UNITE! Info #224en: 2/2 Petition for nukeplant Bb 2
From: Rolf Martens (rolf.martens_at_mailbox.swipnet.se)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: oil shale redux?"
- Previous message: Rolf Martens: "UNITE! Info #224en: 1/2 Petition for nukeplant Bb 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:29:01 +0100
UNITE! Info #224en: 2/2 Petition for nukeplant Bb 2
[Posted: 08.12.04]
[Continued from part 1/2]
7. THE PROPAGANDA AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER FROM ITS
VERY BEGINNING ON HAS BEEN CLOSELY CONNECTED
WITH A PROPAGANDA AGAINST INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE
AND AGAINST ECONOMIC GROWTH
This makes it even clearer that the "technical reasons" for
shutting down nuclear power plants are pretexts for something
else.
Worth noting today is, for instance:
Some of the so-called protest marches against the Barsebäck
plant in the 1970s, which at that time some people could be
fooled into participating in, was organized by an alliance of
several parties, called "The Campaign against Örestad". [The
name referred to a supposed "ongoing coalescing" of some ci-
ties in Denmark and some in Sweden into a single city stradd-
ling the Öresund between the two countries, a so-called "Öre-
stad". - RM]
The protest call in the autumn of 1978 by that coalition ad-
vocated not only "immediate stop for the Barsebäck plant" but
also that all such plans as "the Öresund bridge, expansion of
[the airport] Sturup, a giant harbour in Landskrona and the
tunnel Helsingborg-Helsingør" [referring to some other, rather
small, cities nearby] be stopped. It also stated that "neither
coal, oil natural gas nor atomic power" were "acceptable"
energy sources.
To combat all industrial development, that is the common de-
nominator in this. Such and similar programmes, already then,
were aimed at creating large unemployment.
In Sweden and in other European countries there in the late
70s and early 80s also were created some new parties, which
had as their main aims to combat nuclear power, combat other
modern or relatively modern energy sources and combat economic
growth in society.
Almost all existing parties in Sweden then even before this
had changed their own programmes in the same direction. The
Swedish parliament took a decision on principle in 1975 that
"in the long run, energy use in the country was never to in-
crease".
A propaganda in that direction continues, at least as inten-
sively, today. Some people still are maintaining that "we´re
running out of oil", although the facts show that this is not
the case at all. Even more loudly, the mass media today are
maintaining that "the use of such fuels is causing an extra
and harmful greenhouse effect".
Is this a valid, actual, argument for the use and further con-
struction of nuclear power plants?
No. The proposition of there being a "harmful global warming
due to human activity" is false. It is another propaganda in-
vention by precisely those same forces in society who also so
intensively are combating nuclear energy. The common denomina-
tor of their actions precisely is this, to make all energy
scarce and expensive.
Actual and strong reasons for the use of nuclear technlogy
there are in abundance. They will not get improved by their
being combined with such an erroneous proposition, which only
aims to make other energy more expensive for most people.
8. IN THE "REFERENDUM" IN 1980, PEOPLE WERE
ALLOWED ONLY TO VOTE "NO", "NO" OR "NO".
THE "RESULT" OF THIS FANTASTIC PIECE OF
CHEATING "IS TO REMAIN AS GUIDELINE TODAY
AND FOR ALL FUTURE", SOME PERSONS SAY.
It is well-known that a large majority of all who live in Swe-
den today are in favour of nuclear power. When, on the contra-
ry, the most influential politicians want to close down all
such and now want to shut down Barsebäck 2, they once more are
going straight against this.
They are pretending that they instead "must take as their
guideline" "what the people said 24 years ago", and are main-
taining that in the so-called "referendum on nuclear power" in
1980, there was a "No" as a "result".
When, thus, they are saying that they want "to take as guide-
line" a - purported - public opinion a quarter of a century
ago, but not the actual one today, then one must suspect,
already on account of this, that it is some quite other inte-
rests than those of the people that these politician seek to
favour.
But that contempt for everything that might be called democra-
cy which they are showing up, by that which they are saying
today, also goes much further than this.
