The Guardian 22 February, 2006
Readers are invited to submit letters to The Guardian.
Letters may be e-mailed to guardian@cpa.org.au, or posted to:
The Guardian, 74 Buckingham Street, Surry Hills NSW 2010, Australia.
Letters of 300-400 words are preferred.
Letters to the Editor
Science of evolution
I have always had an enormous admiration for David Attenborough and the nature documentaries he produces for the BBC.
He forgoes the special-effects route to sensationalising nature as many other documentary producers these days can’t seem to help doing, and instead shows us (when filmed and edited properly, and obviously with a significant budget) that the natural world is quite sensational on its own.
When promoting the latest series in Worth Watching last week, Rob Gowland touched on how Mr Attenborough’s documentaries are subtly used to promote the science of evolution.
I recently found this quote from Mr Attenborough, given in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003. I thought it worth sharing with other Guardian readers:
"It is something I get frequent letters about.
"They always start with sweet reasonableness, you know, ‘We love your programs, isn’t nature marvellous’, and so on. But they always go on to say, ‘We do wonder why it is that you don’t give credit to the almighty God who created each one of these species individually’.
"My response, is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind.
"And [I ask them], ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy’."
Andrew Jackson
Sydney NSW
Danna Vale & over-reaction
It is interesting to note that even Senator Amanda Vanstone believes that Danna Vale has gone too far in her prediction that most Australians would be Muslims in 50 years’ time if we continue to "Abort ourselves out of existence".
I believe that the Senator even offered to give Danna a cucumber sandwich — presumably to cool her down!
Ms Vale, the Senator is correct. You need not worry.
Recently, I happened to read an overview of the religious affiliation of Australians during the 2001 census. They are:
Christian 68%
No Religion 15.5%
Other/Unclear/No answer 12.2%
Buddhist 1.9%
Muslim 1.5%
Hindu 0.5%
Jewish 0.4%
No Answer9.8%
The figures speak for themselves.
Of course, the fact is that no matter what religions Australians have or do not have, they are still Australian.
We need to build an open society that respects, accepts and tolerates all philosophies and cares for all its citizens equally. This is more positive than making divisive, discriminatory and erroneous claims about particular religious or ethnic groups.
One approach leads to harmony; the other to disunity.
Andrew (Andy) Alcock
Forestville SA 5035
Childcare article falls short
The Guardian’s front-page article "Childcare plan — lifeline for the well-off’" by Bob Briton (February 8, 2006) was a difficult read. Is the "plan" the "30 percent tax rebate for ‘out of pocket’ expenses which can now be claimed" (way down in paragraph 7) or the "call [by Jackie Kelly] for child care expenses to be fully exempted from Fringe Benefit Tax" (mentioned still further down in paragraph 9)? Both the structure of the article and its relation to the headline are sloppy journalism.
In addition the content seems to have been driven by envy of the "well-off" rather than a concern for battling working class families, who get a fairer share of concern towards the end of the article. The Guardian’s approach to childcare makes an interesting comparison with the articles in two capitalist newspapers — the Daily Telegraph (January 25, 2006) and another in the Sydney Morning Herald (February 13, 2006), both of which focus on the plight of low-income families. It’s what I would have expected from The Guardian. In any case, surely the CPA doesn’t believe that the well-off, including the "aspirational voters", cannot be drawn into the struggle for a better future for all Australians?
Finally, there is the agitational final sentence, which calls for childcare to be "put back on the agenda of the labour movement". What does The Guardian have in mind by the term "labour movement"? I checked the websites of the Labour Party, the ACTU, the Trades and Labour Councils (TLC) in all the states and several other unions. The ALP Federal Shadow Minister had a lot to say. The ACTU had 346 listings for childcare, including a comprehensive Congress document. The only TLC that didn’t have anything to say about childcare was the Tasmanian. The unions I checked all had listings on childcare, albeit mostly about childcare workers. On the other hand the political resolution adopted by the CPA 10th Congress in 2005 mentions childcare only in relation to women’s rights.
Perhaps that is where the struggle needs to start. CPA members need to see childcare as more than a right for women. Then they’ll be out there battling in the labour movement organisations they belong to, to put childcare toward the top of their list of priorities, slowly but surely.
Bob Saltis
Adelaide
Reply to Bob Saltis
I’m sorry you found my childcare difficult to read [see letter above]. I hope you can appreciate that articles of that nature are also difficult to write. Government "reforms" to benefits can be quite complex as can the rules covering the various benefits already on the books. Anyone who has had to approach Centrelink for financial assistance could vouch for this observation. I will try harder in future to explain the issues but can’t guarantee that they will be completely devoid of sloppiness.
I don’t think that The Guardian or the CPA needs to defend itself against a charge of engaging in the politics of "envy". My article tried to point out that small categories of workers who are already privileged under current arrangements would be made better off under proposed changes while battlers would miss out. Sorry Bob, while I do hope that well-off workers get behind the movement for social justice, I cannot see how supporting another big scoop of privilege in our paper will help.
By the way, the "plan" in the headline refers to the ideas floated by Jackie and industry bodies for an exemption from Fringe Benefits Tax for childcare. The 30 per cent out of pocket rebate is not a plan. As I pointed out, it will operate from the end of this financial year. Also by the way, the "labour movement" is an expression we most accurately use to describe all those who work by hand and brain for a living. The trade unions and political parties are the organised labour movement. I wanted to point out that every worker and every organisation of workers should put affordable, good quality childcare higher on their list of demands. And, of course, this includes the CPA.
Bob Briton
Adelaide, SA