Danger to life and limb a comment on the CTU's priority campaign for 2003 ---------------- Burning the flag by Grant Brookes The New Zealand flag has been raised over a host of criminal wars throughout the last century. ---------------- A short war would boost US power The outbreak of war in Iraq was met by a chorus of voices expressing a hope that the conflict would be short. Their motives were mixed. ---------------- What kind of action can stop the war? Putting demands on Labour and backing them up with mass civil disobedience is way forward for the anti-war movement, argues David Colyer. ---------------- Labour should 'rethink relations' with the US by Keith Locke MP, Green Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson The people of New Zealand can take a bow for making sure our government didn't commit troops to Iraq. ---------------- Peace movement should support the government by Greg Presland, chair of the New Lynn Labour Party & Waitakere City Councillor (personal capacity). ---------------- Labour should listen to the anti-war protests by Grant Brookes ---------------- Fiery portrait by Farah Reza The film Frida explores the life of Frida Kahlo, the Mexican artist and socialist. ---------------- Broadening the anti-war movement The organisation that publishes this magazine is a nationwide organisation of activists. Join Socialist Worker and get involved in building an organisation dedicated to workers' struggles against capitalism and war. ---------------- No friend of peace Recent weeks have seen an out-pouring of support for Labour from the corporate-owned media, the establishment and top union officials. They back Clark's expressions of "regret" about the outbreak of war in Iraq. But they don't ask what Labour is doing to stop it. ---------------- Labour puts profits before peace by Grant Brookes ...Labour backed away from opposing the war for fear of jeopardising the trading interests of New Zealand business. In the same way, their policy for "rebuilding Iraq" will put New Zealand business first. ---------------- Wellington protest targets Labour Over 4,000 angry protesters took to the streets of Wellington on March 22 to express their rage at the outbreak of war in Iraq. ---------------- World's workers resist war The opening days of war in Iraq were met with mass protests and strikes around the world. ---------------- Iraq war threatens new Palestinian catastrophe by Grant Brookes Just one day before bombing started in Iraq, US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice announced a huge aid package for Israel. ---------------- General strike rocks Zimbabwe by Daphne Lawless Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe is accelerating its attacks on workers, students and peasants who oppose his ZANU-PF party's dictatorial rule. ---------------- Kinleith strikers appeal for support by Grant Brookes More than 250 workers at Carter Holt's Kinleith mill near Tokoroa were entering their fourth week of strike action as Socialist Worker Monthly Review went to press. ---------------- Prostitution Reform Bill strengthens workers' rights by Daphne Lawless Further progress on a law to decriminalise prostitution has been delayed until later this month. ---------------- "I want to work safely and without fear" Yvette Astre ­her working name ­ is a Wellington prostitute. She is alarmed MPs are increasingly viewing decriminalisation as a moral issue and are turning against it. To her, it is all about human rights. ----------------

Danger to life and limb a comment on the CTU's priority campaign for 2003   If all deaths resulting from workplace accidents and work-related disease are taken into account, more than 400 people die each year from workplace causes. That shocking toll is the current official OSH estimate.   Non-fatal workplace injuries run into thousands, exactly how many it's impossible to say, because of the huge number of accidents going unreported.   Up until now there hasn't been a united union strategy to halt this carnage and make our workplaces safe.   Last month the Council of Trade Unions announced that health and safety would be the "CTU priority campaign for 2003".   On March 11 the CTU Wellington head office called a meeting which union organisers were "not just invited but expected to attend".   There, CTU president Ross Wilson outlined the CTU's campaign, which limits itself to unions carrying out the latest government amendments to the Health and Safety Act.   These amendments widen coverage of the Health and Safety Act and place more onus on employers to provide effective safety equipment. There's a new system of "instant fines" for unsafe practices, and, in theory, a duty on all employers to facilitate staff safety systems.   According to the CTU leaders, the "key to the Act" is its introduction of "worker participation". This refers to new workplace staff health and safety reps.   The CTU has a goal of electing 10,000 new health and safety reps within the first year of the Act.   Workers elected as representatives will be trained by the ACC department.   Ross Wilson gives uncritical support to the new government amendments, presenting them to delegates as a great new opportunity for "worker participation" and growth of the whole union movement.   At the meeting I asked Ross if we had to give anything away in exchange for the reforms. He replied wearily "Don, there's no plot".   There probably is "no plot", but as a scaffolding to build a health and safety campaign the new law has more than a few loose boards.   In theory the system for training Health and safety reps must cover all workers ­in practice possibly less than half. Only jobs with over 30 staff must automatically elect health and safety reps.   On jobs with less than 30 staff, one of those employees must step forward and formally request the boss to set up a safety system.   Unlike union delegates, the new safety reps must be formally elected by secret ballot and trained in a government approved course. The law provides for up to two days training a year, but bosses can refuse the time off "if business is unreasonably disrupted."   Trained health and safety reps have very limited powers. They may issue "hazard notices" on a job they declare unsafe. But these notices may only be issued once a hazard has been brought to the attention of the employer and carry no authority to shut jobs down. They are in the CTU's words: "primarily a communication tool."   A more powerful new tool comes in the form of instant fines for unsafe practices, but these may only be issued by government health inspectors.   Such fines must consider "the financial circumstances of the employer" ­ and can be applied to workers as well.   Under the new amendments workers can stop in unsafe conditions, but this provision existed previously as a common law right and is, in any case surely, the reaction of any sane human being when faced with imminent danger to life and limb!   The law allows all employers a period of six months grace before they're obliged to set up any sort of health and safety system.   Ross Wilson defended that section of the amendments by arguing that six months is not really such a long time; delegates from workplaces more dangerous than the CTU head office were less certain.   "Can't we just go out and elect our own health and safety people right now, without waiting six months?" asked a unionist at the meeting.   "Well, I suppose you can", Ross replied. "But they wouldn't then be covered by the new legislation."   That small exchange indicates the difference between militant unionism and government-dependent unionism. Campaigning in full support of untried Government reforms reflects CTU leaders preoccupation with union/government "partnership", but it's not the best way for workers to strive to improve their lives.   Unionism first arose when workers got together away from the boss and the government, formulated their own demands and then took united (and illegal) action to achieve them.   "Worker participation" in struggle for health and safety ­ and money, dignity and peace ­ is something that unions have most productively "just gone out and done." Every significant union advance can be traced to unilateral workers action.   Industrial laws do have a bearing on worker's freedom to organise.   In most cases, their effect is one of restricting workers ­ such as the Employment Relations Act's prohibition of most strikes.   Where labour laws do offer workers some rights it makes sense to use them.   Arbitration provisions sometimes help workers on very small sites, which by themselves have little industrial muscle.   But the new health and safety amendments actually offer less to workers on small sites.   Union opinion about the CTU's campaign is divided. Some officials believe its a chance to recruit more members. Other unionists see it as secondary to their present struggles against the employer's current offensive.   One SFWU organiser fears that going through the elaborate procedures required by the amendments will drain the union's limited resources. And most union activists I spoke to complained that the campaign ignores what they see as the main cause of industrial accidents ­ understaffing.