The people, you see, did not at all say "No" to nuclear power
in 1980. The "referendum" then was an unparallelled piece of
cheating, a giant swindle. A "No" was dictated in advance as
a "result" of it.
In this "referendum", three "proposals" were put forward.
People were called on to "vote in favour of" one out of these.
They all contained only some different "No:s" to nuclear
power. Nobody was allowed to vote in favour of any use what-
soever of nuclear power.
This may sound fantastic today to everybody who did not have
the opportunity to "participate" then. But you can find all
the texts on the "ballots" at:
http://www.mfk.nu/artiklar/politik/omrostning.html
[Which is in Swedish. English translations of the "ballot"
texts, not quite precise, can be found in the annual editions
of the "Statistical abstract, Sweden" published by a govern-
mental institution, the SCB, in paper form. Some pertinent
information on those texts is provided below. - RM]
The formation of this "referendum" we want to comment on in a
little more detailed way too. This since it shows so very
clearly that it is "from above", from the persons in power,
that the resistance against nuclear energy has always come,
not at all "from below", from the people, as all the media are
maintaining still today. And it shows how fanatical is this
resistance, on the part of certain politicians.
The "proposals" No. 1 and 2 had almost identical texts. All
the politicians and mass media maintained, before the "re-
ferendum", that those two were "Yes alternatives". This was
an untruth, in two ways:
Firstly, the three "proposals" were not put forward as alter-
natives to each other. That is to say, people were not called
on to compare them to each other and then reply to a question
about which of them was "the best" or "the least bad", but
were called on, instead, to pick out one of them and then
"vote in favour of" that "proposal", in its entirety. This
violated the existing law concerning referenda, and made a
certain blackmail swindle possible.
And above all, both of these "proposals", No:s 1 and 2, were
in reality 100% "No" "proposals".
They both started out with: "Nuclear power is phased out in
that tempo which is possible...". And they read, later in
their texts: "No further nuclear power construction [of
plants other than those then existing, or whose construction
had begun] is to take place". They thus meant "phasing-out",
a "No" to nuclear power for the future.
The politicians and the mass media also in advance said that
those two "proposals" at least contained statements saying
that "certain nuclear power plants were to be used", during a
transition period, that is, that they at least were half-way
"Yes-es". This too was an untruth. In order to see this, you
had to read a certain fantastic fraud sentence in "proposals"
1 and 2 correctly:
"In order to diminish oil dependence and while waiting for
renewable energy sources to become available, no more than[!!]
those 12 nuclear power reactions which today are in operation,
are completed or are under construction are used." (Yes, that
is how the parliament of Sweden decided that certain "ballots"
would read.)
[In Swedish, that sentence was more deceptive than it is in
English, since "no more than" is expressed by "just" one'
small word, "högst". - RM]
Everybody who then "voted in favour of" "proposal" 1 or 2
said, with this sentence, precisely contrary to the "reasons"
given in the beginning of it, only "No" to the use of more
than those 12 nuclear power reactors, and not "Yes" to the
use of a single such. They did not even oppose a shutting down
of all nuclear power plants on the day after the "referendum".
Thus, both of the "proposals" 1 and 2 were out-and-out pro-
test petitions against nuclear power, which people were called
on to sign.
And the same was also "poposal" No. 3. It went even further in
saying "No" than those two others. But that "proposal" was not
in any way contradicted by those others either. "Proposal" No.
3 in its text above all stated: "NO to continued nuclear power
construction. Phasing-out of the six reactors in operation at
present within no more than ten years..." (Four of the then
10 completed reactors were held paralysed by the politicians
in 1980.)
In this "referendum", thus, adherents of nuclear power - most
people in Sweden, already then - had only a choice of "voting"
"blank" [or "no opinion"; there was such a "ballot" too - RM]
or else abstaining, if they were not to sign any one of those
three petitions against all nuclear power which in fact had
been put forward.
But the politicians in 1980 in practice told the people: "If
you don't sign protest petition No. 1 or 2, then we will say
that protest petition No. 3, the most far-reaching of them
all against nuclear power, has won a majority"[!!]. A cheat-
and-blackmail-"reasoning" without parallel. But it made many
adherents of nuclear energy feel constrained to "sign" "pro-
posal" 1 or 2.
