The Militant(logo) 
    Vol.61/No.1           January 6, 1997 
 
 
Letters  
Questions on Yugoslavia
In the December 11 article, "Protest Shake Regime in Belgrade," I think some of the issues dealt with were not fully developed and could lead to confusion.

Under the economic crisis in Serbia the article seems to say this crisis is caused by the economic sanctions imposed in 1992 and mostly lifted in 1995. The sanctions have made a great impact, but the general economic decline has been part of the economic crisis of the Stalinist regime in Yugoslavia for the last 20 years.

Economic sanctions were used by Milosevic since 1992 as a club against the opposition. The lifting of the sanctions have focused popular anger against those in the bureaucracy who live high on the hog while the general populace go without.

Another part of the article on imperialist intervention leaves unanswered the question does the mobilizations against Milosevic open the door to intervention or make it more likely? I believe the answer is no. The last thing Washington needs or wants for their designs in the Balkans is a politically struggling working class. Clinton would much rather have a stable Stalinist government in Belgrade.

Rick Young

Chicago, Illinois

`Domestic violence' law
I was very interested in the article about the New Zealand "domestic violence" law. It is a dangerous new weapon of the government and police against working people. I would like to suggest, however, that the "battered woman syndrome" involves two separate issues. The first concerns the powers of the police.

New Zealand's new law allows the police to step in and apply for "protective measures" whenever they feel that a woman or her children "need" protection, whether or not they think they need it. This is a gross violation of the right to privacy and personal autonomy. To put it simply, what gives anyone else, let alone the government and police, the right to put someone's personal relationship on trial, when no one in the relationship asked for intervention. I also agree that this law will do very little to help the real victims of domestic violence or to solve the deeply-rooted oppression of women as a sex in capitalist society.

However, I think we need to look at this effort to increase the power of the government over working people separately from the "battered spouse" criminal defense. (The article's author feels that it should be rejected.)

The "battered spouse syndrome" defense is only available generally where it can be proved that a woman (or conceivably a man) suffered extreme and prolonged abuse - so severe that she virtually "snapped" and became violent. Without this defense, a woman who is convicted of killing her abusive spouse (or severely injuring him) would normally be sent to prison for at least 30 years.

The "battered spouse syndrome" defense is simply a recognition that the abused woman, herself a victim, is not a threat to society, and we should treat her with a degree of compassion.

By allowing her this special defense, we are in no way saying that we, as a society, condone her behavior. It is actually akin to an insanity defense in that we are recognizing that people can sometimes be so traumatized that they are not responsible for their actions - that they don't deserve to be punished (which is all the capitalist prison system does). In another sense, it is a recognition that there often aren't any real alternatives in our society for those who are abused. At best, they can turn to a crowded "shelter" for two weeks. Too often they return to an abusive relationship because our society doesn't provide adequate counseling, financial assistance, day care or decent jobs.

The "battered spouse syndrome" legal defense allows the victims to continue their lives, and hopefully to learn to make real contributions to society. We need to remember that there is a difference between what rights we fight to keep the capitalist class from taking away, and how victims fight back.

Vangie Eidsvik-Garza

Modesto, California

 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home