Burning the flag by Grant Brookes Wellington teacher Paul Hopkinson shot to prominence on March 10 following a protest against Australiaıs warmongering prime minister, John Howard. Paul was arrested for burning the New Zealand flag on the steps of parliament.   He later appeared on TV and in the newspapers charged with dishonouring the flag and criminal nuisance. If convicted, he faces a year in prison.   If a reason was needed why people who oppose the war should support Paul, it was provided by TV3 News two weeks later.   On March 24, they proudly announced that the New Zealand flag is flying over Britainıs 7th armoured division, thanks to a Dunedin-born soldier fighting in Southern Iraq.   Well before that, of course, the navyıs version of the New Zealand flag was being paraded officially in the Gulf on the frigate Te Mana, assisting US forces.   The New Zealand flag has been raised over a host of criminal wars throughout the last century.   In 1929, it flew over the building in New Zealand-administered Western Samoa where troops opened fire with machine guns on unarmed pro-independence demonstrators.   In the 1970s, anti-war protesters here burned the New Zealand flag to express their disgust over its presence, alongside the Stars and Stripes, in South Vietnam. "One nation"   But it's not only on the battlefield where the flag is used to rally support for injustice.   On Waitangi Day 1995, the flag was trampled by activists protesting National's "fiscal envelope" policy of insultingly low settlements for huge land thefts and atrocities committed against Maori.   The Maori activists recognised that the flag symbolises the false idea that we are "one nation" with common interests.   We are not "one nation". Maori are treated as second class citizens. Women face double standards.   Workers do not benefit when the interests of New Zealand businesses are promoted.   As Paul says, "Flags are symbols. It's a symbol of the ruling elite. It doesn't represent the working people of New Zealand."   The law against burning the New Zealand flag was passed by the National government in 1981 in the wake of huge protests against the Springbok Tour.   The most rabid supporter of the law was Winston Peters, then a National MP.   He raved that a law enshrining the New Zealand flag was needed to deal with the unpatriotic protesters who invaded the pitch in Hamilton, stopped the rugby match and unveiled a communist red flag.   Some Labour MPs spoke out against the bill in parliament. David Caygill had been a leader of an anti-Vietnam War protest in Christchurch in 1971 where the flag was set alight.   He declared, "If we write hard-and-fast rules into our law, about the use of flags, we run the risk of stifling a reasonable means for people to express themselves".   But when the vote came, he fell into line. Labour voted with National to pass the bill into law.   Despite this, Caygill's point was made again last month in the NZ Herald by Auckland lawyers Richard Ekins and John Ip.   They said, "Setting fire to the flag as the centre piece of a protest ­illustrating disagreement with the state and its policies ­ is an overt act of political expression and as such is at the core of the free speech right."   Paul is a member of the Anti-Capitalist Alliance. But the charges laid against him by police are an attack on the whole anti-war movement.   If Paul is convicted, it will set a legal precedent and add to the armoury of measures the police can use to clamp down on dissent.   Following the protest, Peace Action Wellington voted unanimously to support him in fighting the charges.   High profile legal academic and civil rights lawyer Paul Miller has offered to represent him for free.   Paul appears again in the Wellington district court on May 5.

A short war would boost US power   The outbreak of war in Iraq was met by a chorus of voices expressing a hope that the conflict would be short.   Their motives were mixed. A host of government officials and New Zealand business leaders ­ from dairy giant Fonterra, Tourism New Zealand, the Warehouse, Forsyth Barr and many more ­ said a short war would be a "perfect war" because it wouldn't hurt profits.   Prime minister Helen Clark echoed their view.   But many ordinary people who think there's no such thing as a "perfect war" also hoped that this one would be short.   That is an understandable reaction, motivated by wanting to see the least loss of life in the immediate conflict.   It is, however, mistaken. The US doesn't want war just to remove Saddam Hussein.   It wants to show that it can use its military power to impose its will anywhere in the world.   The easier the US finds that in Iraq the more likely it will go on to use military power elsewhere.   Bush already has a list of possible targets ­Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Cuba. Attempted coups   The US has already meddled with attempted coups against the elected government of Venezuela in South America.   And the US backs the right wing government in a civil war in neighbouring Colombia.   A quick victory in Iraq will make war more likely in these areas.   It would also mean the US would push even harder to impose its interests and those of the corporations that back it across the globe.   There would be even more savage IMF austerity programmes to suck wealth out of indebted countries.   In New Zealand, the push to privatise public services in health and education, under World Trade Organisation treaties like GATS, would be even stronger.   US power would also swing even harder behind regimes such as Israel, so bringing more suffering to the Palestinian people.   Everywhere there would be the spectre of an emboldened US military in the wings to ensure no government dared cross the US.   Of course, even the mightiest empire is not immune from mass revolts which can humble it.   But the immediate result of a quick victory in Iraq would be to strengthen the US ruling class and its allies and weaken those who oppose it.   A victorious Bush would also find it easier to push through attacks at home, as would a victorious Blair.   Socialists continue to do all in our power to build the movement to stop the war. But the very worst outcome would be for it to end quickly in an easy victory for the US and Britain.   Now the war is on, by far the lesser evil are reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces.   That may be unlikely, given the overwhelming military superiority they enjoy. But it would be the best outcome in military terms.   It would make it more likely that Blair would not survive, and Bush would be in trouble too.   It would limit the ability of the US and its allies to impose suffering, war and death on an even bigger scale.   Socialists have a long tradition to draw on in taking this stance.   When the First World War started many who had spoken against war in the run-up to it fell into line behind their national governments.   It was very important that in Germany the revolutionary socialist MP Karl Liebknecht spoke out against war when no one else in the parliament did.   He refused to vote for war credits to finance the German war effort and declared, "The main enemy is at home."   That meant refusing to drop struggles against employers and the government over domestic issues.   Liebknecht's stance made clear that for him the main enemy was his ruling class, and that the defeat of that ruling class and its military was the lesser evil amid the evil of war.   Socialists in Russia at the time spelled this out. The leading revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said that faced with a barbarous war, the lesser evil for the working class was "the defeat of its government in a reactionary war".   He argued that "whoever wants a lasting and democratic peace must stand for civil war against the government" and that "the latter's military reverses facilitate its overthrow".   That argument was the preserve of a minority at first but was borne out in practice.   The First World War was ended when, first in Russia in 1917, then in Germany in 1918, mass revolutions toppled the warmongering governments.   What turmoil war will bring today is impossible to predict.   Civil unrest in Britain could put the survival of Blair's administration in question.   And the nightmare that haunts Bush and Blair is that revolt and revolution in the Middle East will topple regimes there and challenge Western domination over the region and its oil wealth.   Everyone in the anti-war movement should do all in their power to build protests against Bush's war and Helen Clark's behind-the-scenes co-operation with it.   While war continues any military reverses they suffer will help the process of stopping them today and of preventing the bloody future they plan for us all.

