this work does not need to be done for any other reason and at least 30% of energy use could be removed at a stroke. If the additional ingredient of distributing income in the form of energy units was to be added, it could remove in quite a short time the need for market-economy valued money and all the cheating and mayhem associated with it. Virtually everything can be measured in terms of units of embodied energy as can the amount of energy we need to live an active or sedentary life; then it can be fairly distributed for the first time in history. On an international level it seems obvious that all off-shore or disputed fossil reserves should be allocated to countries with none rather than fought over by the already rich.
The 'Animal Farm' comparison came from 2 articles of Green councillors working on Police Authorities after a year in which the extent of brutal armed policing has emerged and the term 'environmental extremists' hatched. Also the proscription of the Big Green Gathering and the additional emergence of quasi-police bailiffs ready to remove families from their only home or bludgeon asylum seekers onto planes.
Chris Morton, Colwall
Dear Editor,
I was pleased to see that the majority of respondents reject nuclear energy generation for the simple reason of it being environment-unfriendly. I am less pleased that the debate should even be taking place and feel it is largely as a result of our inveiglement into infatuation with 'carbon' instead of concentration on the fundamental problem which is energy usage; profligate in rich countries, the measure of poverty in poor countries.
It is over 40 years ago that the international correlation between energy consumption and wealth was noticed and over 30 since it was recognised that the chance to bring into balance was lost: poor countries could never hope to catch up while it was fossil energy that was being used. At that time it needed only 1 unit to bring 100 units of fossil energy to end-use. The ratio is now rarely better than 1 to 10 and in the case of shale oils about 1 to 2.5. And that does not take into account the cost of 'co-lateral damage' in the form of wars and social disruption nor the limits of what is left net, not gross. Figures for renewables are difficult to come by and again lacking in assessment of on-costs.
In what ever way the energy we use is defined as 'green', it adds to the total fossil needed. Calling such technologies as biofuel and nuclear 'green' ignores the input of primary energy input before a single unit is usefully obtained. In the case of biofuel the original input is not regained. In the case of nuclear, the government(s) that sponsor it refuse to even look at it as it would mean honestly estimating the public cost of side-effects and disposal. Making 'carbon' a unit of measurement muddies the waters and postpones the day when the calculations can be made in energy units alone.
There is no point in working for the election of the Green Party if the 'Animal Farm' syndrome is allowed to run and in order to be elected it has to drop its green-ness as the Labour party had to drop its socialism; this seems inevitable while it is 'her majesty's' not ours and a government, not a representative assembly.
So we might as well keep the policy green. It contains the seeds of one essential ingredient of energy reduction, the dissociation of paid work (bonded labour?) and reward. Much of this work does not need to be done for any other reason and at least 30% of energy use could be removed at a stroke. If the additional ingredient of distributing income in the form of energy units was to be added, it could remove in quite a short time the need for market-economy valued money and all the cheating and mayhem associated with it. Virtually everything can be measured in terms of units of embodied energy as can the amount of energy we need to live an active or sedentary life; then it can be fairly distributed for the first time in history. On an international level it seems obvious that all off-shore or disputed fossil reserves should be allocated to countries with none rather than fought over by the already rich.
The 'Animal Farm' comparison came from 2 articles of Green councillors working on Police Authorities after a year in which the extent of brutal armed policing has emerged and the term 'environmental extremists' hatched. Also the proscription of the Big Green Gathering and the additional emergence of quasi-police bailiffs ready to remove families from their only home or bludgeon asylum seekers onto planes.
Chris Morton, Colwall
Far left reaching
Dear Editor,
I was disappointed to read the article on 'Ending the Asian war' by my good friend Farid Bahkt in Green World 66. It is a little one-sided to say the least. It also puts the Green Party among the extremist parties on the far left who have no chance of winning political power.
Firstly, while it is not a winnable war and all parties should start negotiations, Talibans are no gods either. They would not tolerate women's education or a female workforce. They would introduce medieval Sharia Law immediately if they win power. They are totally opposed to Western values. The Taliban blew up the 2500-year-old 3-storey high statue of Buddha (a UN Heritage Site) which was built in King Ashoka's time when the whole of Afghanistan was Buddhist.
