Letters, July 29, 2011
Protesting against McGeough’s Walkley
I READ your article “Strip McGeough of prize” (AJN 22/07) with great interest
I sent the following letter to the Walkley Awards on December 18, 2010, urging
them to look at an article on honestreporting.com, titled “Australians reward shoddy journalism”, which criticised the factual accuracy of parts of their reasons for granting the award, as well as the factual accuracy of parts of the award-winning article:
“Your decision obviously stands, however do you still stand by the following statement indicating the reasons given for granting the award in the face of the criticisms of those reasons in the attached article?
‘McGeough’s instinct that it would prove more than a quiet cruise proved tragically accurate when Israeli commandos attacked the six ships in the early hours of May 31, triggering a bloody assault aboard the Mavi Marmara.
‘McGeough and Geraghty were taken to an Israeli prison, where McGeough interviewed dozens of activists about the attack and its aftermath. His reports took readers inside a crisis that might have been hidden from the world.’
“I would additionally ask why you stated that ‘the crisis might have been hidden from the world’ when McGeough stated in the article that 100 plus reporters and other media workers and a ship’s press room was on the Mavi Marmara. How could the crisis have been hidden from the world as you state?
“Are you concerned that the factual accuracy of parts of the article has also been challenged by honestreporting.com, which is one of the hallmarks of your judging criteria?
“Can you inform the public that articles submitted for future awards are carefully examined to ensure they are factually accurate and are not deceptive and misleading to avoid similar criticism ?
“If there is the slightest doubt that this is so then the offending article should be excluded from consideration.”
Having received no reply I sent another copy on June 8, 2011.
I am still waiting for an answer.
David Singer Darling Point, NSWStepping up safety checks for our kids
IN light of the wisdom of the great sage Shamai who instructed us to “say little and do much” (Ethics 1:15), I have to question the purpose of the “suggestion” made by one of our community’s senior rabbis (AJN 22/07) that all schools and community organisations should ensure police checks for all staff and administration members.
While it is a good suggestion, suggesting is not enough.
I don’t believe any school or community organisation is going to change its current policy based simply on a suggestion. It requires a concerted effort and follow-up in order to make it happen.
Considering Rabbi Meir Shlomo Kluwgant was listed as one of Australia’s 50 most influential Jews, I for one would like to see him utilise his influence by putting his money where his mouth is.
Isabella Rotstein Caulfield South, VicCriticism of anti-boycott law is ill-informed
IN Liam Gertreu’s eagerness to once again criticise Israel (AJN 22/07), he seems to have forgotten to read the text of the Anti-Boycott Bill on which his opinion piece is based. Getreu argues the new law “is a serious and unacceptable limit on freedom of association and … expression” and “indisputably, shamefully and despicably undemocratic”.
A reading of the bill indicates it neither limits freedom of expression nor undermines democracy. The bill does not outlaw protest, debate or expression of ideas.
What it does do is force those who call for others to act “in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage” to be financially responsible for the harm they cause.
It is a vital tenet of any democratic society that there must be limits to freedom of expression. Famously, one is not free to call fire in a crowded theatre without paying for the consequences of their actions.
Few would question the democratic credentials of Australia, yet is Gertreu aware that on January 1 this year, Australia enacted section 45DB of the Competition and Consumer Act?
This provision is worded in almost identical terms to the Israeli bill and similarly penalises boycotts against Australian companies. I don’t see Gertreu criticising Australia for enacting anti-boycott laws.
I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that another uninformed critic of Israel is guilty of double standards.
Mark Sheldon Rose Bay, NSWStanding up for anti-boycott legislation
HENRY Herzog, describing Israel’s anti-boycott legislation as “undemocratic and draconian”, (AJN 22/07), is just the latest in a long list of people, including those advocating a “partial boycott”, who clearly don’t understand the moral-legal implications of boycott. America has long had this kind of legislation.
Boycott is the reprehensible epitome of collective punishment, but one step more vicious because these are totally unrelated people in another part of the world.
It’s a case of “I can’t get at you, but I can get at your friends and hold them hostage until you change the policies I disagree with”.
This choice of standover bigotry, rather than the public debate appropriate to a democracy, should be universally outlawed.
While it is any individual’s right to not buy Max Brenner chocolates because they hate Jews, nor hire a gardener because of his skin colour, it is both morally and legally different for groups.
Your company cannot fire somebody because they are Catholic. Nor should any group be allowed to call for disadvantaging people in our democratic societies based simply on who they are or where they live. Everybody has the right to feed their families, unhindered.
Boycott does not equate with free speech, nor with any democratic institution known to man. It’s simply organised bigotry!
Morry Sztainbok Bentleigh, VicUpset over Greens leader’s Israel stance
BOB Brown and the rest of the Greens recently voted against a Senate motion proposed by Senator Boswell condemning a boycott of Israel, a policy actively supported by renegade senator Lee Rhiannon.
Rhiannon, one of four new Greens in the Senate, backed a Sydney local council and New South Wales Greens position for a boycott of Israel.
Bob Brown called the policy “a mistake”, saying it cost votes at March’s NSW state election.
“It’s not our policy and won’t be,” he said in April.
Brown had the opportunity to back up what he had said by action and instead chose to vote with Rhiannon, a known supporter of the boycott. He failed to pull her into line.
The motion also recognised Israel as a legitimate and democratic stateand “a good friend of Australia”.
I wrote a letter to Bob Brown asking him to respond to these concerns and to account for his lack of credibility in this matter. No response has yet arrived and none is expected.
David Schulberg Caulfield North, Vic
comments