What kind of action can stop the war? Putting demands on Labour and backing them up with mass civil disobedience is way forward for the anti-war movement, argues David Colyer. ESCALATE THE PROTEST   "The war on terrorism" has brought the terror of war to a second country.   Many anti-war activists, myself included, feel the only proper response to this escalation of barbarism is for us to escalate our protests.   Activists around the country are organising to take "direct action".   In Auckland, during the March 22 protest, there was a sit-down in the middle of Queen Street. Then several hundred people marched back down Queen Street to protest outside the US consulate. The sit-down cased a great deal of argument between activists during and after the demonstration.   In Christchurch, activists wanting to organise direct action have set up a new group autonomous of the Peace Action Network. They believe that keeping direct action separate from the marches is the best way to avoid arguments within the Network.   Peace Action Wellington has tried to accommodate the desire for direct action.   On their Saturday 22 march to the US embassy, those who didn't want to confront police were warned to keep to the back, while those up front pushed at police lines and showered the compound with paint bombs and toilet paper. March together   In a report on the March 22 sit-down and blockade of the US consulate.   Auckland's Anti Imperialist Coalition calls for mass direct action. I agree with a lot of what they say, but not their call that "Direct action must replace symbolic marches".   Mass marches that unite thousands of people and reflect every shade of anti-war opinion are the most fertile soil for mass direct action to grow from.   The approach of Peace Action Wellington on March 22 shows that it is possible for everyone who is against the war to march together. Those who favour direct action can carry this out, and those who don't can keep out of trouble.   Abandoning marches in favour of direct action only protests would mean abandoning a large proportion of people who want to march against the war. No time for pessimism   At the first meeting of the Christchurch direct action group, some people suggested that most New Zealanders were watching the war like it was a movie, ignoring the death and suffering in Iraq. They hoped a spectacular action would grab headlines, breaking through the fog of pro-American reporting and show that although the war had begun, the anti-war movement had not gone away.   Some suggested that the general population needed to be shocked out of their apathy by a dramatic action that would force them to take sides, for or against the war.   This is an unnecessarily pessimistic outlook.   The opposition to the war in this country has generated more activism and less apathy than any issue in the last ten years (except perhaps the GE-free movement).   Already this year we've seen well over 20,000 people protest around the country on February 15. Demonstrations of a similar size continued through March.   Many people who oppose the war will be wondering what they can do in the face of the massive power of the American war machine and George W's crusader mentality.   If we want to convince people that it's not too late to stop the war, then we need to be able to tell them what they can do that will make a difference.   Spectacular stunts could be part of getting this message across, but on their own they cannot stop the war.   If you are planning an attention-grabbing stunt, why not use some of the publicity to promote the next mass protest? Make Labour stand up   Action that will have a direct impact on America's ability to fight this war is not possible in this country.   But we can do more than simply express our opposition. By forcing our government to take action, we can help stop the slaughter.   The major demands of our movement should include: * Withdraw all of New Zealand military forces currently working with the US. * Publicly condemn the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and call on the US and others to withdraw their forces. * Close the Waihopai and Tangimoana spy bases and demilitarise the US Air Force base at Christchurch airport.   If these things happen it will give an enormous boost to anti-war activists around the world.    It will make it easier for them to demand their governments also stop supporting the US, and it will make it harder for the US to claim that it is leading a "coalition of the willing" in its "war on terrorism". Beyond Iraq   Focusing on our government's involvement with the wider "war on terrorism" will out-last the fighting in Iraq.   This is important, because if the US wins a quick victory they will soon set their sights on a new target.   Although Helen Clark denies it, the war in Iraq is part of George W Bush's "war on terrorism". Under this banner, US-led forces have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq; US troops are involved in civil wars in Colombia and the Philippines; Israel (America's attack dog in the Middle East) is slaughtering thousands of Palestinians.   Iran and North Korea remain on Bush's "Axis of Evil" list. His advisers have suggested Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and even Saudi Arabia as possible target for the next invasion.   The mobilisations against capitalist globalisation have shown that a broad "movement of movements" can be built by stressing the links between seemingly separate problems facing grassroots people.   Opposition to the war can be easily linked with opposition to a free trade deal with the US and to the World Trade Organisation's GATS privatisation plans.   The war is also being used as an excuse to attack our civil liberties, under the guise of so-called "anti-terrorism laws". Economic interests   This war is linked to so many other issues because they are all the result of a wider system of capitalism and imperialism.   This is a war waged by the US state in the interests of US corporations, to ensure they stay ahead of their European rivals.   The New Zealand government's position on the war is likewise driven by the economic interests of NZ corporations. On the one hand they are supporting the US with military personnel, in the hope of securing a free trade deal.   On the other hand, they did not side with the US against France and Germany, fearing that this split between the great powers could hinder the global free trade negotiations of the World Trade Organisation.   As the Russian socialist Lenin argued during World War One, "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism".   The primary concern of governments is to ensure capitalism is running smoothly and that the flow of profits into corporate coffers is not interrupted.   The warmongers aren't just out for blood, they're out for profit and power too.   The profit and power of the warmongering capitalists in the US, the pro-free trade pro-war corporate bosses here (and all other capitalists around the world) depends not only on their control of resources like oil, but also on their control of working people.   US vice-president Dick Cheney's company may have won the contract to repair oil facilities, but he won't be clambering up and down oil derricks in the Iraq desert. Civil disobedience   The greatest fear of the capitalists and their governments is that they will lose control over their workers. This fear grows when workers, students and other grassroots people protest in large numbers, and when those protests move from marches towards civil disobedience and strikes which disrupt business as usual.   If the anti-war movement moves in this direction, it will create an enormous amount of pressure on the government to meet our demands.   Although mass civil disobedience is more powerful than a march, it would be a mistake for the movement to stop building the big marches.   In Aotearoa and around the world, it is the size and unity of the massive peace protests that have given activists the courage to take direct action.   British socialists make this point well: "The massive demonstrations have encouraged action like the school strikes, the walkouts and strikes last   Thursday and the train driver's boycott of arms supplies in Motherwell."   Strikes are the most powerful form of direct action. But political strikes, such as a strike against the war, are illegal under the Employment Relations Act.   If the wider anti-war movement embraces mass civil disobedience, it will break down the barrier between "legal" and "illegal" protest. This will make it easier for workers to take anti-war strike action in the future. Ideas for action   Here are my ideas for mass civil disobedience. They could all be described as "open actions" because there is no in-built limit on the number of people involved. For example, ten people could do a sit-in, but if 100 or 1000 people turn up to join in, it would be even better. Sit-ins   Sit-ins when people occupy an area - roads, parks, buildings - and wait until the cops arrive and then either get up or get dragged away, have a long history in the peace movement.   They are "mass actions" in that they rely on a group of people, not individuals, and the form of protest does not limit the numbers who can be involved, the more people the better. Sit-in can flow easily from a march. For example, in September 2000 an Auckland march in solidarity with protests against the World Economic Forum in Melbourne ended with a sit-in at the Australian consulate. Blockades   In the tradition of the anti-capitalist protests in Seattle and Melbourne, mass pickets could stop people coming and going from target buildings.   These have several advantages over an inside sit-in; it's easier for people to join a blockade once it starts, a blockade is outside the building and so more visible, and it doesn't matter if police are already guarding the building ­they get blockaded too. Targets   Auckland has a US, British and Australian consulate, Wellington has the embassies and Christchurch has a US airforce base at its airport. A focus on our own government's role makes finding targets easier. Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch all have Ministry of Defence or military offices in the central city. Another target could be Inland Revenue Department offices, under the slogan such as: "No more tax money for war - recall NZ forces". Likewise government departments like the Ministry Of Foreign Affairs and Trade could be targeted to highlight the murder for meat / bombs for butter US free trade deal. Pickets or sit-ins at the offices of government MPs could demand that they get of the fence and actively oppose the war. These could be combined with building an anti-war group in that area.

