Lefties

Sir: Why is it that conservative commentators never promote the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were National Socialists? They came from the far left. If we go into the far right, we might find a divine right of kings, political power vested in an inherited or monied aristocracy but not a Hitler. All the 20th century monsters came from the Left
David Hall
Springwood, NSW

UN hypocrisy

Sir: I was gobsmacked to read that in response to last week’s refugee unpleasantness at the Greek/Macedonian border (Abroad, Portrait of the Week, 5 Mar.) the UN saw fit to tell Europe that they were “on the cusp of a largely self-induced humanitarian crisis”.

They are right of course, but this sage advice coming from the UN wins them the gold medal in Olympic Hypocrisy. Can one imagine the UN’s tut-tutting, and finger-wagging if collectively, the EU had (correctly) declared that this was not their problem, and if not closed their borders, then at least made serious efforts at controlling the numbers and bona fides of refugees admitted into the EU
D. Gerber
East Lindfield, NSW

Core sold out

Sir: Hal G.P. Colebatch is correct to point out that a political party that ignores its base does so at the expense of trust. The Liberal Party’s recent failure in the Parliament to vote for the voluntary membership by tertiary students of student unions goes so far as being a betrayal of many of its keenest supporters.

Has political pragmatism in the Liberal Party come to be everything these days? Is there a place left for pursuing principle in politics? Is the Liberal Party becoming a fence-sitting small-target party that tackles the challenge of the next election but not the major issues facing the nation?

Yes it will get my vote at the next election for tightening the country’s border controls, getting rid of the carbon and mining taxes, some useful free trade agreements and hopefully bringing in the ABCC. I will however, like so many of its supporters, be carefully watching its performance for indications of further sell-outs of core principles. We might be less forgiving next time
Julian Glynn
South Melbourne, Vic

Shirtfronting the Constitution

Sir: James Allan says he’s a monarchist because “the status quo works exceptionally well and no imaginable republican ‘innovation’ will work nearly as well” (19 March).

Hmmm. Consider this: Australia has half the population of California but nearly ten times as many parliaments, government departments and local councils, and a Queen who lives in another hemisphere – hardly a status quo worth bragging about.

Republic or not, I’d suggest that our Constitution needs shirtfronting and that some improvements might go as follows: the states raise most of the revenue they spend (ending the blame game and duplication, and if a state goes bankrupt then the refugees are free to cross borders); all senates and territory governments are abolished; local councillors are not allowed to reproduce; and that all government departments are banned from spending our money on electronic advertising (including so-called education) and junk mail exceeding 1 page.

Oh, and I hope James isn’t feeling “colder than a nudist in Winnipeg” when I suggest – as an alternative to Turnbull’s rubbish republic model – a president appointed by the state premiers collectively.
Russell Graham
Belmont, Vic

Naming conditions

Sir: Simon Barnes, makes a couple of assumptions which do not bear scrutiny. He states that people born with an extra chromosome 21 (trisomy 21, or Down’s syndrome) were treated unkindly in the past. And he credits political correctness with the new kindness to his son, who was born with trisomy 21.

My brother Andy has trisomy 21 and suffers profound cognitive impairment. He grew up in apartheid South Africa. It would be difficult to imagine a more politically incorrect society — but Andy has been treated with kindness and tolerance for 48 years, in both the old and the new South Africa. Interestingly, the Afrikaans euphemism for trisomy 21 is ‘sonskyn kinders’ (sunshine children).

If political correctness is the careful choosing of words to prevent offence to others, it has a laudable goal. However, it seems to me that it is rather used to seek offence where none is intended. The ever- changing whims of acceptable terminology make language a minefield, creating shifting sands of victimhood.

This is amply illustrated by Mr Barnes not even being able to type the previous, now unfashionable term for trisomy 21. It is worth pointing out that John Langdon Down, who recognised the clinical features of the abnormality, used language now considered unacceptable. His original paper describing the condition is surely, even to the most hardened ‘un-politically correct’ person, jarring and offensive.

Perhaps the best thing is to recognise that trisomy 21 is best called by its clinical name. There are other trisomy-related disorders, but these are vanishingly rare, so even shortening this to trisomy would be far more accurate and acceptable.
Johan van den Bogaerde
Twin Waters, Queensland, Australia