`Disappeared' in Ecuador
Earlier this month the book El Testigo (The Witness) hit the streets, and along with it television interviews with its author, former national police agent Hugo España. The book details the disappearance, torture and assassination of two brothers, Pedro and Santiago Restrepo. España says he participated in the killings.

What is emerging in Ecuador, as happened in Argentina, was a governmental campaign during the 1980's to eliminate political, student, and union activists. In Ecuador, it was during the 1984-88 period of President León Febres-Cordero that scores of activists disappeared. The revelations by a police participant have opened up a wide ranging debate here. The names of many others presumably "disappeared" by the police during that time are being publicized by the families.

More than half a dozen human rights groups based in this country and throughout Latin America have called for full scale investigations by professional anthropological forensic experts. In his book and public statements, España points to torture and murder operations at police stations just north of Quito and in the city of Cuenca. He explains the existence of secret cemeteries where bodies of others "disappeared" will be found.

Mark Friedman

Quito, Ecuador

Interested in social issues
The purpose of my letter is to find out how I can get your magazine, the Militant.

I live in Thessaloniki where I'm a member of a radio station - Radio Utopia. It is a radio station that has been set up by its members without taking money from any governmental or non-governmental source, and it doesn't broadcast any commercials. Also, the station keeps on broadcasting only with the financial support, the money of its members. Radio Utopia is dealing with social matters such as the rights of workers, antinationalistic activities, the rights of women, etc.

The subject matter of my program deals with the black people, the Indians and generally the oppressed people in America (white oppressed people as well).

The problem is that we haven't any recent information about the social situations in America.

D. A.

Thessaloniki, Greece

The socialist alternative
One need not be a Socialist to be a reader of the Militant, open eyes and a similar frame of mind will suffice. In the same regard it does not take a Masters degree in Political Science to realize that our current two-party system of government has become a Smorgasbord of corruption, scandal and "Business as usual" wheeling and dealing.

This weeks column by Megan Arney in reply to the Socialist concerned with voting for William Clinton as the lesser of two Evils was well stated. The point of the matter as I see it being if one perceived someone or something to be Evil, the degree of same is of little consequence. Conscience dictates you take an alternate course. This being the case although a registered Republican I shall cast my vote for the Harris/Garza ticket in November. Having seen the long hours put in petitioning to get the candidates on the ballot here in the northeast and the setbacks encountered in a system determined to deny their voice to be heard as witnessed recently in Rhode Island. The choice to vote Socialist became the right thing to do.

Having read this week's campaign article on Ms. Garza's tour of Iceland and Sweden and one prior about Mr. Harris in Australia and New Zealand a question comes to mind. As I'm sure campaign funds are limited would not moneys spent on travel to these countries be better spent in securing speaking venues here in the States? A candidate for the American Presidency speaking in Melbourne or Sydney does little to rouse the conscience of the American worker. If the campaign is to be taken seriously its candidates must be seen and heard as often as possible so their views may be known and understood. Though the chance for success seems remote, the right to speak out for change is paramount. Speak plainly, speak the truth and the people may begin to make alternate choices as I intend to.

J.B. Payne

Deer Park, New York

Britain's abortion laws
In her article Britain: abortion foes make little headway in "twins" case (Militant #33), Julie Crawford makes the point that the ruling class in this country has not been able to roll back the gains made in the fight for abortion rights. This was confirmed at the height of this summer's attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act. An opinion poll conducted for the right-wing Mail on Sunday newspaper reported that 81% of those questioned agreed that "It is important for women to have the right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy."

However, the article is wrong to say that the 1967 Act legalises a woman's right to choose. All abortions must be certified by two doctors (or by one in emergencies) and abortions are only legal if carried out on certain grounds. Basically, they are that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and that continuing the pregnancy would involve greater risk of injury to the mental and physical health of the woman or of any existing children of her family, than would terminating the pregnancy. Another clause allows abortion to prevent "grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman". In other words, a woman has to get two doctors to agree that she will crack up mentally or physically if she continues the pregnancy.

Furthermore, because a woman's right to choose has not been gained in law, the 1967 Act is subject to interpretation and enactment by the medical profession.

The August High Court injunction preventing a woman from aborting one of twin fetuses was the first time any anti- abortion group, in this case the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, has been successful in directly preventing doctors from performing an abortion in the United Kingdom. As well as putting pressure on individual doctors to limit their interpretations of the 1967 Act, such court rulings provide encouragement for those anti-abortion forces, including Members of Parliament, who want to bring forward legislation to further limit the 1967 Act.

Pro-choice campaigners need to reach out to the millions of people who do believe that it is a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. A recent mailing from the National Abortion Campaign explains "we need to prepare to be able to mobilise effectively...the pro-choice movement has always beaten any attack on the 1967 Act". One indication that this successful defense can be repeated came at the annual conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in early September. An emergency resolution reaffirming existing TUC policy in defence of the 1967 Abortion Act and for a woman's right to choose was carried unanimously.

Pamela Holmes

London, England

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home