Labour should 'rethink relations' with the US by Keith Locke MP, Green Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson   The people of New Zealand can take a bow for making sure our government didn't commit troops to Iraq.   Right from when a US-led invasion of Iraq was seriously mooted, Labour MPs were under huge public pressure not to allow New Zealand's participation.   Overwhelmingly, Labour activists were antiwar, and this viewpoint was strongly reflected in Labour's caucus.   The anti-war feeling in New Zealand is also the legacy of the big anti-Vietnam war demonstrations and the movement for a nuclear-free country.   However, it was not all plain sailing to keep New Zealand out of the war. In earlier stages Labour was oscillating between two considerations, one that there wasn't a "clear and present" danger from Iraq, and therefore an invasion would not be justified, and the other was to abide by a UN decision, whatever that might be, even if it endorsed a war.   People like Phil Goff attacked the Greens for being inconsistent. If you really support the UN you have to abide by its decisions, he said.   We replied that the UN security council can make mistakes, particularly under US pressures, and we were not obliged to support wrong decisions ­ such as the sanctions regime which was so harmful to the Iraqi people.   In the end, the popular movement, particularly as reflected through the French and German governments' positions, stopped the UN endorsing a war, and Labour went along with that.   However, it is clear that Labour still wants to be in the good books in Washington, particularly to get a free trade agreement, and hasn't rocked the boat in other aspects of the political and defence relationship.   Labour stays engaged in the so-called "war on terrorism", with officers on staff with "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan.   It has been a little embarrassing to them, particularly when there have been accusations against the US of bombing civilian areas, torturing suspects, and getting involved in in-fighting between the warlords.   Labour has put people off the scent by simply refusing to discuss what the New Zealand SAS or other officers have been doing in Afghanistan.   Labour might also be pleasing the Bush administration by staving off local criticism of the role of our frigate Te Mana is playing in the Gulf, and the use to which the Waihopai satellite communications interception station is put.   Whatever their intended functions, both are in practice helping America in the war against Iraq.   One of the tasks of the frigate is to escort US warships through the Straits of Hormuz, and not many Iraqis would be happy with the "explanation" that we are only defending those ships from Al Qaeda terrorists (none of whom have ever been discovered).   The Waihopai station is also part of an integrated five-nation Echelon network, dominated by the US National Security Agency.   Although the government has assured us, in response to my questions in the House, that New Zealand has "sovereign control" over Waihopai, there is simply no practical way for New Zealand to control the way that the NSA filters the huge number of phones, faxes and e-mails passing through Waihopai.   The NSA puts thousands of key word combinations, phone and fax addresses into the filtering system.   A recent US Congressional document lists Waihopai (along with the SAS) as New Zealand's contribution to the war in Afghanistan, so it is reasonable to expect that information passing through it may be used for the war on Iraq. Waihopai should be closed down.   The Greens have been pressing Labour to take a leading role internationally in trying to stop the war.   For example, it could have initiated moves to call the UN general assembly together to tell the Bush, Blair and Howard to get their troops out.   Greenpeace and other organizations have been pushing for this.   The Greens are pushing for a whole rethink of New Zealand's relations with Australia, Britain and the United States.   The war is shaking up everyone's thinking, and New Zealand being subservient to these powers, as has often been the case, is much less attractive to New Zealanders.

Peace movement should support the government by Greg Presland, chair of the New Lynn Labour Party & Waitakere City Councillor (personal capacity).   We live in very interesting times.   I consider that I am on the Left of the Labour Party but a "moderate" Lefty.   For most of my life international relations have been dominated by the Cold War.   Most of the countries of the world aligned themselves behind one or other of the superpowers and any potential change in allegiance was considered to be a significant event.   For instance, I can remember in the 1980s poor Grenada being invaded by the USA after electing a Leftist government.   As history shows, the Soviet Union folded under the strain of the arms race and the need to continuously pour resources into an increasingly hungry military machine. The US was left in charge of the world, or so they thought.   The one remaining body in their way was the United Nations, a body that the US always has had problems accepting.   The Cold War meant that the security council of the United Nations rarely avoided a veto but following the end of the Cold War hopes were high that a civilised structure of international governance would evolve.   The goal must be for a world where international relations are based on well defined principles and disputes and differences are dealt with in a structured way. US privilege   The United States occupies a privileged position, with about 5% of the worldıs population but control of half of the world's resources.   Its current international policies appear to have as their primary aim the preservation of this position of privilege.   The US also spends approximately half of the $900 billion that the world spends each year on military budgets. This figure is especially chilling when it is considered that $40 billion is all that is required to ensure the essentials of life to everyone on the planet.   I consider that we should be very afraid at the prospect of a US thinking that it can use military force to further its interests.   My two daughters and I have been on the recent protest marches against the Iraq war.   I am totally opposed to the concept of war. The only justification for military action is, I believe, where there is broad consensus established within the United Nations and the humanitarian imperatives are clear. The current war in Iraq meets neither of these conditions.   It is heartening to see the widespread protests throughout the world and the expressions of opposition that have come from many different nations, organisations and groups.   I am proud to say that I have been part of this and I drafted the resolutions recently passed by the Waitakere City expressing its opposition to the war and in support of continued diplomatic action.   What I have found hard to fathom about the recent protests is the groups that have used the protests to denigrate the New Zealand government.   I believe that it is vital that a mass movement is built but at the same time I believe that this governmentıs line has been really good, they have emphasised that unilateral action is bad, the inspections are important and should continue, and diplomatic means should be used rather than military action to resolve the situation in Iraq.   When this governmentıs response is compared to that of England or Australia the difference is startling.   Helen Clark may not have trumpeted Labour's conviction for peace from the rooftops but we are dealing with the 300 pound bully called USA which does not enjoy opposing views being expressed verses our very beautiful but very small country and her discretion is understandable.   Despite the pressure, the government has adopted a progressive independent line and enunciated it clearly, most recently to the UN on March 27.   The opening words of the New Zealand speech were, "The New Zealand Government deeply regrets the breakdown of the diplomatic process and the hostilities which are now under way".   The local Labour Party held a meeting recently concerning the Iraq situation. It was fascinating. We had a lecturer in international law present, we also had members of the Australian Labour Party and the English Labour Party.   There was a great deal of informed discussion and consensus against the war.   The feeling of the meeting was relief that our government had not succumbed to the pressure and opposed what is clearly a stupid and foolhardy action.   This government is not part of the problem. It deserves support for what is a principled and ethical stand.   The local peace movement in my opinion could build a substantial coalition against the war if it acknowledged that this government should be supported in its stand.   The people of Iraq deserve our maximised support and perhaps our barbs should be reserved for the real villains ­ Bush, Blair and Howard.

