October 29th 2011

  Buy Issue 2863

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: Why are we opting for smaller families?

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Gillard Government in terminal meltdown

CHINA: Looming credit crisis could stymie China's growth

CIVILISATION: Universities dispensing knowledge without wisdom

ABORTION: Queen's first cousin fights for rights for the unborn


ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: Milestones to economic Armageddon

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Iranian plot to kill Saudi man in Washington

FAMILY LAW: Labor/Greens to dump Howard's shared parenting laws

NEW SOUTH WALES: Tribunal rejects homosexual vilification complaint

FREE SPEECH I: The Andrew Bolt case and free speech

FREE SPEECH II: Truth-telling now denounced as hate speech

UNITED STATES: Sex-change procedure for 11-year-old boy

MEXICO: Marriage ... with a two-year expiry date!


BOOK REVIEW It's all so hard ...

BOOK REVIEW How Montgomery's stepson escaped the Nazis

Books promotion page



News Weekly, October 29, 2011

Women in combat


Gender “equality” in the military does not exist merely when women soldiers can fight in the front line. It exists when they have to fight in the front line. All male soldiers can be required to fight anywhere, anytime. Will this apply to all Australian women soldiers, or will they have an opt-out entitlement?

If it is necessary in the future to reintroduce conscription, do the Gillard Government and Mr Abbott’s feminist-appeasing shadow cabinet intend that girls and young men will be equally subject to the call-up, and equally liable to be conscripted into combat units?

Or is the idea that, as Greg Sheridan suspects (The Australian, September 29), we will have “unisex in principle, but no women in practice” in contact combat?

Safely bunkered behind the lines, women NCOs and officers will order men into contact combat, then get the same promotion points as the men for having been in a “battle zone” — plus, of course, some extra women-only “affirmative action” promotion points disbursed by feminist equity commissars in Canberra.

Colin Jory,
Narrabundah, ACT


Waterloo commemorations


I refer to Hal Colebatch’s riposte (Letters, News Weekly, October 1, 2011) to my earlier letter (September 3).

While the second passage that he quotes from the website www.Waterloo200.org is accurate enough, he has been careful not to quote the whole paragraph, the final words of which are:

“We also intend to celebrate what the armies achieved: half a century of peace and stability in Europe, and positive impacts on trade, wealth and peaceful government that extended to North and South America and to Asia.”

Maybe this was inconvenient, for why else was it omitted? The whole website is substantial and far larger and much more comprehensive than the very small section he has extracted.

That the British Government, as such, does not propose to indulge in some sort of national triumphalism is perfectly understandable, but then maybe diplomatic tact is beyond Dr Colebatch?

After all, why doesn’t Australia celebrate the defeat of Japan?

Michael Arnold,
South Coogee, NSW


Deregulating working hours


When I read Tim Cannon’s article “The high cost of cheap and convenient shopping” (News Weekly, October 1, 2011), I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

What business is it of Tim Cannon or anyone else on the NCC payroll under what terms and conditions people work in retail?

It’s none of their business, full stop. The terms and conditions of employment are nobody’s business but the people directly involved!

There are too many busybodies around today interfering with other people where they are not wanted. If someone doesn’t like the terms and conditions of his employment, he should get another job. If he can’t get another job, then he is paid what he is worth and should put up with it.

The main cause of unemployment today is that labour is too expensive. One reason for that is that bodies like the NCC are fanatically opposed to deregulation of the labour market.

No self-respecting economist would have a bar of what News Weekly says about the labour market.

Greg Byrne,
Rowville, Vic.


Kevin and Julia


There has been so much unpleasantness displayed in federal parliament of late, it was indeed a pleasure to see a change for the better courtesy of Kevin and Julia.

Following the passing of the carbon tax bill, Kevin gave Julia a gentle embrace and one of those cheek-to-cheek “kisses”.

The Coalition seemed to consider the event a joke and burst out laughing — not so Kevvie and Julia’s colleagues. They recognised it for the sincerity and mutual admiration that it was.

Frank Bellet,
Petrie, Qld

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

COVER STORY Weatherill demand places Murray-Darling in jeopardy

CANBERRA OBSERVED Greens: wouldn't know a cowardly act if they did one

REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE Government forms say it is fluid gender marriage

EDITORIAL China completes island building in South China Sea

EDITORIAL Australia: sleepwalking towards the precipice

COVER STORY Family home in cities soaring further out of reach

CANBERRA OBSERVED Population debate needs development debate

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am