Letters to the editor - July 18

Letters to the editor - July 18


See who's been writing sure into the Stock Journal this week.



The adage "there is more than one way to skin a cat" certainly applies when one considers whether to express their viewpoint on an issue or topic.

Having the ability to express an opinion has been an inalienable right in our free and democratic society for centuries.

As individuals, we all hold different beliefs and views on a range of topics, events and issues within our society.

A hallmark of this right to free speech has always been not only the privilege to express an opinion, but also the expectation to respect the viewpoint expressed by others, which may be diametrically opposed to the one that we hold.

Opinions are a personal opportunity to put forward individual thoughts on a wide range of issues.

These positions belong to the individual who expresses them and should not be interpreted as that of a group or organisation which they belong to, unless clearly stated that it is a representative perspective.

At present in our society, due to the actions of those who believe that their assumption is the only preferred option, many are choosing not to provide their actual stance on an issue.

Resorting to bullying, intimidation and personal abuse to silence those who hold a divergent viewpoint is highly offensive and disrespectful, and yet it is allowed to continue without challenge.

Mutual respect for others has been replaced by a belief that no-one else has the right to contradict their standpoint or convey an alternative viewpoint.

At the moment, the conduct of vegans in entering farming properties, stealing livestock and affecting farmers' livelihoods is not only offensive and disrespectful, but also highly illegal, and yet one of the culprits was only fined $2.

Attempts to make "quiet Australians" suppress their real attitude has had no impact on their true inner thoughts.

Opinion polls at the recent federal election all predicted a victory for the opposition. So did exit polls on the day, and yet the actual result was completely different and totally unexpected by the experts.

It would seem that providing an opinion is now a covert operation, if you wish to avoid acrimony and hate.

Silencing individuals does not prevent them from expressing their opinion and does not stop them from exercising their right to make a choice, it just changes the method which they use.

At last the "silent majority" has spoken, without even uttering a word.

Ian Macgowan,



I read with interest 'Election over, now for some nation building' in The Land (June 27) where there was reference to extra water for the Murray and Darling rivers.

I too have travelled the mighty Rhine river and yes it is a very impressive piece of engineering.

My continuing campaign for desalination is because we can draw from an endless supply of water.

We do not have to rely on rainfall. We can utilise existing dams and weirs and generate hydroelectricity to power plants and pumps.

There has been a lot of discussion about the Bradfield Scheme and other coastal dams since the federal election, but that's all it's been - discussion.

All I am asking is that desalination be included in any comparative costings with building extra dams and transporting water for more than a thousand kilometres south.

As a nation, the time for talk is over. The time for "can-do" on water is imperative.

MARK EVANS, Walgett.


From the front page

Sponsored by