TOUGHER PENALTIES NEEDED
With the federal government introducing legislation to ensure animal rights campaigners could face tougher penalties, further evidence is provided that our present legal system is intractable.
Trespass laws and penalties for other illegal activities and actions are clearly defined and enforced, and yet there is a perception, probably due to the application of 'slap of the wrist' penalties, that these changes are deemed necessary.
Rather than a problem with our existing laws, it is the semantic interpretation of terms used, the regular discovery of so-called 'legal loopholes' by legal representatives and their actions to minimise penalties, reduce sentences or to diminish the level of responsibility attributed to the actions of their clients, which has led to a lack of confidence in our legal system.
Law enforcement officers work diligently and fairly to prosecute illegal activities committed by individuals or groups, and are regularly let down, as are the victims, by the lenient penalties and sentences imposed by our courts.
Our judges need an application of araldite, so they can harden up and apply penalties that are commensurate with the crime.
Ian Macgowan,
Ceduna.
MINING LAW BALANCE VITAL
After the annual general meeting of the SA Liberal Party, its state council voted in favour of not having farmers dragged through the courts to gain access to their land.
This sends a very strong message to the Marshall government that they needs to listen to their constituents' concerns.
We are at a junction in our state's history where we need to review our mining laws and achieve a balance between allowing mining on 95 per cent of the state and protecting the remaining 5pc of arable land.
We need to feed our population and provide the food security that future generations will require.
An independent review will go a long way to alleviate the angst farmers and the community at large are experiencing on this critical issue.
Bill Moloney,
Arthurton.
CANOLA SPREAD CONCERNING
What is the difference between the risks of releasing genetically-modified canola and the carp-killing koi virus?
During the past few months, I have watched feral canola plants flourishing on the roadside. I have been shocked at the density of these germinations, especially when they may be kilometres from canola growing zones.
Most of this seed that is contaminating roadsides and cross pollinating with sown canola crops has come from grain trucks.
So, if these plants are GM canola plants, they are spreading like a weed throughout the countryside.
These plants may be contaminating non-GM and possibly other crops. Non-GM canola growers can then be sued for inadvertently growing GM canola - precedents have been set in Canada and the United States. This may remove their right and choice not to grow GM crops.
What is the difference between releasing the carp-killing koi virus - which is considered by some to be a trade risk - and releasing GM canola that is a trade risk?
The difference is that we know the GM canola cannot be contained and will contaminate non-GM canola and therefore cost producers and the states losses in price and income.
I have not even touched on the health effects of GM foods. Why are governments not monitoring the glyphosate levels in the Australian population? The judicious use of glyphosate is coming, so why get hooked on a system that relies heavily on the use of herbicides to produce our food?
