Indigenous recognition could depend on the right choice of words

It has been suggested that First Nations and a treaty are inappropriate terms, because Australia is one nation, not several at war with each other (Letters, 15/7).

Another suggestion is that restoration is preferable to reconciliation, (Letters, 13/7) but not really apt, because reconciliation and restoration both refer to a previous positive condition, damaged but returned to former wellbeing, which does not describe the original relationship between indigenous and coloniser.

Nor was there a golden age of indigenous culture which awaits restoration — although some might have us believe so.

As words underlie and shape actions, they are essential to building a nation representative of, and beneficial for, all its citizens.

Perhaps conciliation — to unite, overcoming distrust and hostility and creation, to create from what already is, something that is new — could be useful words in building a united Australian nation that recognises and includes all its people.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic

Understanding zealots

Janet Albrechtsen’s analysis of the perilous pursuit of non-conformists is a worthy thesis, but what’s really significant is the apparent fear of difference these people display in their persecution of others whose opinions run counter to their own. This fear seems based on an arrogant self-righteousness that threatens the fabric of our democracy and we need to think about why this is happening so often.

Why are people so afraid to listen and hear diversity of opinion? Are they so insecure and hyper-sensitive to those espousing contrary views? We have lost our way in creating a rational and critical discourse on socio-political issues. We should invest time and thought in understanding these new religious zealots to ensure their pulpit power is discredited, if not destroyed if we want to continue to live in harmony.

Paulyne Pogorelske, Melbourne, Vic

What was once the high-minded ideology of campus protesters has become a religion with its rigid moral code, preaching in the public square of the like-minded media, converting the political, corporate and academic establishment to its congregation.

The new religion has its virtue-signalling disciples, all speaking from a new authoritarian bible that has developed with codes of conduct and prayer words such as inclusivity, diversity, gender equality and climate change embedded in its texts.

This new religion is in its early, inflexible authoritarian stages, with its hypocrisy and witch-hunt mentality running rampant against any who dare to question its core beliefs.

Its passionate zealots are so busy railing against long-suffering average punters to remove the immoral splinters in our eye, that they have yet to see the plank that is in their own.

This new religion has yet to have a road-to-Damascus experience. Perhaps when it happens, Christ’s teaching that we should treat others as we wish them to treat us and love thy neighbour as thyself will sink in.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Richo’s Albo fantasy

Graham Richardson ventures into fantasy in his belief that Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers are the dynamic duo to rescue Labor from the wilderness (“Albo is man to rebuild trust with the electorate”, 15/7). Albanese is a wily politician but his ties to the Left may prove to be too big a hurdle to achieve government.

After the narrow escape from Bill Shorten, Labor will need widely accepted policies before we again trust it to govern. None of this crop appear to offer this hope. Having Chalmers as Treasury spokesman heightens Labor’s dilemma. His time as adviser to Wayne Swan ties him to the policy failures of his former mentor.

Barry Noonan, Balwyn North, Vic