LGH Accreditation
I TRUST Health Minister Michael Ferguson is going to take the journalist to task (The Examiner, August 12) for reporting the Launceston General Hospital “was downgraded from a level three to a level two, following a visit from the college last December”. When I suggested to the minister at the recent Northern Health Forum that maybe the reason he was having difficulty attracting specialists to the LGH was the 'downgrading', I was taken to task in no uncertain terms.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Barb Baker, Longford.
Marriage Equality
SOME ARE tempted to think marriage equality is peripheral. Not so. It holds a web of potent symbolisms that will drag from the shadows fundamentals of where each of us sit and stand: the body, sex, gender, morality, religion, trust vs fear; a plethora of symbolic markers of divisions.
The issue now elevates division in the service of political power plays in the guise of a false righteousness. We will all be affected. Many will be sucked in by the subterfuge, an example being a “no” spokesperson saying marriage was invented to protect women and children (from men). It has never, ever done that. It protects patriarchal privilege, male ownership of the female body and his progeny’s inheritance, with women largely its victims. This person is ignorant, a manipulative liar, or both, but well-intentioned people can believe bunkum.
Marriage equality is a generational marker, hopefully one more deeply concerned for justice, tolerance, fairness, equality and freedom, values more meaningful than those from the anachronistic world-view. Rules about who we are supposed to love or not ignore that love’s value and meaning is underpinned by respect for difference - loving the “otherness” of the other. Otherwise it is an empty myth, sanctioned by rules or not. Look to hate for proof.
Irene MacFarlane, Bridport.
Council Meetings
READING about the recent City of Launceston council meeting, I noted there were four councillors not at that meeting. My question is what is the penalty for not attending council meetings, which is probably the most important part of being on the council and for which the councillors are being paid to put forward their vote?
Having a third of the elected councillors away from an important meeting is simply not acceptable.
Meetings are scheduled ahead of time so unless something urgent has cropped up, there is simply no excuse. It is highly unlikely that four councillors should have an emergency.
Jenny Bishop, Newnham.
Monarchy or Republic
IN HIS letter (The Examiner, August 8) Peter Doddy says that it is unbelievable that ‘Labor is going to push for a republic’. His reasoning is that there are other problems that should be accorded higher priority so there should be no push towards replacing the current constitutional monarchy with a republic.
According to that reasoning, there will never be a time to replace the outmoded system we now have, because there will always be higher priorities.
As several politicians have recently found to their cost, under the current rules you may not stand for election to federal parliament in Australia if you have citizenship of a foreign country. But having been elected, you must then swear allegiance to the Queen - someone who isn’t a citizen of Australia.
Of course we can attempt to fix higher priority issues while at the same time also ensuring that our head of state is loyal to Australia.
This could probably be most efficiently achieved by conducting, in conjunction with the next federal election, a referendum on whether Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic.