Right of reply
I have just read, and marvelled at the letter from Carol Altmann that The Standard kindly published on Saturday, October 29 regarding my views on same-sex marriage. It is the perfect advertisement for why there should be a plebiscite on the question. Bruce Ingrey (who wrote the column that prompted my initial letter), Ms Altmann and many others certainly share one thing in common – if someone disagrees with their beliefs on a particular subject, then the immediate response is to call them names and to vilify them. This is why a plebiscite is needed. A plebiscite will provide the security and secrecy that only the polling booth will offer, in an environment free from the type of intimidation that obviously appeals to these people. Ms Altmann uses a common trick to justify her position and to bolster her sense of indignation regarding my views – selective quoting. She complains about my comment that homosexuality is not the norm; yet it is not pejorative, just a simple statement of the obvious. I made it abundantly clear that I support equality in life for all homosexuals. I simply do not support the redefining of marriage – but of course, this gets no mention nor is quoted, because to do so would weaken Ms Altmann's over developed sense of outrage that someone would dare have views that differ from hers. The comments that seem to be most at issue were also made, not in relation to homosexuals themselves, but about the "pro homosexual lobby". This is quite clear in my letter. To comment on the tactics used by a lobby or similar group does not necessarily indicate, either way, the position I may take in regard to the issue in question. Those comments were also part "tongue in cheek" as clearly evidenced by my statement "What's next – will it (homosexuality) be made compulsory?" Ms Altmann also accuses me of unleashing my hatred of gays and lesbians. I possess no such feelings and for her to draw that conclusion clearly shows she is unable to rationally discuss this topic in an objective way. She does no good for either herself or her cause when she descends so deeply into the depths of unjustified personal abuse, vilification and venomous rhetoric.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Ian Marr, Allansford
Editor's note: Mr Marr's original letter, October 21, was not published in the printed publication but it was published online. It remains online and can be viewed there.
Help not hinder refugees
The Turnbull government is enacting legislation to prevent people who come by boat to this country from ever being able to settle in Australia. This is intended to lock out refugees imprisoned in physically and mentally unhealthy conditions on Nauru and Manus Island. Under a different mind-set, the Coalition government has also enacted legislation that allows extremely wealthy migrants to settle here. The source of their wealth is not investigated. We only discriminate against those who have not got the money to buy a plane ticket. The government’s justification for excluding boat arrivals and keeping genuine refugees held indefinitely on Nauru, is that Australia “must keep strong border security”, and that government wishes to “prevent deaths at sea”. However, John Howard quietly removed refugees from Nauru without a resurgence of boat arrivals. It is ironic that the government has allowed Australian land to be sold to undemocratic repressive countries and to corporations under such regimes’ influence, whilst under the guise of “border security”, our government confines harmless refugees in expensive hot hell holes like Nauru. A real potential threat to Australian sovereignty is a slow take-over by repressive governments who kill or imprison their own minority groups. Refugees detained on Manus and Nauru suffer worse conditions than those experienced by Australian convicted criminals. They came as potential good Australian citizens, and they are now broken.
Gillian Blair, Panmure
First impression important
As a Macarthur resident it saddens me to see the approach and streetscape of our wonderful little town, (which happens to be a gateway to Moyne Shire) looking very shabby with long grass and the odd fallen branch around town. I'll bet my last dollar Port Fairy and Mortlake's approach and streets are well manicured and haven't missed a mow no matter how wet it's been. First impressions are important.
Lorraine Pye, Macarthur
Challenges ahead
The council election is over and I wish to record my appreciation to voters in the central ward of Corangamite Shire who placed their confidence in my candidature. I will work hard to justify that confidence and will always be the ratepayer’s representative, serving not only the central ward but fairly representing the entire municipality to the best of my ability. I wish to congratulate fellow successful candidates in both the central and coastal wards, Helen Durant, Ruth Gstrein and Simon Illingworth. I applaud the contribution of outgoing councillors Geoff Smith and Chris O’Connor, Wayne Oakes and Peter Harkin. There are many challenges as well as opportunities in our agriculture and tourism dependent shire. Our population is both aging and declining and our education outcomes are poor. I look forward to working responsibly, creatively and transparently to ensure we provide value for money for our hard working ratepayers while delivering on the core responsibilities of roads, rubbish, footpaths and proper public space management. We must facilitate investment, so vital to our municipal economy, employment opportunities and rate base. It is an honour to be a councillor and I look forward to engaging with, and listening to, tresidents and ratepayers during my four year term.
Bev Mcarthur, Bookaar
Wild dog control program needed
Wild dogs destroy our livestock and native animals, and take an emotional toll on our farmers.
This is not new, so it beggars belief that our city-centric Labor Government have spent two years dismantling Victoria’s Wild Dog Control program.
Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford wasted two years playing politics with a program that was developed with heavy community input and was proving worthwhile.
It is disgraceful it took Ms Pulford so long to listen to country communities.
The Liberal-Nationals will always stand side-by-side with regional Victorians to fight for their best interests, and there is more to be done to get the Wild Dog Program back on track.
The Andrews Government must address the red tape issues that force wild dog controllers to apply to the Environment Department to do their important work.
It is not good enough that one Government Department is thwarting another’s efforts to control this destructive pest.
Peter Walsh, Leader of The Nationals, Opposition agriculture spokesman
Remove politicised school programs
We all agree that there is no room for bullying in our schools, but the Andrews Government’s Safe School’s program has obvious ulterior motives. Outspoken Marxist Roz Ward has founded and designed this program in a vacuum that assumes bullying does not extend beyond LGBTI youth. Safe Schools gives little credence to the wide range of children who face bullying in schools, including those who are singled out for their ethnicity, body image, socio-economic status and disability.
We want young LGBTI people to experience the same education and nurturing environment as other students. There is no doubt the system needs to address the issues that exist and find a way to protect those at risk of being singled out for mistreatment. However, the Safe Schools program goes far beyond teaching children to treat others as they want to be treated. Instead, there is a clear underpinned sexual agenda that makes parents and teachers extremely uncomfortable.
The Andrews Government’s social engineering in schools is now extending to the new Respectful Relationships curriculum, which has somehow evolved into a radical gender studies course that you would expect to find in universities. As early as grade one, six and seven-year-old children will learn about mature concepts, including gender-based violence and gender norms. It is frankly bizarre that the Andrews Government thinks terms such as transphobia, homophobic bullying, gender nonconforming, and heteronormativity need to become part of the curriculum foisted onto six-year-olds.
Children in schools need to be educated and supported instead of thrown into the front line of Labor’s attempt at social reform. Schools should not attempt to shape the beliefs and identities of young students. Instead, the system should be designed to shape their learning habits, build their knowledge, and foster their ability to become leaders in whatever field they choose.
A Liberal-National Government will remove Daniel Andrews and Roz Ward’s politicised program and replace it with an initiative that sends a strong message of mutual respect and anti-bullying.
Simon Ramsay MP
