Daycare article lays on shame

I am sure this will not be your first, or your last, complaint in response to Deborah Hill Cone’s opinion piece. While Deborah may say she is simply trying to highlight a social issue, the tone and language of her article instead simply shames mums and dads.

The writer picked a topic which she knew would cause a reaction. She could have written a piece in an attempt to bring social change — something which inspired mums, encouraged parents and was kind, but instead she chose to bring us down. Being a working mum is hard, it is isolating, it is a daily struggle and in most cases it is not a choice but is necessity. Deborah has simply added to that guilt I and many other parents feel every morning. Is that going to make me a better parent? Is that going to make things better for my children? Had I read that article when I first returned to work when my son was 6 months old and I was expressing milk in the work bathroom so I could at least say I was still breastfeeding (yet another issue mothers face shame over — perhaps you could cover this next, Deborah), it could have pushed me over the edge and I know I am not alone in that.

While I understand that Deborah has a right to her opinion, and the sad fact is she is not alone in her opinion, nothing is gained by publishing an article of this nature and the Herald should be better than participating in such blatant mum shaming. But it is not just the Herald, Porse openly endorsed the article on Twitter. Porse, which is part of Evolve Education which owns the daycare Lollipops which would surely be a “Factory Farm” as Deborah so kindly put it, where kids are forced to spend their time in a noisy environment with “strangers” and “grimy plastic toys”!

But the article doesn’t just take aim at mums, it also belittles the daycares and the services they provide. The people at these centres are not strangers to our kids. They are amazing, kind people, who understand that we as parents don’t want to leave our kids, but do so so we can keep a roof over their heads. They understand that we are doing our best and in response they cherish and love our children, they become our village and our friends. Perhaps if Deborah was open to it she could come with me for a morning drop off and understand the experience before she casts any more shame.

Elyse Hannay, Parakai.

Free speech

Gerald McCully observes that free speech helped Hitler rise to power and concludes that we should curtail free speech to prevent history repeating itself. It’s a seductive offer. We surrender one of our freedoms and in return are protected from the risk of another Hitler. But there is a Gerald-shaped hole in the middle of Gerald’s proposition.

Exactly who will decide what may be said and what may not be said? Why, rightthinking folk like . . . well, like Gerald! And there’s the rub. Unless we can assemble a dream team of all-seeing, all-knowing, infallible Geralds to vet all opinions and shield us from the ones that might not be good for us, we must allow the free exchange of ideas and trust ordinary people to tell good from bad, right from wrong. Free speech can be disturbing. It can trigger controversy and disharmony. It’s messy. But in the end our only defence against a bad idea is a better idea.

Phil Robinson, Ngunguru.

Mining ban

Your editorial on July 26 (“Government should lead the way on environment”) is full of holes.

Firstly, it assumes incorrectly that the government’s “No New Mining on Conservation Land” proposition is just about coal. This is incorrect. It would be a blanket ban, and would affect all mining. To pick a few — gold, coking coal, thermal coal, aggregates, pounamu, as well as strategic minerals like rare earth metals.

Secondly, lithium is neither a highly valuable metal, nor is it a rare earth metal. There’s a lot of it around but not necessarily in NZ.

Thirdly, your editorial only focuses on the role coal has in keeping the lights on. We mine and export coking coal to meet global demand for steel — this creates jobs and valuable export revenue. We mine thermal coal to meet demand primarily from the agricultural sector — again, valuable export revenue. Nor do you mention that without mining, including coal, we wouldn’t have concrete, cars, transport, infrastructure, phones, windmills, batteries — the list goes on.

Finally the editorial happily advises West Coasters that they should get with the play — how selfish they are in rejecting the opportunity to transition from their mining jobs to tourism jobs? But you’ve ignored the facts above and the reality that an average mining wage is $114,000 compared to those tourism jobs which average $40,000. Or perhaps no jobs at all!

I’d be more interested in an editorial which clearly defines the problem that a blanket ban on mining addresses. I’m at a loss to understand what that problem is.

Like all of us in the industry, I love my country: I’m a proud Kiwi, very conscious of the stunning landscape we call home and I’m not about to suggest that we wreck it. New Zealand has world class environmental legislation. The Resource Management Act (RMA) provides for the social, environmental and economic impacts of any proposed mining project to be assessed independently and for appropriate conditions to be imposed if the application is granted. Mining has had access to Conservation Land since the Conservation Act set this up in 1987. Yet despite that access, a recent estimate was that mining takes place on less than 0.2 per cent of that land!

So Mr Editor, before you use the mining industry as a punch bag, you should perhaps spend time understanding the background facts.

Chris Baker, CEO Straterra.

Great Depression

J. Anderson may be correct that New Zealanders are too well fed to be influenced by the controversial speakers, but it is not completely correct to say that New Zealand has never had to endure the same misery as was endured in Europe in the 1930s.

On my way to school in the 1930s, I passed a work camp every day where men from many walks of life lived in a wooden-floored tent, cracking metal for local roads in the nearby quarry. Unemployed men were sent to work camps planting the forests further south.

Their families were left behind in towns and cities to apply to local “Charitable Aid Committees” for support. They had to prove complete destitution before they received help. Farmers had walked off their farms because they couldn’t pay mortgages. Shopkeepers lost businesses because customers couldn’t pay bills. Teachers lost jobs because entrance age to schools was raised to 7. Children helped milk cows before and after a three-mile walk to school and could leave at 12 to go to work to help support the family. Most children walked barefooted to school carrying two slices of bread and jam wrapped in brown paper for their lunch. There were health camps for children who were undernourished.

Most people were interested in politics then, because so many were affected and even here, there was an attempt to block broadcasts from a radio station that supported a change of government.

Gwen Francis, Pukekohe.

Visiting speakers

Our recent experience concerning the denial of rights to visiting speakers means New Zealand has now joined the evergrowing number of countries that will no longer tolerate freedom of discussion among like-minded people.

Actually it was only a matter of time before this happened because we have no First Amendment as does the USA, meaning a collection of intolerant yobbos are able to decide for themselves what is acceptable to the rest of us.

Should any person wish to attend a gathering of which the new breed do not approve it appears these self-styled censors can simply threaten mayhem in order to obtain the result required. Funny isn’t it?

I thought the authorities were supposed to apprehend people who inspire violence; but it seems not to be the case in these current times.

Jerry Gully, Lower Hutt.

Free speech didn’t last long

Your correspondent, Jacqui Anderson, has said what I want to say much better than I can. Surely while it may be true that allowing freedom of speech helped the rise of Hitler, it must also be true that it was the ruthless suppression of free speech after he came to power that stifled protests against Nazism and prevented information being spread about the full horrors of the situation that was unfolding. Jeanette Dowling, Whangamata.