To be sure, this has both opened the door for the mass protests which have occurred here and has influenced them to some extent.

However, I believe it was wrong for your article to conclude from this that the protests in London to mark the state visit of U.S. imperialism’s executive director aided the British ruling class.

These protests were not motivated primarily by anti-American, British chauvinism but rather formed part of an antiwar campaign capable of mobilizing millions of people who are opposed to the U.S./UK war drive for a variety of different reasons: some because it wasn’t authorized by the United Nations; some because they think it leads to greater instability and more “terrorist” attacks in the world; others because they don’t believe in war; even more who believe that it is a war dictated by the interests of the oil corporations and other big business interests; others who think it is an unjust war against a third world country; and many who see it as part of continual imperialist aggression in the region headed by the Israeli state’s war against the Palestinian people.

In other words, this is a broad mass campaign involving a coalition of forces united by one thing: it is opposed to the U.S./UK war drive and the current occupation of Iraq. We might also add, and this is not purely incidental, that this same campaign has repeatedly condemned the Israeli occupation of Palestine and has featured this as a central part of its protests.

As a long-standing reader of the Militant, I have always considered it exemplary in the field of journalistic reporting of events. The recent reporting trip to Venezuela was a marvelous example of this tradition in which struggles and the viewpoints of their participants are reported factually, extensively, and not selectively solely to justify a predetermined position.

It seemed to me, however, that the author of your article broke with this tradition in choosing to report selectively from some of the speeches made by platform speakers and an article from the right-wing Daily Telegraph reporting the comments from a millionaire who was apparently in the demonstration. He also chose to make the comment that the size of the protests were smaller compared to previous marches when in fact this was one of the biggest ever mid-week protests held during working hours. In this manner, your reporter’s coverage of the event was selective to say the least.

The vast majority was there to protest against the occupation of Iraq and the so-called war against terrorism driven by U.S. imperialism and supported by its junior partner in Whitehall.

Brian Lyons
London, England
 
 
75 years of ‘Militant’
Re: “New York Meeting Celebrates 75 Years of the ‘Militant’” (December 15): I picked up a copy of your newspaper this weekend for the first time in many years and was pleased to see that you’re still around, and still “speaking truth to power,” as we used to say. I’ve lived in New York all my life, and your fine newspaper is linked in my memory with many political events and movements of the last decades. I even attended a meeting sponsored by your paper at which Malcolm X spoke! So keep up the good work.

Erik Shinn
New York, New York

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of interest to working people. 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