Secondly, India does not need USA to feed India with oil. India has good relations with Persia and has been negotiating with her for a while for oil transmission through Pakistan. Although India is very rich in solar power, it has not got the resources to develop that technology. This was one of the sticking points in Copenhagen. Thus India has signed a treaty with USA for a supply of nuclear fuel to provide electricity to Indian villages against a strong opposition from the Indian Communist Party. It led to a split in the ruling coalition between Congress and the Communist Parties last year. The IAEA has granted exemption to India with regard to this fuel transmission. Two Communist states of India (West Bengal and Kerala) are watching the progress of this deal with USA.
No matter how bad the foreign policy was of George Bush, it does not justify killing thousands of innocent people through 9/11 or 7/7. A march of million UK Muslims through Downing Street probably had better chance of achieving the policy change they were seeking than a brutal 7/7. As a democratic measure, that would have had much more support of the British people as well.
As Muslim scholars of the ancient Al-Hazar University of Cairo have pointed out, the Taliban and Al-Queda are brainwashed by the Saudi Arabian version of Wahabi Islam. The Punjabis of Pakistan are also influenced by the same. But the Egyptian version spreads a more moderate version of Islam. The Sufis of Sindh province of Pakistan also spread a more moderate Islam. This latter version of Islam is not out of step with the rest of the world as Wahabi Islam is. As many Christian scholars pointed out, Islam has never gone through a reformation process. Could it be that that is happening now?
Samir Chatterjee, Rochdale
Dear Editor,
I was disappointed to read the article on 'Ending the Asian war' by my good friend Farid Bahkt in Green World 66. It is a little one-sided to say the least. It also puts the Green Party among the extremist parties on the far left who have no chance of winning political power.
Firstly, while it is not a winnable war and all parties should start negotiations, Talibans are no gods either. They would not tolerate women's education or a female workforce. They would introduce medieval Sharia Law immediately if they win power. They are totally opposed to Western values. The Taliban blew up the 2500-year-old 3-storey high statue of Buddha (a UN Heritage Site) which was built in King Ashoka's time when the whole of Afghanistan was Buddhist.
Secondly, India does not need USA to feed India with oil. India has good relations with Persia and has been negotiating with her for a while for oil transmission through Pakistan. Although India is very rich in solar power, it has not got the resources to develop that technology. This was one of the sticking points in Copenhagen. Thus India has signed a treaty with USA for a supply of nuclear fuel to provide electricity to Indian villages against a strong opposition from the Indian Communist Party. It led to a split in the ruling coalition between Congress and the Communist Parties last year. The IAEA has granted exemption to India with regard to this fuel transmission. Two Communist states of India (West Bengal and Kerala) are watching the progress of this deal with USA.
No matter how bad the foreign policy was of George Bush, it does not justify killing thousands of innocent people through 9/11 or 7/7. A march of million UK Muslims through Downing Street probably had better chance of achieving the policy change they were seeking than a brutal 7/7. As a democratic measure, that would have had much more support of the British people as well.
As Muslim scholars of the ancient Al-Hazar University of Cairo have pointed out, the Taliban and Al-Queda are brainwashed by the Saudi Arabian version of Wahabi Islam. The Punjabis of Pakistan are also influenced by the same. But the Egyptian version spreads a more moderate version of Islam. The Sufis of Sindh province of Pakistan also spread a more moderate Islam. This latter version of Islam is not out of step with the rest of the world as Wahabi Islam is. As many Christian scholars pointed out, Islam has never gone through a reformation process. Could it be that that is happening now?
Samir Chatterjee, Rochdale
Cycling solidarity
Dear Editor,
While reading Green World 65 I spotted an article by Bethan Witherow, who joined the Green Party because of her strong views on car use. It was for the very same reason I joined myself and couldn't agree more with her views.
Here are a few more facts to support her: the average car, based on an average mileage of 12,000 p.a., gives out 10 tonnes of carbon monoxide - a poisonous gas used in the concentration camps. If that's not bad enough, it has traces of cyanide arsenic and many more additives to make it run smoother. This same carbon monoxide abstracts oxygen from the air and changes into carbon dioxide which is the main greenhouse gas. 26% of all pollution is caused by cars, yet it needn't be so since the majority of journeys in the UK are five miles or less (or 30 minutes cycle).
