Crikey readers have their say on broken promises and on-water matters.
Operation Sovereign Borders
Bob Krstic writes: Re. “Dictionaries now on-water matters as OSB still dodging accountability” (Wednesday). This also appears to be true for islands, eg: Manus Island. Kevin Rudd and his minister Peter Garret have assumed responsibility for the insulation scheme deaths. Will Tony Abbott and his minister Scott Morrison now “step up to the plate” re. death of their charge, Reza Berati?
On stopping the boats
Ellen O’Gallagher writes: Re. “Have the boats stopped coming?” (yesterday). There are many many people disturbed, distressed and disgusted by the Coalition’s so-called Operation Sovereign Borders. And the issue of our abysmal treatment of asylum seekers is unlikely to go away because we are breaking international conventions and people elsewhere are noticing. Our Human Rights reputation is in tatters with the UN and our leaders are liable to being brought before the International Court of Justice. When we have Indonesia, China and Cambodia all reminding us about Human Rights conventions we should recognise that something is pretty smelly. And all the damaged people — including children — in detention unlawfully will want to be apologised to and compensated. Not all Australians are unaware of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. This is a major issue for Australia and there are many good people trying to make Tamas Calderwood and his Know-Nothing friends aware of it, so don’t count on it just disappearing in the smoke.
Breaking political promises: a how-to guide
Bruce Prior writes: Re. “Memo to MPS: how to break a promise and get away with it” (yesterday). It appears that this article at The King’s Tribune is correct. What seems to be missing in Cathy Alexander’s article is any weight given to the mainstream media regarding Rudd and Gillard on climate change. Am I wrong or one-eyed when I say 89% of the reason it was terminal (for Gillard) was because of the campaign by Ltd News, 2GB and other shills of the Tea Party. To underplay it is disingenuous. And “will Abbott get an easier run than Gillard?” Of course he will — it can be seen already! Cathy Alexander shows us a classic example of, supposedly “balanced” journalism which ends up skewing the argument in terms of Right-wing agenda. Our journalism needs to call out what is seen as wrong, apportioning weight to the various “areas of reasoning” put forward; making that weighting according to (what the reporter) sees as the importance of each “area of reasoning”.