The complex matter of the death penalty
Andrew Gourlay writes: Re. “What will be the consequences of Bali Nine pair’s execution?” (Friday). Both America and China have death penalties in times of peace. What right have we to comment on duplicitous actions?
No room for conspiracy theories
Kirill Reztsov writes: Re. “Off to war we go” (Wednesday). By publishing comment in your subscriber email that implies that ISIS is a conspiracy set up by Western governments you are (albeit in a very small way) justifying and supporting terrorism, slavery, rape and destruction of historical heritage of an entire region. I think these claims should be beyond the pale of acceptanble editorial decisions alongside 9/11 conspiracy claims or Holocaust denial.
The rise of the cherrymander
Mal Hutton writes: Re. “Why are the SA Liberals so completely terrible?” (Friday). It was Neal Blewett, then an Adelaide University lecturer, who called it a “cherrymander” rather than playmander. A much more imaginative and appropriate term given that Tom Playford was famous for having a commercial cherry orchard, and the original term from the USA was Gerrymander.
On constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people
Jeff Ash writes: Re. “Rundle: Leyonhjelm is right about constitutional recognition … sort of” (Friday). Maybe it’s the WASP in me talking, but I just don’t see how constitutional recognition is the panacea for all the ills of Aboriginal people in Australia that its proponents insist it to be. Let’s give it a crack by all means, but it just smacks of another empty symbolic gesture borne from collective guilt that isn’t going to change anything on the ground. Haven’t the Aboriginal people had enough of that?