Save the BBC (and schools) from political interference!

Honestly! First the Beeb is told to pull the plug on a night of environmental awareness "because its not its duty to save the planet". We all live on the same planet unless there's something I'm completely unaware of like the planned colonisation of the asteroid belt. Or maybe Venus has been habitable all along and it was just a big secret or something.

The BBC is a public service. The welfare of this planet and its ecosystem affects all of us. I can think of no public service more justifiable than saving our planet!

Secondly, some (expletive deleted) is trying to take the government to court to stop them showing "An Inconvenient Truth" as it's "politically biased". Is educating children about the Holocaust "politically biased"? Was Pol Pot simply misunderstood, do we now say he was trying to do the right thing with the materials at his disposal?

Of course the education system has the potential to indoctinate and brainwash children, thats what "education" ultimately boils down to, but this doesn't mean that the young and the public in general shouldn't be exposed to rational debate: This is the WORST form of sensorship, whoever is doing the sensoring.

May not reply to any comments in a while, but here goes: Prisons and Justice

1. How can a Society have Justice if it cannot agree on what "Justice" is?

2.Personally, I cannot fully support Prisons while the Prison system retains its economic aspect.

3.To follow with an example: If A steals £1million and goes to prison for five years while B murders someone and gets 20, is stealing £1million equivalent to a quarter of a murder? Ridiculous!

4.What if C stole a billion pounds? Do we execute them?

5.We then go into the same argument the right use to "prove" Socialism can't work, in that its impossible can't make Justice equal for everyone.

6.No matter what the crime (and surely it goes without saying that murdering someone is pretty pathetic) committed by an individual,they still have rights before, after and during their sentence.

7.Similar to 2. it is difficult to support the state while it retains its economic aspect on one hand while at the same time denying true economic justice by creating hypocritical forms of criminality on the other in the forms of "illegal immigrants" and "proscribed substances" which, by definition, are already in existence in the society in which they are "prohibited".

8.The Definition of the State, then, is dependent on introducing arenas in or autonomous to the Society which calls itself a State.

9.These Autonomous Arenas are either supportive of the State and its goals (like para-military forces in a Fascist country like Columbia or a more general alternative like landowners, professional politicians or monarchs) or define or justify the State in some way (foreigners, dissidents, criminals etc)

10.By solely focusing on negative aspects of justice we encounter two problems a) Imagine what an awful world it would be if everyone got exactly what they deserved for everything they did wrong
b)Surely the worst offenders are those who promote violence and oppression (the media, the Catholic Church, the Military-Industrial Complex) so we are forced to focus on Institutions and not Individuals.

11. The Bourgeois-Patriarchal State to an extent tolerates offences like traffic offences and rape as the perpetrators usually belong to the preferred or dominant castes and these kinds of offences are not contrary to the aims of domination and submission of certain societal arenas autonomous to and supportive of the state, hence low conviction rates and sentences.

12.Offences often commited by so-called underclasses, like robbery and murder, threaten the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie, hence the reason these crimes are elevated above others (such as forced prostitution or domestic violence) in the organs of the upper classes.

13.Violence, although never truly justified, is often the only recourse for economic justice by much of the "lumpenproletariat" or underclass, basically because the police become increasingly irrelevant the poorer you get, while the rich can always sue for anything they want.

14.The same is also true when legal authorities demand economic restitution: it is as increasingly difficult for the poor to avoid or combat as it is increasingly easy for the rich to avoid or combat for fear of capital flight.

15.Its as easy for a rich man to avoid paying a fine for £10,000 (or to notice it) as it is hard for a poor man who owes £2000 to avoid prison.

John Bowden: British (Land of the Unfree) Political Prisoner
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380881.html

Removing "insurgents" ability to make war: Impossible;cannot be done without removing
(TW)ATNO's ability to make war.

Hey, finally finished "Discipline and Punish" this weekend and read "3001-Final Odyssey" in 24 hours!

Back to random commentary. The "evacuation" of British troops from Basra is a bit of a non-event as "we're" still there, and in considerable,albeit useless, numbers at the nearby airport.

Why are we there?

If we (I mean they, as I'M not at war with anyone) are at War, "we" must have clearly definable and achievable objectives (which I would assume would be a "peaceful and democratic Iraq", although by our standards that doesn't really mean anything). Constantly changing objectives doesn't count and implies that there are hidden,unchanging objctives.

If we do not have any definable and achievable objectives, other than "establishing and maintaining a presence" (and being shot at), we/they are engaging in Terrorist operations against the Iraqi people, plain and simple.

Oil Unions "political" apparently-Saddam-era laws still in use to oppress workers.

