LETTERS 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.
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?
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.
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.