I REFER to the headline “We’ll fight Islam 100 years” (9/8). I did not say this. My concern is solely with radical Islam. Your headline has totally misrepresented my view. This matter is highly sensitive and the inaccuracy of your headline has justifiably caused a strong backlash from the Islamic community. I share their concern.
Due to the inaccuracy of your headline, many people have not understood the true nature of my comments. My concern is solely with the radical Islamists who distort the true meaning of Islam.
Peter Leahy, Canberra, ACT
Contact with Gietzelt
I WELCOME the letter from George Finlay (11/8) emphasising the importance of hearing both sides of a matter. That principle is central to the Press Council’s standards for media practice and its response to complaints about alleged breaches. The council will be happy to provide some detail of its handling of the matter relating to Arthur Gietzelt. But I am sure Finlay will appreciate that it cannot do so until that process concludes with a published adjudication. Even then, it will be constrained by obligations of confidentiality which are for the benefit of complainants and publications.
In the meantime, I should emphasise that the fact that an issue has been referred by the council’s executive director to its adjudication panel does not necessarily mean that he or the panel thinks it should be upheld. That is a key reason why confidentiality of panel discussions is important.
I can respond now, however, about alleged contacts between myself and Gietzelt. The only possible contact of which I am aware is that in 1988 he apparently spoke at a public discussion, “Politics in the Pub”, at which I was also an invited speaker. If any contact occurred between us, it would have been only for the purpose of being introduced to each other.
The newspaper said other contacts might have arisen 20-30 years ago when I was president of the Australian Council of Social Service and a member of government advisory committees. So far as I am aware, no contacts of that or any other kind have occurred at any time.
Julian Disney, chairman, Australian Press Council, Sydney, NSW
Thanks to metadata
WHAT a pity Attorney-General George Brandis did not consult with Henry Ergas before he embarked on that ill-fated interview with David Speers on Sky about what constituted metadata and its use in combating terrorism and other criminal activities (“Data retention laws the lesser evil”, 11/8). Apart from the crystal-clear definition, “metadata is simply data that describes other data”, Ergas demonstrates the sheer volume of data units being assessed by software algorithms, picking up patterns and other identifiers in “the torrents of randomness”.
This weekend, we watched our grandchildren play netball, visited crowded supermarkets and garden centres and watched a thrilling AFL match in a stadium jam-packed with people. Am I ever glad that the electronic 21st century equivalent of the Bletchley Park code-breakers are on the job, protecting the Australian community. Keep the metadata for 10 years, if needs be.
Helen Derrick, Sherwood, Qld
Views of Down syndrome
DECISIONS to abort a child because she or he has Down syndrome are to be treated under international human rights law as human rights failures, not as idiosyncratic, personal choices (“Gammy’s father wanted an abortion”, 11/8). It would appear that rejection of children such as Gammy is deeply entrenched in Australia.
According to the Medical Journal of Australia, between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of Australian children detected to have Down are aborted, many in the second trimester.
More and more doctors are being co-opted into dehumanising children with Down and treating the children themselves as a disease to be detected and eliminated from the population through selective abortion.
It is difficult to live comfortably in a society where about 90 per cent of mothers make the “informed choice” to prevent births of their children because their child has this condition.
Rita Joseph, Hackett, ACT
Minorities in charge
TONY Abbott’s backflip on section 18C shows that minority groups can control public policy. Australians can still be accused of being offensive whenever such a group decides they want to feel offended.
However, if you happen to be white, heterosexual and Christian, just toughen up. So much for equality.
In a democracy, regardless of the group involved, nothing should remain unquestioned. It was only by questioning the unquestionable, that past wrongs were righted.
Lou Coppola, Hawthorn East, Vic
No comments:
Post a Comment