Residents protect plans

A truer headline would have read "Residents protect plans".

It is always disappointing when The Canberra Times trots out the cliche that resident voices on planning issues are nothing but selfish NIMBY whingers. This image suits powerful groups on the property development bandwagon, but is far from the truth. Most resident groups and representatives welcome development of the kind, in the place, and of the quality that good and consistent planning rules will support.

Richard Thwaites, Deakin

Light rail cost debated

I take certain exception to what the likes of Kevin Cox have to say about opponents of the wasteful Gungahlin-City tram ("School of light rail", Letters, June 28). Make no mistake, while the Government continues to ignore it, for obvious reasons, the proposed 12 kilometres of tramway would cost all Canberrans about $2 billion over 20 years (2014 prices). The arguments put by Cox for the tram can apply equally to a Rapid Bus Transit system. Even the Government's own submission to Infrastructure Australia in 2012, acknowledged that a BRT was about twice as cost-effective as the proposed tram system and half the cost, but the government ignored it anyway.

M. R. Flint, vice-chairman, CanTheTram Inc, Erindale

Liberty at stakeThe decision of the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) is very significant for many people. To me, however, its importance is not about gay marriage per se, but liberty itself.

In today's world, we need to keep reminding ourselves that we are each inherently free, self-sufficient and able to make sensible decisions. The Supreme Court's ruling is a big and timely reminder of that freedom.

In the story ("Jubilant crowds dance in street following Supreme Court's verdict", June 28, p16)the article quoted, in part, Justice Kennedy who delivered the majority opinion.

Further to this, Justice Kennedy went on to say: "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilisation's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

In Australia, we need no constitutional right. That right exits. The power over marriage laws is given to the federal government in our Constitution. I urge the government to act accordingly and correct things now.

Allan Gamack, Holt

Tough to conceptualise

I thank Eric Hunter for his "welcome" to Pedant's Corner ("Strategic sophism", June 28, p18) but, like the peerless Don Watson, I have been an active member for some time. Long have I raged against word misuse.

I can't begin, however, to unravel Eric's example of prolix bureaucratise, but can tender one of my own.

When editing an annual report for the industry department many years ago I came across this phrase: "It is fundamental to the ongoing administration of the department that each and every one of us inherits and engages in the practice of intellectual conceptualisation". Pardon? I sat there for several minutes wondering what on earth the author was trying to impart, then the penny dropped: "We need new ideas". So out came the turgid phrase and in went my abbreviated one. Guess what? When I received a copy of the finished report several weeks later the misbegotten phrase had been put back!

Suffice it is to say that never again did I bother applying to bureaucracies.

Robin Poke, Hughes

Eric Hunter's pedantry (Letters, June 28) would have been more convincing had he written "unlike us men" instead of "unlike we men".

Mike Dallwitz, Giralang

My suggestion for Eric Hunter of Cook's challenge (Letters Sunday 28 June) is: "We must find the best way to do it.", perhaps even omitting the final three words.

Greg Mitchell, Farrer

Making a point

I have one quibble with Paul Malone's excellent article on free speech and the ABC. ("Echoes of Egypt in Abbott's call", June 28, p19.) Malone says he rejects the views of Zaky Mallah, presumably meaning those views Mallah expressed on Q&A.

I didn't find anything Mallah said on the program objectionable. He made the point, in my view and words, that Government Islamophobia would drive some into the arms of ISIS. That is an unexceptional statement because it is true.

This government thinks it has found its Menzies "reds under the bed"'moment by targeting Muslims as the enemy within.

More fool us if we fall for it, as we may well do given Labor's capitulation, once again, to a reactionary agenda.

John Passant, Kambah

Adam Gartrell's article ("Is Tony Abbott Whitlam reborn?", June 28, p17) was meant to be thought provoking but I am sure that Gough if he was still alive would have found it insulting.

To compare Tony Abbott who won power by calling Julia Gillard a liar at every opportunity and then, when in power, broke major promises himself to Gough is not appropriate. Gough was painfully honest and a QC. He also served his country in time of war.

Instead you could compare Abbott to Billy Hughes who sent people to war and mounted a huge conscription campaign while never having served in the armed forces himself.

Howard Carew, Isaacs

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).