Labour should listen to the anti-war protests by Grant Brookes, editor of Socialist Worker Monthly Review.   Tens of thousands of people around New Zealand have taken to the streets in protest at this war.   These people, as Keith says, "can take a bow for making sure our government didn't commit troops to Iraq".   The movement on the streets has expressed, and strengthened, the huge anti-war feeling in this country.   The pressure of protests so far has nudged the government away from passive acceptance of whatever the security council decided to telling the UN there was "no cause" for war at this time.   It has prompted prime minister Helen Clark to over-rule her foreign minister, Phil Goff, and say that New Zealand would not be legitimising a US conquest of Iraq by sending in peacekeepers after the fighting stops.   Greg argues that now there is little more Labour can do against the "300 pound bully" in Washington.   But as the New York Times commented last month, "There may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion".   The mass of the world's workers outweighs George Bush, and Labour could stand up to the US if they called on workers' support.   But Labour's position on the war is not being driven solely by the protests or the anti-war opinions of workers.   Helen Clark told the Listener last month that she spoke against war in Iraq in a meeting with British prime minister Tony Blair in April last year, before a single protest took place here.   She was concerned that war would undermine the "rules-based international order" which, she says, includes the World Trade Organisation.   At bottom, Labour's position is based on their desire for more free trade deals which benefit New Zealand business, but which cost workers' jobs at home and further impoverish Third World nations.   Commitment to a free trade deal with America also explains why Labour has refused to condemn the invasion.   An article in Britain's Guardian newspaper last month by renowned Egyptian journalist Hani Shukrallah says that opposition to war in the West has had a "profound effect on popular consciousness in Egypt and in the rest of the Arab world".   Helen Clark's mild criticisms of the invasion caused a stir when they were published in the anti-war Arab Times in Saudi Arabia.   If the New Zealand government publicly condemns this war, as it should, it will help in building the anti-war movement around the world.   Labour should also withdraw the frigate Te Mana.   Three days into the war, Helen Clark repeated her claim that Te Mana is not involved in the war on Iraq.   Te Mana's mission includes "escorting United States and coalition vessels through the Straits of Hormuz" into the Persian Gulf. One of them, the USNS Watkins, is shown in the photo below.   As Clark was making her statement, US and British warships were hunting the Persian Gulf for Iraqi patrol boats and speedboats that had slipped away undetected.   Naval commanders expressed concern about possible "suicide attacks" by Iraqi speedboats packed with explosives.   Does our prime minister expect us to believe that Te Mana would not open fire on Iraqi vessels threatening to blow up unarmed US transport ships like the Watkins?   The fact is, Te Mana is playing a military role in the war, protecting US war convoys as they sail into the combat zone.   Back home, the spy base at Waihopai near Blenheim is also implicated in the war.   The government's commitment to keeping up the flow of intelligence to the US was underscored last month when they announced the deployment of troops from Woodbourne air force base to guard the spy station for the duration of the war. Waihopai, as Keith says, should be closed down.   Greg finally argues that the peace movement could build a substantial coalition against the war if it fell in behind the government.   Building a substantial coalition is indeed a goal that the movement should aim for. Labour Party members and supporters should be ­ and are ­ welcome in the anti-war coalitions around the country.   High profile Labour Party members, like Christchurch's mayor Gary Moore, are already supporting anti-war coalitions which are targeting the government.   Many workers may vote Labour, but they have no great love for the government. Backing the government will not motivate large numbers of people to join the anti-war movement.   On the other hand, if the movement stopped protesting against the assistance our government is giving to America's war, they would easily become subordinated to Labour's pro-capitalist agenda.   On March 22, two days after the invasion, the movement in Auckland mobilised 8,000 people onto the streets against the war.   At a closing rally, thousands expressed their support for a series of demands put forward by organisers from Global Peace & Justice Auckland.   "We call on the New Zealand government to condemn the US-led invasion of Iraq and the US policy of pre-emptive military strikes", they said.   "We call on the government to withdraw our frigate Te Mana from the Gulf and withdraw all New Zealand military personnel from the war region."   Labour should listen to these protesters.

Fiery portrait by Farah Reza   The film Frida explores the life of Frida Kahlo, the Mexican artist and socialist.   Frida was an artist of startling power, and was married to the artist Diego Rivera.     She died tragically early at the age of 47, nursed by Rivera.   The film shows that during her short life Frida was artistically and politically active.   The phase in Kahlo and Rivera's lives when they take the exiled Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky and his wife into their home is briefly touched upon.   Trotsky is depicted as a courageous and intelligent socialist who stood on the right side of history. His anti-fascist and anti-Stalinist politics are sympathetically portrayed.   Kahlo's part in Rivera's life in the US, where he is commissioned to paint a mural for the millionaire Rockefeller, is explored with depth.   She longs to paint and live alongside ordinary people in Mexico, and warns Rivera away from his luxury-loving, commission-seeking side.   When his mural is going to be pulled down by Rockefeller owing to the portrait of Lenin on it, she states that "if you lie with dogs, you will catch fleas".    Kahlo's unflinching honesty as a socialist and artist comes through with force in the film. The political references in the film might be lost on someone who doesn't know about the political period Kahlo lived through.   But the excellent performances from Salma Hayek as Kahlo and Alfred Molina as Rivera make the film a pleasure to watch.   It's not too late to catch Frida. The film is being given a long run and is still screening in smaller movie theatres.

Broadening the anti-war movement The organisation that publishes this magazine is a nationwide organisation of activists. Join Socialist Worker and get involved in building an organisation dedicated to workers' struggles against capitalism and war. AUCKLAND   Outrage at Bush's war is fuelling the movement. The passionate and huge protest on March 22 shows which way we are headed up here.   Our branch organised two engaging public forums last month ­ "The Struggle for Women's Liberation" after International Women's Day, and "Spread the Struggle that can Stop the War"  after the March 22 protest.   Both forums were full of debate and discussion, especially over the role of direct action in a mass movement.   On our Saturday stalls outside Borders bookshop on Queen Street we are taking a big banner for people to sign and sign-up sheets to get involved in the movement. The first time we took these forms out we got 60 names.   Our work has resulted in two new members in the last month. One of them has helped us set up a regular anti-war stall on AUT campus. HAMILTON   Over 250 people marched against the war in Hamilton on March 29.   The protest, which began in Garden Place and ended with a "die-in" outside the Council Chambers, was a student initiative.   Shoppers smiled and waved. A fire engine waved and cheered and gave us the peace sign.   Before the march, a group of media arts students went to the office of the student union at Waikato Polytech to ask them to take a stand against the war.   They gave us the use of their photocopier for leaflets and allowed us to hang anti-war banners off the building. But we are also asking them to make their own opposition more visible.   People on the protest took Socialist Worker leaflets readily. So did workers in a pub near the march route. We gave out over 300 of them.   In the last month, two people have joined Socialist Worker in Hamilton ­one of them a former member who wants to get active again. This month we are starting to hold branch meetings.   Getting anti-war leaflets out to groups of workers is our next aim.   We plan to talk to a Socialist Worker supporter about taking leaflets into work at Waikato Hospital. BAY OF PLENTY   Anti-war activity remains the focus for Socialist Worker members in Rotorua and Tauranga.   We had a small but lively protest of 70 people in Rotorua on March 22.   Socialist Worker leaflets and Rotorua Anti-War Movement leaflets were distributed to 11 worksites through networks of union delegates.   One of us was delegated to go to Auckland to meet with Global Peace and Justice about improving national co-ordination.   This also gave us ideas about organising. We are working with a very wide range of groups to help set up a  Global Peace and Justice Group in Tauranga. WELLINGTON   Wellington Socialist Worker members have thrown themselves into building the anti-war movement over the last month.   We are involved in printing posters for Peace Action Wellington, pasting them up, running stalls, distributing leaflets and writing press releases to help publicise anti-war actions. One of our members, a singer, performed at the rally on the March 22 Day of Action.   Socialist Worker also has a growing number of supporters helping us to distribute Socialist Worker leaflets in unionised worksites around Wellington.   Last month, we got anti-war leaflets out to factory workers at Griffins, to rail workers, seafarers, hospital workers and office workers commuting home from Wellington railway station. Hundreds were distributed in all.   Final figures aren't in yet, but we also sold around 250 copies of Socialist Worker Monthly Review.   Aside from anti-war activity, we also took up an invitation to speak at the Wellington Peoples Forum on "The threat from GATS".

