Explore the latest developments concerning Reader feedback: The.
Reader feedback: The three reasons Wilcox’s cartoon was unacceptable
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
Cathy Wilcox’s cartoon (7/1) is disgraceful for three reasons:First, it implies that the calls for a royal commission after the Bondi massacre is a machination of Benjamin Netanyahu. The myriad Australians calling for a commission are functioning adults, who are quite capable of making up their own minds about what is required after the Bondi massacre.Second, it implies that a malign external power is behind the calls for a royal commission. After the Christchurch massacre no one stated that the ″Muslim lobby″ or international Muslim leaders influenced Jacinda Ardern’s swift call for a royal commission. She did so in 10 days.The families of the bereaved in Christchurch were very relieved that this happened so swiftly.Third, the cartoon depicts the ancient antisemitic trope that international Jews are interfering with local politics. This is blatant antisemitic racism. The widespread hatred of Benjamin Netanyahu, and of Israel, is blunting many Australians’ capacity to see what is required after Australia’s worst terrorist massacre.Shame on you.Pia Brous, Armadale
Food Processor Electric Meat Grinder 500W Food Chopper 2 Speed for Vegetable Kitchen Cutter Medium Super Chopping Grinding
‘Offensive’ cartoon demeans those calling for a royal commission
We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
According to cartoonist Cathy Wilcox, calls for a royal commission into antisemitism are nothing more than the Liberal Party and its enablers marching to Benjamin Netanyahu’s drum, the various business leaders, sports people, etc, who have called for it nothing but useful idiots for the political right (Letters, January 7). So why not hold a royal commission? The various objections raised – takes too long, costs too much, won’t achieve anything – are all general objections, applicable to any and all royal commissions. So are the objectors saying we should never have them? If not, why not? I presume they (Wilcox included) are not saying that this case is not serious enough to justify such a move. If they are, perhaps a reminder is due: Australian citizens have been murdered; they have been murdered because they are Jewish; the murders are the culmination of a two-year spike in antisemitic incidents, causing Jewish schools and places of worship to employ security measures not needed by any other minority group. Bondi did not come out of the blue – Australia has a serious problem. It needs to be addressed, and addressed by the most thorough processes available. If a royal commission is not the answer, what is? Stephen Buckle, Glebe
For more detailed information, explore updates concerning Reader feedback: The.
Leave a Reply