If Chris Masters were to apply the same standard of behaviour to himself as he does to Ben Roberts-Smith, he would not be defending his journalism by resorting to personal attacks on those who hold a contrary view to him about whether Roberts-Smith is a war criminal (“Roberts-Smith and his rabid band of supporters has an outspoken new member – Gina Rinehart”, May 25). There is no justification for describing such people as “rabid”. As one of them, I’m offended by the characterisation. Masters claims there is “profound evidence revealing Australia’s most decorated living soldier is a war criminal” yet Roberts-Smith has never been charged, let alone found in a criminal trial to be guilty of murder. Why is that, one wonders. Until he is found guilty, accusations of wrongdoing by Roberts-Smith should properly always be qualified as “alleged”. It is true that four judges “have now found to a civil court standard that Roberts-Smith murdered four captives”, that is, that he probably did so, though it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he did. This finding is only on the basis of the evidence before them in the civil defamation matter and applies only for the purpose of providing the defamers with a truth defence for their defaming of Roberts-Smith by calling him a war criminal. Most critics of Masters, his fellow journalist Nick McKenzie and the Herald and The Age for what they have published about Roberts-Smith are not rabid. Instead, they have a healthy and genuine concern for the man’s right to his former good reputation and, too, for the upholding of the foundational legal convention that courts are to presume an accused person innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Ross Drynan, Lindfield
Ben Roberts-Smith at the Federal Court in Sydney.Credit: Sam Mooy
Surely this defence of a man found by a civil court to have murdered lets down the many thousands of people who have served in our military and complied with the rules. Australia has always been quick to stand up and condemn war crimes by other countries; apparently it is different when it is us. And what about the compensation recommended for those poor families whose husband and father Roberts-Smith was found on the balance of probability to have murdered? As far as I am aware that has never been paid – another great shame for Australia. It seems we have one rule for others and a different rule for ourselves.
Michael McMullan, Avoca
Trump’s free ride
The ethics surrounding Donald Trump’s acceptance of an out-of-date replacement for his big boy’s toy, aka Air Force One, are questionable to say the least (“Love at first sight – but Trump will have to wait to fly new Air Force One”, May 25). Presidents past have coveted this obscene display of power and self-indulgent importance. Protect the so-called leader of the free world by all means, but why such a gas-guzzling, flying mini-White House?
Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook
Leyding the way
Jacqueline Maley has helped me to see Liberal leader Sussan Ley in a new light (“Littleproud’s Trumpian tactics showcased Ley’s grace under fire”, May 25). After the monumental disaster for the Coalition that was the federal election, the break-up fiasco spearheaded by Littleproud, followed by its swift repudiation, has turned the Nationals into a laughing stock. Through it all Ms Ley has emerged with her credibility firmly intact. She must not now simply give in to the Nationals’ demands, but rather concentrate on doing what she promised to do: respect, reflect and represent modern Australia in an honest attempt to listen and learn from past mistakes. Nothing less will return the Liberal Party to the capable opposition our country deserves.
Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills
The Nats came back
I agree with Liberal MP Jason Falinski (“Jason Falinski: The Libs should reconcile with the Nats. Just not yet,” May 25). Unfortunately they did so too soon. Liberal leader Sussan Ley should have accepted the Nats’ decision to separate and named her Liberal shadow cabinet. Like Little Bo Peep’s sheep, the Nats were always going to come home eventually.
John Harris, Goulburn
Buzzword no help
No, Parnell Palme McGuinness, we are not used to the word “intersectionality” because at the moment it’s no more than a buzzword that refers to the ways in which different aspects of a person’s identity can expose them to overlapping forms of discrimination and marginalisation (“How an oversharing Coalition drama could make voters polyamorous”, May 25). It has its followers and it has its component parts, but even if intersectionality becomes fully understood by all major parties, it will remain forever a great unknown for the average punter. Intersectionality may win you followers in critical race theory and in African American feminism, but it’s not going to unite the Nationals and the Liberals. With a bit of luck it might just displace “progressive patriotism”. It can’t possibly take root in America, where every Trump decision is a death blow to the concept of intersectionality.
Trevor Somerville, Illawong
Home truth
Podcaster Chris Griffin’s claim that men need stay-at-home partners to succeed, while women should avoid challenges and just offer “peace and love”, is as revealing as it is nonsense (“The real problem with this podcaster’s ‘stay-at-home wife’ fantasy”, May 25). A man who needs a silent, adoring partner waiting at home isn’t strong, he’s insecure.
Marina Cardillo, Beecroft
Charge ahead
The NSW government’s decision to roll out more fast chargers for EVs is a good one (“Hundreds of EV rapid chargers on the way,” May 25). EV sales in Australia have stalled, and one of the main reasons is the lack of charging infrastructure. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation. People won’t buy EVs until there are plenty of chargers around, but these won’t appear until there are enough cars to use them. A circuit breaker is needed, and the government is stepping in to provide it. This is what has happened in China, where EVs now represent 10 per cent of all cars on the road. The figure for Australia is just 1 per cent, Clearly, we have a long way to go to catch up.
Ken Enderby, Concord
- To submit a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
- The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.