No friend of peace   "I'm with Helen Clark on Iraq", declared NZ Herald columnist Diana Wichtel."This Council strongly supports the New Zealand Government's stance", read a resolution passed in Waitakere City.   A petition being circulated by Auckland officials from the Council of Trade Unions "endorses" a statement on Iraq by foreign minister Phil Goff.   Recent weeks have seen an out-pouring of support for Labour from the corporate-owned media, the establishment and top union officials.   They back Clark's expressions of "regret" about the outbreak of war in Iraq.   But they don't ask what Labour is doing to stop it.   In recent months, the government has quietly stepped up military deployments to the war zone.   New Zealand military personnel are now working with US forces in Afghanistan, Bahrein, the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf of Oman, at US Central Command in Florida and right here in New Zealand.   Top of the list are the frigate Te Mana, escorting US war convoys into the Persian Gulf, and the spy base at Waihopai which feeds intelligence information directly to the headquarters of the US National Security Agency in Washington.   As Green MP Keith Locke writes elsewhere in this magazine, "Whatever their intended functions, both are in practice helping America in the war against Iraq".   Further deployments of an air force Orion and a Hercules are planned.   US secretary of state Colin Powell says that 46 countries have signed up to America's "coalition of the willing".   The coalition, he said, includes 15 nations "who are providing assistance but do not wish to be named".   As the editorial in the Dominion Post pointed out, "New Zealand, being part of the intelligence network, could well be on the list".   Regardless of whether New Zealand is a signed-up member, our government is now providing far more assistance to America's war than many coalition members.   Clark has refused to condemn the United States, Britain or Australia.   Despite the death and carnage these aggressors are bringing to Iraq, she continues to call them "New Zealand's oldest and closest friends".   So long as she's helping allies like these, whatever the media tries to tell us, Helen Clark is no friend of peace.

Labour puts profits before peace by Grant Brookes   "With the commencement of military action, New Zealand has turned its attention to ways in which we can help alleviate the suffering and loss of life which may threaten the civilian population."   Foreign minister Phil Goffıs words of concern for the suffering Iraqi people ring hollow.   On March 1", prime minister Helen Clark rejected out of hand a call from the Refugee Council to allow Iraqis fleeing the war to seek safety here.   And if Labour really cared about the loss of life, they would not be turning their attention away from stopping the war.   But Labour backed away from opposing the war for fear of jeopardising the trading interests of New Zealand business. In the same way, their policy for "rebuilding Iraq" will put New Zealand business first.   This will help strengthen the hand of union-busters around the world and here in New Zealand.   Auckland business consultant Stuart Bennett told readers of the National Business Review last month to look out for opportunities in Iraq's reconstruction.   "New Zealanders will be among management and technical professionals from around the world offered high-paying jobs to re-build Iraq's infrastructure", he said.   New Zealand bosses would be especially sought after, he added, for their experience in privatising state-owned industries, having done the same thing for years back home.   The kind of operator whoıll be granted the spoils of war "rebuilding Iraq" is revealed by the first deal signed by the US Agency for International Development.   Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) was awarded the contract to manage the port of Umm Qasr.   SSA was the owner of New Zealand Stevedores. They placed NZ Stevedores into liquidation in 1998, owing New Zealand watersiders $15 million in redundancy and holiday pay.   SSA then immediately re-registered as a new company, Southern Cross Stevedoring. The Waterfront Workers Union asked the Serious Fraud Office to investigate but only managed to recover $2 million of the money robbed from the workers.   SSA has also been named as a union-busting firm by the American waterfront union.   So far, the Labour government has announced $3.3 million in aid for Iraq.   They should provide aid to the Iraqi people whose lives have been devastated by war ­far more than this paltry sum.   $3.3 million is less than a third of what they spent sending the SAS to fight in Afghanistan.   The UN says nearly $5 billion is needed just to provide the basics of life for the next six months.   But the contracts for reconstruction must also be scrapped so that not a cent of the "aid" ends up in the pockets of the greedy profiteers ­ local and foreign ­ now lining up with their hands out.

Wellington protest targets Labour   Over 4,000 angry protesters took to the streets of Wellington on March 22 to express their rage at the outbreak of war in Iraq.   The march to the US embassy went via parliament, where the message to Helen Clark  was "Bring the frigate back!".   And confronting over 100 baton-wielding police, deployed behind steel fences ringing the embassy compound, they angrily demanded "No blood for oil!".   The great diversity of people on the march showed the breadth of opposition to war.   Maori, Pakeha and Pacific people raised their voices together. Arabs marched with Jewish people demanding "Peace! Now!"."Free, free Palestine!" rose up from Lambton Quay.   A group of Somalian women in traditional dress carried placards denouncing the war, while teenage skate boarders greeted the march at parliament gates, holding up boards with "No war" painted on the decks.   Young and old marched together, parents pushed prams and disabled people joined the protest in wheelchairs.   March organisers announced at points along the route that those wanting to engage in more active forms of protest should make their way to the front, while others should drop back.   At the opening rally in Civic Square, Canon Paul Ostreicher from the Anglican Church ­who was not a scheduled speaker ­had unexpectedly taken the microphone.   He said we should thank the New Zealand government for not doing what the Australia had done in supporting war and sending troops. There were some cheers around the Square.   But Don Carson from the Wellington Palestine Group responded. "Rather than congratulating the government", he said, "we should be asking them to put up their hands and say what side they're on". Frigate   As the march entered parliament grounds, organisers from Peace Action Wellington lead chants of "Bring back Te Mana!", "Bring the frigate back!".   At first, some people appeared confused. But gradually the chant was taken up by more and more of the march, until it rang out round the grounds.   The debate over Labour's position on the war going on inside people's heads was being reflected in the mass protest.   A banner covered in hand-prints in red paint was left on parliament steps bearing the messages "Not in our name"  and "Bring back the frigate".   At the embassy, protesters faced off against police for an hour of mass direct action, with too-ing and fro-ing along the fences and deafening chants.   Anti-war slogans were mixed with anti-capitalist chants ­ "People not profit!", "Whose streets? Our streets!" and "The people, united, will never be defeated!".   Cheers would go up as protesters lobbed missiles over the fence. Toilet rolls, eggs, paint bombs and offal pelted buildings in the embassy compound.   The police, under the glare of TV cameras and smarting from the reaction to their heavy-handed attacks on protesters at parliament two weeks earlier, held their line.   Protesters cried, "Who are you defending?!" and "Shame!" at the police. Some officers were visibly shaken and had to be relieved.   Faced with heavily reinforced defences around the embassy, protest organisers sounded the siren to signal the end of the action and rally people to leave as a group. Unions   The local Council of Trade Unions, the Maritime Union, the rail workers' RMT union and the National Distribution Union flew their banners on the march.   In the week beforehand, Wellington officials from the NDU toured worksites telling their members about the protest. E-mail notices were sent out by PSA delegates at Inland Revenue and by RMT officials.   But shamefully, officials from many unions stayed away or did little or nothing to mobilise their members.   Unionists inside PAW are pushing their leaders to advertise the next protest in the capital on April 12.

World's workers resist war The opening days of war in Iraq were met with mass protests and strikes around the world: BRITAIN: Over half a million people marched through London on March 22. It was the country's biggest ever demonstration in wartime. ITALY: The three main union federations immediately called a general strike when war began. The biggest strikes were in Milan, involving public sector workers and engineering workers. Around a million people joined anti-war protests. AUSTRALIA: In three days of protests over 150,000 people took to the streets. In Melbourne, 3,000 trade unionists walked off the job in anti-war strikes. GREECE: On March 21 trade unionists walked out in a general strike. The main union federation struck for three hours, more left wing unions stayed away for 24 hours. Over 200,000 workers from the public and private sectors took part in a union demonstration in Athens. SPAIN: At least a million people joined demonstrations on March 22. In Madrid, police opened fire on protesters with rubber bullets. EGYPT: Over 50,000 people marched to Tahrir Square in the centre of Cairo. UNITED STATES: Nearly 200,000 people protested in New York. They were undeterred by the arrest of 1,100 people in San Francisco two days earlier in protests described as "absolute anarchy" by the assistant police chief.