Compared with the thousands of miles Bethan Witherow cycled across NZ, Australia and Sri Lanka it's sad that people can't make the effort to travel a mere five miles or less. Not only will they not do it but they revel in programmes like Top Gear which promotes pollution boxes as if they're some sort of great God. I know for a fact that many are too lazy to walk or cycle a mere half-mile to do some light shopping. Do they know that 47,000 motorists die each year from sitting down?
It's also sad that governments support increased car production so a person who drives to work (by pollution box) is paid to produce more cars, drives home in one and, in some cases, is given the chance to get another pollution box at knock-down price once a year.
Peter Gibson, Baglan
Dear Editor,
While reading Green World 65 I spotted an article by Bethan Witherow, who joined the Green Party because of her strong views on car use. It was for the very same reason I joined myself and couldn't agree more with her views.
Here are a few more facts to support her: the average car, based on an average mileage of 12,000 p.a., gives out 10 tonnes of carbon monoxide - a poisonous gas used in the concentration camps. If that's not bad enough, it has traces of cyanide arsenic and many more additives to make it run smoother. This same carbon monoxide abstracts oxygen from the air and changes into carbon dioxide which is the main greenhouse gas. 26% of all pollution is caused by cars, yet it needn't be so since the majority of journeys in the UK are five miles or less (or 30 minutes cycle).
Compared with the thousands of miles Bethan Witherow cycled across NZ, Australia and Sri Lanka it's sad that people can't make the effort to travel a mere five miles or less. Not only will they not do it but they revel in programmes like Top Gear which promotes pollution boxes as if they're some sort of great God. I know for a fact that many are too lazy to walk or cycle a mere half-mile to do some light shopping. Do they know that 47,000 motorists die each year from sitting down?
It's also sad that governments support increased car production so a person who drives to work (by pollution box) is paid to produce more cars, drives home in one and, in some cases, is given the chance to get another pollution box at knock-down price once a year.
Peter Gibson, Baglan
Dear Editor,
In response to the article 'Breaking down the barriers' by Samir Chatterjee, I believe that if the Green Party fails to try to connect with the white working class, we are missing a historic opportunity to broaden our base that will not return, we will forever remain a minor single-issue party and we abandon the white working class to the Fascist BNP.
If we want to connect with the white working class, we need to be a lot clearer and specific about how we would improve their lives, for example, the slogan 'Fair is worth fighting for' needs to be quantified, otherwise it is abstract and meaningless.
Everyone has a different idea about what is fair, depending on their background, for example many people in the white working class communities where think that 'British jobs for British workers', and that 'an end to immigration' is fair now that we have rising unemployment, the Green Party has to address those concerns rather than simply labeling them as racists.
The Green Party needs to be able explain to ordinary people what fair will mean for them, otherwise the slogan 'Fair is worth fighting for' is empty rhetoric.
For example, we all need to be briefed on the practical application of Green Party policies, so that we can explain some of the following: How a citizens' income would work without simply subsidising low wages; How a Green New deal could be implemented through state investment in industry in order to recreate green manufacturing jobs for low- or semi-skilled workers; How we would protect consumers from the increased costs of basic products and foodstuffs which would inevitably rise when our agricultural and manufacturing industries move from fossil fuels to sustainable alternatives; How we would reform the financial institutions and safeguard front line public services.
The Green Party needs to make a stand against the increasing marginalisation and criminalisation of both white working class and immigrant communities in order to prevent a further breakdown of community relations and the growth of the police state.
The majority of people in Britain now face economic uncertainty, many of their dreams and hopes have been crushed by the escalating economic crisis, their financial security has gone and they are looking for someone to blame.
We need to be able provide answers to the question of what was responsible for this crisis, how we would reform the financial sector and stabilise Britain's casino economy.
The current New Labour administration has nurtured a frightening secret police network which has the entire Muslim community under total surveillance with their 'Prevent' programme and they continue to hold large numbers of political prisoners under indefinite detention without a fair trial. The intelligence agencies and the police regularly uncover highly publicised terrorist plots which are often based on secret evidence or facilitated by the use of state informers.