Dear IUSS Supporters,At our last meeting we learned from our Iraqi comrades that the oil union the IFOU has been banned by the Iraqi oil minister (heavily pressurised by the USA) as it is "political". We know this is becuase the oil unions are a threat to the hated oil law which the US is trying to get railroaded through the Iraqi parliament, and which would cream off oil profits to private oil companies outside of Iraq.This needs to be publiced and opposed as widely as possible. In Scotland please get your MSPs to support Bill Wilsons members motions below, in particular SM3-194 and SM3-195 which are due to be heard in the next parliament. In England Dave Anderson MP has proposed and Early Day motion on the oil law. One way to conact your MSP, MP or MEP is via the website www.writetothem.com so please do this. IUSS drafted a motion (attached) which you can get passed through your union, trades council, community group etc.Please will you get this matter discussed at your anti war or pro union group. Please get back to me about your discussions especially if you would support a demonstration against the banning of the IFOU. Comradley,Pauline BradleyConvenor IUSShttp://iraqunionsolidarityscotland.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------PRESS RELEASEUS Unionists Protest Iraq Union Ban Press Associates Sunday 19 August 2007 Washington - Showing solidarity with unionists in Iraq, several dozen U.S. unionists marched on August 16 outside the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, protesting the Iraqi Oil Minister's ban on unions for oil workers. The protesters, including Machinists, the Office and Professional Employees, the Teachers and the Air Line Pilots, demanded Iraq recognize and bargain with its oil workers' unions - who, like the AFL-CIO, oppose the Iraq War. They presented a letter from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to embassy officials, with the demands, addressed to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. The oil minister claimed the oil unions are illegal because they are not recognized as a legitimate union of government workers, as required by the Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi labor law. Neither the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, when it ran Iraq for a year, nor the present shaky faction-ridden Iraqi government bothered to change that highly restrictive law, which covers 70 percent of Iraqi workers. The Iraqi government has also denied the oil workers their internationally recognized rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, protesters said. But the Iraqi government is considering a U.S.-drafted oil law to yield control Iraq oilfields to multi-national corporations. That law was another target of the D.C. protest, organized by both the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center and U.S. Labor Against The War. "The reality of the obstacles that oil workers face in Iraq is a major issue for us, just as the issue of ending the war is," said AFL-CIO International Affairs Director Barbara Shailor, the protest co-leader. Added Denice Lombard of USLAW: "It's no coincidence the Iraqi oil union has been fighting to keep the oil in Iraqi hands," while the law U.S. congressional "benchmarks" would force on Iraq would put the oil in corporate hands "for many years." A new Iraqi labor law should be our benchmark, she added. ----------------------------------------------------------Dear IUSS,S3M-224 Dr Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP) : Blair, Middle East Envoy— That the Parliament notes reports of a discussion between outgoing UK Prime Minister Blair, US President Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the former becoming a Middle East envoy; believes that the policies supported by the three thus far have, by and large, only promoted peace in that troubled region in the sense of the Orwellian slogan “War is Peace”, and accordingly wishes Mr Blair well in a role that would require him to undo the damage done by the UK’s and USA’s invasion of Iraq and their markedly selective support of democracy, human rights and United Nations resolutions in the Middle East. Supported by: Christine Grahame, Bashir Ahmad, Dr Alasdair Allan, Michael Matheson, Jamie Hepburn Lodged on 21 June 2007; current S3M-195 Dr Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP) : Iraq: Privatisation of Oil— That the Parliament notes with concern proposals to pass laws allowing the privatisation of Iraq’s oil industry; notes that both the Blair and Bush administrations stated that their declared major purpose for invading Iraq was to remove weapons of mass destruction and that the invasion was not motivated by that country’s oil reserves; notes that both administrations have stated their support for the introduction of democracy in Iraq, and accordingly is confident that the UK and US administrations will demonstrate their good intentions by encouraging the Iraq Government not to privatise that country’s oil but to maintain it as a source of income to help Iraq’s reconstruction and recovery. Supported by: Jamie Hepburn, Stuart McMillan, Sandra White, Bashir Ahmad Lodged on 18 June 2007; current ---------------------------------S3M-194 Dr Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP) : Iraq: Right to Strike— That the Parliament notes with grave concern the death threats against members of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions who were recently protesting against the proposed oil law which would effectively cede control of Iraq’s oilfields to multinational companies; further notes that the right to strike is protected by the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation, to which the Iraq Government is a signatory, and accordingly expresses its support for calls for the threat of violence against the oil workers to be withdrawn and for their legitimate right to strike to be recognised should they choose to exercise it. Supported by: Jamie Hepburn, Sandra White Lodged on 18 June 2007; current It would be great if you could get people to write to their MSPs urging them to support these motions (at least the last two), especially in the light of the IFOU being banned!Best regardsEricDr R. Eric Swanepoel, Office Manager/Researcher pp Dr Bill Wilson MSP