Premier forgiven but pain of the Holocaust must not be trivialised

As a German-born Australian I feel particularly affected and am still deeply shocked every time I think of the hate and atrocities inflicted on the Jewish people during Hitler’s time (“Warning sparked Nazi uniform confession”, 13/1). That must never be forgotten, and it must never happen again. Any trivialisation of this horrendous crime, no matter the reason or occasion, is unacceptable. Clearly, Premier Perrottet was an unthinking young man at the time, and he knows better now.

His now public misstep will haunt him politically and, judging from his apology, also personally. But Australia is a fair-minded and forgiving country and the Australian Jewish community has been gracious in accepting Mr Perrottet’s sincere apology for his hurtful act.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

With the NSW Premier feeling he now needs to atone for something he did many years ago as a very young and unworldly man, I throw my hands up in disgust. Should a youthful indiscretion, that was subsequently the subject of parental disapprobation, be seen as tarnishing his image forever? Are there many persons of mature years who can honestly say that they didn’t do something in their youth, that in hindsight, they now regret? We learn from our early mistakes and become more responsible, mature and caring citizens. Are the finger-pointers and nay-sayers blameless, one has to ask? What sort of society have we become?

Noelle Oke, Albury, NSW

I do wish that ordinary people would stop judging events and individuals of the past by contemporary standards. Common sense should tell any thinking person that young men in particular have not fully developed their brain before at least 25 years of age, and in the year 2003 not many people would have taken too much notice of a strangely dressed person at a dress-up party (reference Fawlty Towers or the Benny Hill Show). There are much more important issues in today’s society; consider them. Politicians especially should be thinking of important matters.

Glenda Ellis, Bardon, Qld

Voice details lacking

Craig Brown (Letters 13/1) makes a good case for us all to accept the voice, based on admitting to past wrongs and helping close the disadvantage gap. He then derides those who seek a clearer understanding of how the voice will work as “nay-sayers and scaremongers”. Forgive me for being one in that category. Any change entrenching rights for a group in our Constitution needs to be carefully thought through, benefits established by evidence-based policy, the alternatives canvassed, the costs quantified, and there must be a sunset or other mechanism to remove the change should it fail or become obsolete. Until these are articulated, the voice is merely a feel-good solution to a very complex problem – Indigenous disadvantage.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT

Benefit of Christianity

Mike Fogarty takes a rather narrow view of the separation of church and state when he claims that religion’s ideology “seeks to encroach on and institutionalise one’s individual spirituality”. The essence of Christianity, Western civilisation’s major religious faith, was founded on an institutional hierarchy of 12 apostles whom Christ instructed to go out and spread the Word. Four members of that institutional hierarchy wrote the gospels that became the enlightened code of conduct that guide Christians in today’s world. Those principles preserved by this Christian institution heavily influenced the development of human rights and equality of every person before the law in the evolution of democratic governance in today’s free world. In this respect, religion and politics, institutional hierarchy and individual spirituality in our democracy are inextricably entwined, and have been for 2000 years, for the benefit of all humankind.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

As a clinical psychologist I have provided treatment to victims of clerical abuse over many decades. Two involved in the Catholic Church’s Towards Healing process took up the offer of a personal apology from then Archbishop Pell. Both returned from those encounters in a distraught state and with identical reports. They said Pell had refused to make eye contact and had for the most part remained silent before stating words to the effect of: “You’ve had your apology, you can leave now.” They said the word sorry didn’t leave his lips. Both people experienced the interaction as a further episode of church-based abuse and betrayal.

Peter Cook, Essendon, Vic

I admire the fortitude of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews for his stance on the death of Cardinal George Pell and whether he should be offered a state funeral. Andrews did not mince his words and made clear a state funeral would add insult to injury for the victims of sexual abuse. I applaud the Premier’s decision and stance on the topic.

Lizzie Haydon, Runcorn, Qld