Fair assessment of Trump’s speech

Greg Sheridan’s piece “It’s not Trump but America the left hates” (11-12/7) is spot on. He has shown the sense of analysing the contents of President Trump’s words at Mount Rushmore and, most importantly, without the vituperation so common these days in any analysis of the US President.

I also endorse the comments based on The Economist’s comments — as a reader of this weekly for more than 50 years I’ve noted some subtle shifts in its approaches but it lines up with what Sheridan has highlighted and the whole makes a lot of sense.

Philip C. Cohen, Morisset, NSW

Greg Sheridan seems to miss a few important points in his admiration of Trump’s speech, which was made at Mount Rushmore despite an environmental ban to protect it imposed by Trump’s own government.

The President made almost no mention of the virus disaster and he didn’t take the opportunity to show community grief and have a minute’s silence in sympathy with, and as a show of respect for, the loved ones of the 130,000-plus dead.

The crowd, like Trump himself, ignored social distancing and mask wearing, rulings from Trump’s own government. The anticipated virus spike to be expected from the event would be contrary to Trump’s overriding focus on his re-election.

Capt. Harry Mansson, Avalon, NSW

Language barrier

I agree with Jamal Rifi (“Arabic language barrier ‘must be broken down’”, 11-12/4) that cultural and language differences experienced by immigrants of Middle Eastern and African origin makes it difficult to pass on the messages and precautions that are needed for managing COVID. What was missing in his admission and recommendation is that a condition of permanent settlement in this host country (that is, the right of citizenship) includes the ability to communicate in English. I, my sister and parents, immigrated in the 1950s and within a few months were able to communicate with our great Australian neighbours, who helped our assimilation.

Michael Adler, Mt Waverley, Vic

My parents came to this country 60 years ago with the clothes on their backs and not much else. They spoke little English and there was very little information in their mother tongue. Somehow, they kept themselves informed and despite many challenges, relished the democratic freedom and protection so graciously afforded them by this country.

There was nothing like the plethora of opportunities that currently abound to become informed about critical issues of the day. Sure, mixed messages have created confusion but, my goodness, even deaf people and the homeless have been considered by governments in this pandemic.

Information is a two-way street and now is the time for communities to step up and take some responsibility for making critical information available to the most vulnerable among them.

Raya Dubyna, Toorak Gardens, SA

Mind our business

The recent editorial, cartoon, opinion pieces and numerous letters brings to mind Enoch Powell’s foreign policy views, as described in Paul Corthorn’s recent book Enoch Powell. Powell thought that unless there were implications for the sovereignty of one’s own state, the internal affairs of another country were best left to the people and government of that country. Even a cursory analysis of Western interference over the past 70 years, from Vietnam, through Iraq to Syria, with the resulting massive suffering within those countries and the material and psychological damage to the West, would support his views.

Rather than interfering in Chinese affairs within China it would be better if the PM focused on creeping Chinese hegemony in our own country.

Patrick Hanrahan, Floreat, WA