New Labour have created a climate of fear from the perceived threat of Muslim terrorism which sustains public support for the continued occupation of Afghanistan and the creeping escalation of that war into Pakistan or wherever they choose to invade next.
We have to challenge the fairness, legitimacy and truth of the 'War on Terror' in Britain, if we do not have stronger policies on civil liberties and human rights, including a plan to disestablish the terror apparatus.
If we do not have such policies in place, then if by some miracle we managed to achieve power we could be held hostage by these powerful institutions, much like the current Obama administration in the US is a hostage to the military.
If the Green Party is to broaden our appeal and to widen our support base then we need to seriously look at how we deliver information to the masses, we need to increase our use of multimedia and particularly to simplify the language that we use to communicate our message, which is currently too formal and academic for the majority of the people that I live and work with.
It will only be the fault of the Green Party if we fail to rise to the occasion; if we do not broaden our appeal to the white working classes then we abandon them to the Fascist BNP who speak their language and tell them what they want to hear in order to get their votes.
Nigel Rolland, Tameside
In response to the article 'Breaking down the barriers' by Samir Chatterjee, I believe that if the Green Party fails to try to connect with the white working class, we are missing a historic opportunity to broaden our base that will not return, we will forever remain a minor single-issue party and we abandon the white working class to the Fascist BNP.
If we want to connect with the white working class, we need to be a lot clearer and specific about how we would improve their lives, for example, the slogan 'Fair is worth fighting for' needs to be quantified, otherwise it is abstract and meaningless.
Everyone has a different idea about what is fair, depending on their background, for example many people in the white working class communities where think that 'British jobs for British workers', and that 'an end to immigration' is fair now that we have rising unemployment, the Green Party has to address those concerns rather than simply labeling them as racists.
The Green Party needs to be able explain to ordinary people what fair will mean for them, otherwise the slogan 'Fair is worth fighting for' is empty rhetoric.
For example, we all need to be briefed on the practical application of Green Party policies, so that we can explain some of the following: How a citizens' income would work without simply subsidising low wages; How a Green New deal could be implemented through state investment in industry in order to recreate green manufacturing jobs for low- or semi-skilled workers; How we would protect consumers from the increased costs of basic products and foodstuffs which would inevitably rise when our agricultural and manufacturing industries move from fossil fuels to sustainable alternatives; How we would reform the financial institutions and safeguard front line public services.
The Green Party needs to make a stand against the increasing marginalisation and criminalisation of both white working class and immigrant communities in order to prevent a further breakdown of community relations and the growth of the police state.
The majority of people in Britain now face economic uncertainty, many of their dreams and hopes have been crushed by the escalating economic crisis, their financial security has gone and they are looking for someone to blame.
We need to be able provide answers to the question of what was responsible for this crisis, how we would reform the financial sector and stabilise Britain's casino economy.
The current New Labour administration has nurtured a frightening secret police network which has the entire Muslim community under total surveillance with their 'Prevent' programme and they continue to hold large numbers of political prisoners under indefinite detention without a fair trial. The intelligence agencies and the police regularly uncover highly publicised terrorist plots which are often based on secret evidence or facilitated by the use of state informers.
New Labour have created a climate of fear from the perceived threat of Muslim terrorism which sustains public support for the continued occupation of Afghanistan and the creeping escalation of that war into Pakistan or wherever they choose to invade next.
We have to challenge the fairness, legitimacy and truth of the 'War on Terror' in Britain, if we do not have stronger policies on civil liberties and human rights, including a plan to disestablish the terror apparatus.
If we do not have such policies in place, then if by some miracle we managed to achieve power we could be held hostage by these powerful institutions, much like the current Obama administration in the US is a hostage to the military.
If the Green Party is to broaden our appeal and to widen our support base then we need to seriously look at how we deliver information to the masses, we need to increase our use of multimedia and particularly to simplify the language that we use to communicate our message, which is currently too formal and academic for the majority of the people that I live and work with.
It will only be the fault of the Green Party if we fail to rise to the occasion; if we do not broaden our appeal to the white working classes then we abandon them to the Fascist BNP who speak their language and tell them what they want to hear in order to get their votes.
Nigel Rolland, Tameside
▾
▾