The "result" officially was noted as: "Voting": 75.6% of all,
and the proportions of votes for "proposal" 1, which was ad-
vocated by the [conservative] (m) party: 18.9%, for "proposal"
2, advocated by [the social-democratic] (s) and [the liberal]
(fp): 39.1%, for "proposal" 3, advocated by [the centre par-
ty] (c) and [the purported leftwing party] (vpk): 38.7%, and
"blank" votes: 3.3% of all those "voting".
And after this, all the mass media said: "Now a 'No', even if
a weaker such, but a 'No' anyway, has gained a majority".
That of course was not the case at all. A "referendum" formed
in this way, which was flagrantly illegal too, can never pro-
duce a "majority for" anything. It can never produce any valid
result whatsoever.
Afterwards, some even have said that certain "lines" "gained
a majority", or "won out", in this "referendum". This is a
perticularly absurd untruth. It was not possible to "vote for"
any "lines" in 1980. The things called "lines" then were only
propaganda committees, advocating the "voting in favour of"
one out of those three "proposals" which were put forward,
all of which said "No".
[A trick with those "lines" was, that those "lines" which ad-
vocated "proposals" 1 and 2 *lied* to everybody about their
contents, by saying that the texts of these two "proposals"
"of their own" meant "yes". This too may seem fantastic to
people today. But that's what they did. - RM]
This was no actual referendum. It was entirely a big swindle
and a manipulation, intended to make people both in Sweden and
in other countries believe that "the Swedes are saying 'No' to
nuclear power", although they, already then, were saying "Yes"
to it.
And this swindle "result" it is that the politicians now are
saying "must be the guideline now and in all future".
This cannot be accepted, we hold. True enough, referenda in
Sweden are only advisory ones. But because of that "particu-
lar importance" which some people are maintaining that the
"popular opinion" of 1980 - in fact the result of massive
cheating - still today has, it also needs to be made clear in
an actual referendum, what is really the opinion of the majo-
rity of the people today. Therefore, one should demand that a
such be held.
END of the INFORMATION from the Committee Save Barsebäck, for
which the signatories of this petition are not responsible.
Petition and information texts written, 22.10.2004, by commit-
tee members Stig Ek, Emanuel Laurian and Rolf Martens.]
UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / ¡UNIOS! /
FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
Advocates the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.
Each item # will be posted in one or more language(s). Leaf-
lets in the INFORMATIONSBLAD series published by me, mainly
in Swedish, since 1975 are available on request.
Befürwortet die politische Linie von Marx, Lenin und Mao Ze-
dong. Jede Nummer # wird in einer oder mehreren Sprache(n)
gesandt werden. Flugblätter der Reihe INFORMATIONSBLAD, von
mir hauptsächlich in Schwedisch seit 1975 veröffentlicht,
sind auf Anfrage erhaltlich.
Avocate de la ligne politique de Marx, Lénine et Mao Zedong.
Chaque numéro # sera envoyé en une ou plusieurs langue(s).
Volantes de la série INFORMATIONSBLAD, publiée par moi prin-
cipalement en suédois depuis 1975, sont accessibles sur de-
mande.
Partidaria de la línea política de Marx, Lenin y Mao Zedong.
Cada número # se envía en uno o más idiomas. Están a su dis-
posición, bajo petición previa, distintos folletos de la
serie INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicada por mi principalmente en
sueco desde 1975.
Förespråkar Marx', Lenins och Mao Zedongs politiska linje.
Varje nummer # kommer att sändas på ett eller flera språk.
Flygblad i serien INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicerad av mig huvud-
sakligen på svenska sedan 1975, kan fås på begäran.
Postal address:
Rolf Martens
Nobelvaegen 38U4
SE - 214 33 Malmoe
SWEDEN
Tel: +46 - 40 - 124832
E-mail (main, since Oct 1995:)
rolf.martens@mailbox.swipnet.se
(reserve, since Oct 2000:)
rolf_martens@hotmail.com
martens_rolf@hotmail.com
- Next message: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: oil shale redux?"
- Previous message: Rolf Martens: "UNITE! Info #224en: 1/2 Petition for nukeplant Bb 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
