Voting age could be even lower than suggested
LUKE Thomson (Letters, 1.9.20) takes opinion writer Nick Munn to task for supporting giving 16yearolds the vote.
Luke poses the rhetorical question, ‘‘Surely he would not think infants should be given the vote?’’ in response to Nick’s view that voting age limits are arbitrary.
In my view, yes, infants should be given the vote — noone has a greater stake in the overall good management of our country.
Luke is concerned our human brains are still developing and definitely not ready to vote — even at 18. Being of advancing years, I can assure Luke the reverse also applies to the other end of life’s experience. In fact, my old granddad used to remark: ‘‘We are all once an adult and twice a child before we depart this earth.’’
How might infant voting work?
Well, we need look no further than to European royalty throughout history. There are numerous examples of regents being appointed to administer states when the monarch was a child. Queen Charlotte was, for example, appointed by Parliament to act as regent should any of her and King George III’s children come to power while minors. It was recognised their mother would be the one most likely to protect the interests of her children.
The same could apply in New Zealand. Every child’s mother could automatically be appointed her child’s regent for voting purposes.
The principal benefit would be an immediate and significant drop in child poverty in New Zealand.
If mothers were to turn up at polling booths with their own and their children’s votes, rheumatic fever and other markers of poverty found in Victorianera slum conditions would disappear faster than Mr Peters could arrange Gold Cards for voting seniors. Allan Portis
Waverley
[Abridged]
Mosque gunman
THERE have been calls for the Christchurch gunman to be deported to his native Australia. That is currently not possible under New Zealand law.
The Government is opposed to a policy of retaliatory legislation in response to the Australian law that allows them to deport criminally convicted New Zealand citizens back to this country. I support the Government’s policy and, more importantly, I think it has crossparty support.
However, I propose that our next government adopt a policy of allowing convicted terrorists to be deported to their country of origin. If passed through Parliament, that would allow New Zealand to send the gunman back to Australia.
Matt Harger
Shiel Hill
Unfortunate comparison
HOW dare Robert McCallum (Letters, 29.8.20) compare the treatment of Jews by Hitler and the SS with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians?
On the one hand, you have a nation that invaded almost every country in Europe and, among its many atrocities, exterminated six million Jews.
On the other hand, you have a nation that, after being legally restored to its homeland, absorbed almost two million Palestinians and gave them full rights and citizenship, while defending itself against constant attack from other Palestinians.
As for Gaza, the arms blockade was imposed by Israel (and Egypt) when Hamas took control and began to attack Israel, but humanitarian imports are permitted. It would end if Gaza were to make peace with Israel. If this is a ‘‘prison’’, it’s a selfimposed one.
Before Mr McCallum starts lecturing us, he should consider these huge differences.
Rodney Brooks Silver Spring, Maryland, US