Iraq war threatens new Palestinian catastrophe by Grant Brookes   Just one day before bombing started in Iraq, US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice announced a huge aid package for Israel.   US backing for Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas could hardly be clearer.   The US agreed to hand over $10 billion to shore up Israel's sinking economy and increase its military power.   George Bush has made it clear that war in Iraq is only the first step in "reordering the Middle East".   Palestinian resistance to the occupation inspires millions across the region to stand up to Israel and the US.   This puts the Palestinians squarely in George Bush's sights.   Hardline members of the Israeli government are talking openly about the "transfer" of Palestinians ­ mass ethnic cleansing to drive the entire people from their land.   Bush would be unlikely to actively oppose this given the increasing co-operation between US and Israeli forces.   Military officials have confirmed that Israeli tactics used in the occupied West Bank and Gaza are being studied for the assault on Baghdad.   Anti-war coalitions around the world, including Global Peace & Justice Auckland and Peace Action Wellington, have taken up the demand for a free Palestine as part of opposing the war.   Supporting the struggle to liberate Palestine is essential to resisting US imperialism.

General strike rocks Zimbabwe by Daphne Lawless   Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe is accelerating its attacks on workers, students and peasants who oppose his ZANU-PF party's dictatorial rule.   The BBC reported on March 24 that "government security forces have arrested and beaten hundreds of people following last week's widely observed general strike".   Zimbabwean police admit to having arrested about 400 opposition members.   There are many reports of torture and sexual abuse by pro-government forces.   At the insistence of Australia, Britain and New Zealand, Commonwealth sanctions against Zimbabwe were renewed on March 20.   New Zealand's foreign minister, Phil Goff, said in support of this, "Legislation, threats and intimidation have controlled and silenced the press and judiciary; opponents of the regime continue to be subjected to violence and arbitrary arrests, and millions of Zimbabweans face starvation through wanton mismanagement of the economy and corruption".   This is all true. But the real reason these governments oppose the Mugabe regime is because of its seizure of farmland from the rich white minority.   Mugabe is no friend of ordinary Zimbabweans. Despite his tough talk against "imperialism", his government continues to implement IMF-backed reforms which make ordinary Zimbabweans poorer.   Also, the seized farmland has mainly gone to the military and to cronies of ZANU-PF.   But Western businesses cannot stand to see their investments confiscated.   US president George W Bush announced at the start of March the imposition of sanctions preventing Americans from doing business with the  ZANU-PF leadership.   Britain's Conservative Party has even called for military intervention in Zimbabwe.   As in Iraq, the West wants "regime change" to replace a hostile government with a friendly one.   However, the last thing that Zimbabwean capitalists and their Western allies like Phil Goff ­ want is a genuine popular uprising that might sweep away both Mugabe and the capitalist system he administers.   The recent general strike in Zimbabwe, organised by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was described as a "complete success" in most major towns.   However, the MDC has moved strongly away from its original base of working-class support in order to gain support from local employers and their Western supporters.   Instead of consistently supporting mass action to get rid of Mugabe, they have secretly negotiated for a "government of national unity" with ZANU-PF.   In addition, they have expelled a socialist MDC MP, Munyaradzi Gwisai, for supporting land redistribution for the benefit of ordinary Zimbabweans.   Any Western intervention in Zimbabwe would simply replace Mugabe's thugs with an MDC leadership now totally dedicated to completing his free-market reforms.   In contrast, the Zimbabwean people showed last month they are capable of mass action which could lead to them seizing control of their own factories and farmland.

Kinleith strikers appeal for support by Grant Brookes   More than 250 workers at Carter Holt's Kinleith mill near Tokoroa were entering their fourth week of strike action as Socialist Worker Monthly Review went to press.   For the first time in recent memory, workers at a major plant in New Zealand were on an all-out indefinite strike.   The mainstream media have imposed a news blackout on the dispute.   Wellington's Dominion Post devoted a total of seven column inches to the first four weeks of strike action.   Even local community newspapers in the company town have sidelined the workers' stories.   The dispute is over stalled contract negotiations.   Carter Holt wants to reduce safety standards by scrapping the on-site fire brigade and requiring production workers to train for fire-fighting and emergency rescue duties.   They also want to cut pay for most workers by $10,000.   But the anger driving the strike comes from deeper issues still. Kinleith worker Tony Hurlihy told Socialist Worker, "They're trying to smash the union".   Job cuts at Kinleith have reduced the workforce from over 2,000 to the 280 employed by Carter Holt today.   Last year, production of paper at Kinleith was a record 532,000 tonnes. Carter Holt's profits rose by more than 400%.   Chief executive Chris Liddell gave himself a 32% pay rise, which took his salary to $1.4 million, before moving on to greener pastures in November.   Analysts expect company profits to double again this year.   Management have threatened strikers with the closure of the mill. But strike leader Graham Holmes told Socialist Worker these threats were just to put the pressure on.   In 1999, the company spent $300 million upgrading the plant. This would be money down the drain if it closed.   Workers have set up a 24 hour picket across the railway line into the mill to prevent stockpiled goods from getting to market. Rail workers have refused to cross the picket line.   Local Labour MP Mark Burton, as defence minister, ordered the frigate Te Mana to the Gulf. While he says he is "very disappointed" in the company, he has not offered to intervene for the workers.   But the strikers themselves are speaking at worksites across the country, including other Carter Holt factories, to raise solidarity.   Support has flowed in from a wide range of unions. Prison officers from nearby Waikeria Prison turned up out of the blue with $700 worth of groceries. But more financial support is urgently needed.   If the company defeats the strike, it will mean pressure for similar cuts goes on at Carter Holt's competitors like Fletcher Forests. And it will give employers across the country more confidence to go on the attack.   Carter Holt was also behind attacks on the watersiders' union in 2001.   The strike has stopped all production at the mill and is costing the company $3.5 million a week. With wider support from other workers, the Kinleith strikers can win. Build solidarity to win   Local officials from the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union are organising meetings at other worksites so Kinleith strikers can appeal for wider union support. EPMU officials are also speaking to meetings themselves.   Building solidarity in this way is the key to winning the strike.   It also drives a coach and horses through the official policies of the EPMU.  Throughout the 1990s, EPMU officials echoed bosses' claims that workers must accept cuts to make New Zealand businesses more "internationally competitive".   They pushed the idea that unions should work in "partnership" and in "good faith" with employers.   But as strike leader Graham Holmes said to Socialist Worker Monthly Review, "Good faith bargaining is a lot of rubbish".   Sending speakers out is an important way to raise financial support.   When the company sees that workers are digging in for the long haul, it makes them think twice about their weekly losses of $3.5 million.   Staying out indefinitely puts pressure on management to return to the negotiating table with a more reasonable attitude.   But if management don't budge after prolonged pressure, workers should be prepared to escalate the action and call on the wider solidarity they've built up.   Carter Holt employs around 4,000 workers, most of them in New Zealand. If they all struck, it would cost the company around $80 million a week in lost revenue.   Secondary strikes by groups of workers not covered by the employment agreement at Kinleith would be illegal under Labour's Employment Relations Act.   But legal channels have already failed Kinleith workers over and over again.   A court bid did not stop Carter Holt slashing 390 jobs last year.   The EPMU leaders now building solidarity for Kinleith should be prepared to call workers out at other Carter Holt sites to win.

