Labor candidate out of touch
As one of many local residents who made the trip to Melbourne last Saturday (November 20) to join the massive rally against Dan Andrews permanent pandemic legislation and mandatory vaccination push, I am unimpressed by Labor's new candidate for Indi.
That Morrison was "pandering to a tiny group of conspiracy theorists" (Border Mail, November 24) by daring to suggest that the "unvaccinated" actually have some rights to freedom shows that Nadia David and the Labor party have completely lost sight of their old constituency, and the extreme hardships it continues to suffer at the hands of government policies and restrictions.
Had she dared to show her face in Fitzroy Gardens, where at least 200,000 people gathered in a sea of Australian flags and placards, she would have heard from some impassioned speakers, including Independent Catherine Cumming.
There were many young women, mothers and children for whom Cumming's words gave some hope that we can defeat the Andrews Government's tyrannical overreach, as pressure to vaccinate their children intensifies.
As she put it: "Victoria's going to win, and I want to make it very clear Daniel - when you come after MY children you come after every single Victorian's children. You have serious rocks in your head if you think we're going to sell our children."
The roar of approval her words received would have been heard back at Spring Street, and will only get louder.
David Macilwain, Sandy Creek
IN OTHER NEWS:
La Nina "no load of rubbish"
Your correspondent Graeme Galvin (Border Mail, November 25) appears to object to the use of the term "La Nina" describing it as "a load of rubbish" and a "trendy term," suggesting instead that "it's going to be a wet summer."
In this he demonstrates one of the difficulties that climate scientists have in dealing with deniers and delayers who refuse to accept scientific evidence but still think they know better.
In Australia this correlates with higher rainfall.
As it happens, the early evidence is that ocean temperatures are lower than normal, (the Bureau of Meteorology will probably call it soon if they haven't already) so Graeme is probably right to assume we will have a wet summer, but he doesn't explain what makes him think so.
I assume he's not reading data from scientific reports, even though they happen to agree with him, so it sounds like he is rejecting the science but somehow agreeing with it at the same time.
Hopefully it's not just a case of - if a scientist says so it must be wrong.
Graham Parton, Beechworth
Letters to the editor
You can submit a letter to the editor via the comments section of our website at www.bordermail.com.au, or by sending an email to email@example.com. In order to be considered for publication, your letter must include your full name (which is for publication), as well as an address and contact phone number (which is not for publication).
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: