Why are Australian cities named after aristocrats from a country that once occupied them? The capital of Sri Lanka is not Mountbatten, and Kenya's capital isn't Churchill
OK, I admit it. I am a Tasmaniac. For two weeks, I've been having fun in the bottom of Down Under. Tasmania is wow! Hobart's harbour rivals Sydney's, and its backdrop, Mount Wellington, echoes Table Mountain in Cape Town. You can drive from the city centre to the 1,270-metre summit in 20 minutes. The nearby Tasman Peninsula, with its 25-metre sea cliffs, has some of the most spectacular ocean walks in the world. Although only a hop, skip and a jump from Antarctica, the shoreline is washed by aquamarine waters so bright and blue they look like the Caribbean. Don't ask me how. It is something to do with the chemical structure of the sand and light refraction.
I promised to be on my best behaviour in Tassie, but couldn't resist stirring a bit of controversy by calling for Australia's state capitals to be given their Aboriginal place names. Hobart, for example, would become Nibberluna. Why, I ask, are most Australian cities named after aristocrats from a country on the other side of the world? What's wrong with the names these places were given by the first inhabitants? The capital of Sri Lanka is not called Mountbatten and Kenya's capital isn't Churchill. Only a nation lacking in self-confidence and ashamed of its indigenous heritage names its cities after the ruling elite of a country that once invaded and occupied it. Wouldn't Aboriginal names be more appropriate, imaginative and unique? Over to you, Mr Howard. Or perhaps not. The Aussie PM can't even bring himself to say "sorry" for a genocide that nearly wiped out the Aboriginal people.
After 22 years' membership, I resigned from the Labour Party over its abandonment of socialism and internal party democracy. New Labour is run on democratic centralist lines. Everything is decided by The Dear Leader and his acolytes. Grass-roots members have no power. Winning the party back to socialism is a lost cause.
Time to move on, which is why I've joined the Greens. Left-wing friends say: how could you? But I say: why not? The Green Party's Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (www.greenparty.org) incorporates key socialist values. It rejects privatisation, free-market economics and globalisation, and includes commitments to public ownership, workers' rights, economic democracy, progressive taxation, and the redistribution of wealth and power. The Greens have produced a red-green synthesis integrating policies for social justice with policies for tackling global warming, environmental pollution, resource depletion and species extinction. How can any socialist disagree with that?
Are the working classes entitled to have showers in the 21st century? Not if you live in Lib Dem-controlled Southwark. My inner-city council estate is being "modernised". The Lib Dems have ruled that "working-class scum don't deserve showers"; we must make do with new baths. Well, they didn't actually use those words, but that seems to be their sentiment. Mind you, we aren't getting any old baths. We've been given ones with specially designed taps that cunningly prevent us from fixing our own shower attachments. The council is also installing new toilets that spray water over the seat and floor when they flush. Very modern, indeed.
The Pope's contempt for gay people is well known. Last year, he attacked same-sex marriages as "evil", dismissing loving gay relationships as "without any social value". He also vilified supporters of gay equality as "gravely immoral", and denounced legislation for homosexual human rights as a "deviant trend". The homophobia of His Holiness was on show again at the UN last month. An alliance of the Vatican and Islamic states blocked a UN Human Rights Commission vote that would have condemned the imprisonment, torture and murder of lesbians and gay men. In more than 70 countries, homosexuality remains illegal, and seven Islamic states execute sodomites. The Catholic Church in Britain doesn't go that far, but it faithfully follows the Vatican's illiberal lead. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor echoes the Pope's homophobic diktats approving a Catholic catechism that condemns gay relationships as "debased", "disordered" and a "grave depravity". His support for such intolerant invective strikes me as a tad hypocritical, given that he stands accused of failing to act against priests who sexually abused children.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
