*Pic: Image from HERE
The column ‘Minorities seek an unfair advantage’ (The Examiner, March 24, above) would seem to demonstrate a rather sinister development in local discourse.
No one, it seems, is brave enough to put their name to its nonsense (of which there is so much, I wouldn’t know where to begin to reply).
That the article disparages the Greens, the Safe Schools program and by extension the tenets of a healthy and diverse democracy is one thing. That it does so with the spineless safety of anonymity is quite another. If I were gracious, I would hope that this was an oversight on the part of the Examiner’s editorial team.
It’s become cracking good sport among the federal Coalition’s conservative ranks to take aim at Safe Schools–and as a result, most of the information used to attack it is misinformed, incorrect, hypocritical or pathetic. What intellectual giants like George Christensen and Cory Bernardi don’t or won’t get is that it’s designed to minimise harm–either from bullying, intolerance, bigotry or from LGBTI students harming themselves. That it threatens their delicate and cosseted world view is the real cause of their problem.
I actually suspect I know who the author of this typically conservative rubbish is, and regular readers of The Examiner’ regular columnists (especially the chap who used to write one called ‘In Black and White’) might also be able to guess. Use of the word ‘Yoof’ is the giveaway, Boys and Girls. No names, though. No pack drill.
Is the author genuinely afraid that someone, somewhere will vehemently disagree with his (or her) feeble opinions? Isn’t that what having a debate is all about–or does the author arrogantly consider that debating the issues he (or she) raises is not necessary?
Either way, anonymous finger-pointing is hardly a hallmark of mature and sensible conversation. I would invite The Examiner and its contributors to treat its readers with a little more respect.
Cameron Hindrum
Launceston
ANNE …
• The Opinion piece (above) is a particularly snide and nasty example of what the Greens are likely to be up against in this election campaign.
You’ll note there is no indication of who wrote the piece (somewhat questionable tactic on the part of the editor to begin with, IMO)
If you have time please consider penning a letter in response. Three points stand out for me. 1) The analogy of Very Large Animal being intimidated by a Very Small Animal is generally used for elephants and mice – not lions and mice. 2) the 1960s era was that of the baby-boomer, not Gen X. The writer’s credibility is shot to pieces with these small but significant errors – and leaves the editor open to criticism also, IMO. And 3) The Greens ARE a parliamentary party. And Hodgman was forced to reinstate funding to properly staff the MPs when Kim was still leader.
I couldn’t find any ref to the article online . . .