Prostitution Reform Bill strengthens workers' rights by Daphne Lawless   Further progress on a law to decriminalise prostitution has been delayed until later this month.   MPs spent two and a half hours on March 26 discussing Labour MP Tim Barnett's Prostitution Reform Bill, but could not even reach a decision on its title.   In February, over two years after the Bill was first introduced to parliament, it passed its second reading by a narrow 62 votes to 56.   Most National MPs voted against it.   From the start National MP Brian Neeson has raved that decriminalising prostitution will undermine the family.   "Morals have collapsed," he fumed. "Our value system has shrunk and fallen over."   But Neeson and his fellow National MPs have no problem with the "morality" of the US-led butchery in Iraq that's ripping families limb from limb.   Prostitution, having sex for money, ­has never been illegal in this country. What is currently illegal is soliciting (offering to have sex for money), keeping a brothel, or living off the earnings of another person's prostitution.   The Bill would remove all specific legal measures dealing with prostitution and put it under the same laws as other kinds of employment.   This would mean that prostitutes would have the same basic guarantees on health, safety and employment rights as any other worker.   Many MPs have proposed amendments to the Bill in the committee stage. Most prominent have been those put forward by Labour MPs Phil Goff and Dianne Yates.   Goff, with an eye on the conservative opinion in his Mt Roskill electorate in Auckland's "Bible belt", proposes keeping some restrictions on prostitution.   Ms Yates, who describes herself as "a radical feminist", wants to criminalise the clients of sex workers.   She suggests that this will discourage the sex industry while not victimising the prostitutes themselves.   But Yates' arguments are not borne out by the experience of such laws in Sweden.   Campaigner Craig Young reports that under these laws, "female sex workers have been driven into backstreet areas where their occupational safety cannot be insured, and face increased risks from sexual violation and psychotic misogynist clients who may injure them, or worse".   No-one is claiming that prostitution is a good career opportunity.   Prostitutes are overwhelmingly working class women who don't have bright career prospects and who have no chance of surviving on meagre state benefits.   Some prostitutes are students who are made desperate by huge levels of debt.   Others are transsexual women who must pay massive medical bills and are denied better jobs by prejudiced employers.   Sleazy massage parlour operators know this. They place advertisements in the newspapers like this one from the NZ Herald: "Benefits cut off? Family to support? Why not try dancing at Showgirls!"   Women, and men, become prostitutes not because of some moral flaw, or because they believe it's a glamorous lifestyle.   It is because of financial need. And the current laws on sex work makes such people even more vulnerable.   Unfair dismissals, withholding payment and fines for offences such as "wearing the wrong stockings" are common in the industry.   One sex worker has told of how her earnings for a day of work were confiscated as punishment for not turning up to work due to illness.   Bosses can get away with this only because sex workers have no legal rights.   The laws also allow police to bully and harass sex workers. Yvette tells of how a person in Wellington was arrested before Christmas for "brothel keeping" in their own home.   Auckland police arrested three women in a similar raid in January, at the same time as warning prostitutes to stay off the streets for fear of attacks.   Prostitutes say that some police abuse their powers and blackmail them for sex. An official report on the police leaked to the media in 1998 said this practice was rampant.   In addition, a person convicted of soliciting or brothel keeping has difficulty travelling, getting finance or another job. This makes it more difficult for workers to quit the sex industry.   And illegality also puts the workers at more danger of disease. Carrying condoms or other safer-sex equipment can be used as evidence against them.   Audrey Young commented recently in the NZ Herald that "the divide (between pro- and anti-decriminalisation supporters) is about whether prostitution is employment or exploitation".   But sadly, under capitalism all employment is exploitation. Employers get rich from the labour and oppression of others.   Women should not be for sale. But in the labour market, all workers have to sell themselves to survive, no matter what kind of work we do.   Prostitutes deserve the same rights as any other worker, and decriminalisation is an essential step to giving them that protection.   Labour MPs who want to "protect" women from prostitution and exploitation by pimps should focus instead on raising benefits, improving access to free healthcare for all and restoring universal student allowances.   That would help eliminate the causes of prostitution, and be a real step towards women's liberation.

"I want to work safely and without fear" Yvette Astre ­her working name ­ is a Wellington prostitute. She is alarmed MPs are increasingly viewing decriminalisation as a moral issue and are turning against it. To her, it is all about human rights. -----------   I am a prostitute. Had my circumstances been different it is unlikely I would have chosen prostitution as a career.   But, as things are at present, it is the only way I can create a better life for myself.   Having made my choice, I want to be able to work safely and without fear.   This is why I fully support decriminalisation. It is the best way to reduce exploitation and abuse of women in the sex industry.   I have researched the alternatives but consider these would only make matters worse.   Current prostitution laws deny sex workers human rights everyone else in this country takes for granted.   Prostitutes in New Zealand are currently convicted and fined under our present very ambiguous laws.   In order for me to advertise in The Dominion Post I had to register with the police as a prostitute. Vulnerable   Having done this, I am now in a very vulnerable situation because of the brothel-keeping laws.   These have been interpreted so widely that even a prostitute's own bedroom can be considered a brothel.   My flat is totally unsuitable for working from ­instead I have the use of a room near the city centre.   I keep my condoms etc for safe sex in my flat just as other adults do but because I am on the police register as a prostitute the police can enter my flat with a search warrant, take my supplies and business records and prosecute me for brothel-keeping.   I understand this happened to a person in Wellington just before Christmas.   The Employment Relations Act does not cover sex workers.   Consequently the owners of sex venues charge their workers bonds, fees and fines that would be illegal in any other industry.   Would a government department, say, get away with demanding a $500 bond when a female employee started work?   Would that department ­or any employer, generally ­ get away with imposing a $20 fine on female employees when they were late, away sick, for not wearing the right stockings ­or for anything else they might think up?   How much the prostitute is paid is entirely up to venue owners. The women are powerless to contest these arbitrary actions.   I am currently going through a gender change to become a woman and have been working as a woman.   As a man I regularly used the services of prostitutes in a particular parlour in Wellington.   It had a reception on the ground floor but the "massage" rooms were on the first and second floors.   When the women were upstairs alone with clients they were very vulnerable.   I don't know if there was an alarm system but even if there was, help could take several minutes to arrive if a client turned violent.   Many government departments have panic buttons or other safety precautions in their interview rooms ­ no doubt as a requirement of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 2002.   Employers are required to take every reasonable precaution to protect employee's safety.   Prostitutes are not entitled to such protection, yet they face great risks.   In fact many parlour owners condone clients' violence against their workers.   This is a form of legalised abuse of women.   Decriminalisation will also reduce violence to women in another way.   Because of current prostitution laws and the way police interpret them, many sex workers are afraid to report incidents of violence for fear of prosecution themselves.   Many men know this, so those who get a perverted pleasure out of beating up women pick on sex workers because of the greater chance of getting away with it. Women working as escorts are at particular risk.   If a client pays cash for a hotel room then there would be no reason to give his real name.   He could disappear before his savagery is discovered.   I ask that the Bill be considered a human rights issue, not a moral one.   Prostitutes are just like any other person, with feelings, hopes and dreams just like everyone else.   And we are entitled to the same human rights.| (This letter first appeared in Contact, a free weekly newspaper delivered to homes in the greater Wellington region. It is re-printed here with Yvette's consent.)

top

SWMR Archive 2003 main

SWMR Archive 2003 main