Scary times, interesting opinions
I agree with Verity Johnson’s fear (Feb 22) that we are living in very scary times. As she points out, there is a large gap in how we’re teaching boys to be good men.
However, after going to see Jordan Peterson in Wellington, I disagree with every other comment she made. I knew nothing of Peterson and he had come into my sphere of recognition only because of the rants against him. I wanted to hear what he was saying that was so very disturbing that these people were unable to cope with his opinions.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that the audience was very mixed in gender, race and age, and not just grumpy old people like myself. His lecture on ‘‘toxic masculinity’’ mirrored the ideas of Celia Lashlie, for whom I have huge respect. She would undoubtedly have joined the audience in the standing ovations he was given.
I suspect part of Johnson’s problem with his opinions is that they don’t revolve around young women like herself, but are aimed at young men and those who raise them. Perhaps if Johnson ever has young men to raise, she may come to understand that sometimes with age comes wisdom. Shelley Macrae, Manakau
The Swiss model
The most important point that Steve Baron (no relation) makes in his excellent piece (Referendums offer balance against elitism, Feb 21) is that referendums in Switzerland can only be triggered by specific mechanisms entrenched in the federal constitution.
To me that is the fundamental legitimisation of referendums: they can only legitimately come from the people to the government, and never the reverse.
That is why the odious Brexit was not a referendum. It was a plebiscite imposed from above by a politician trying to resolve the deep chasm within the Conservative Party over Europe.
Similarly, the attempt to choose a new flag for us was a trivial poll imposed from above and not a legitimate referendum. The only legitimate referendums we have had in NZ were those that were raised through the CIR Act. But this act was cynically embedded with an explosive device that destroyed their legitimacy by making them ‘‘consultative’’ only.
The future of open societies depends on taking our rather simple democracies forward to a new and deeper level. We need a democratic constitution that entrenches the right of the people to demand binding referendums to amend existing laws, and initiate new ones. Dominic Baron, Upper Hutt
Ignorant motorists
Every few weeks The Dominion Post publishes a letter, invariably starting ‘‘Today I saw a cyclist ...’’, detailing some outrage a lone and anonymous cyclist has allegedly committed.
Well, today from my bike I saw dozens of car drivers ignore my right of way at intersections. I saw a couple of car doors open in my path as I tried to keep as far to the left as possible. I saw scores of drivers accelerate through orange and red lights. I saw packs of pedestrians step onto the road in front of me without bothering to check if the road was clear. And I saw the possibility of dying as a truck driver behind me tried to drive over the top of me, while I was legally riding straight ahead when he wanted to turn left.
So my question is, if you are so concerned about cyclists obeying the rules, why do you keep trying to kill us when we do?
Graeme Tuckett, Mt Cook
Tenants and tax
On the TV1 news, an apologist for rental property investors argued against the proposed capital gains tax. If landlords opted out of the business, who, he asked, would provide homes for tenants?
This puzzled me. Surely the homes would not disappear? Wouldn’t they still be there?
All that would disappear would be the opportunity for investors to make untaxed capital gains. Some landlords might seek other opportunities and sell up, in which case the law of supply and demand would suggest a decline in prices. Maybe the erstwhile tenants could then afford to buy their homes.
Ken Klitscher, Masterton