On Danby

Douglas Kirsner writes: Re. “After 110 years, will Melbourne Ports turn Green — or blue?” (April 5). Josh Taylor’s article on Michael Danby was most unfair and looks like a propaganda piece for the Greens. Crikey interviewed at length the Greens candidate, Stephanie Hodgins-May while not seeking any comment from Michael Danby. Although she may previously have worked as a lawyer, it should have been acknowledged that Stephanie Hodgins-May now works as a political staffer for Greens leader Richard Di Natale. She contested Ballarat last election and this time it’s Melbourne Ports. Michael Danby is a passionate and hard-working MP working across a wide range of both local and international issues. His special interest in international politics extends well beyond Iran, Israel, the US and the Middle East. For example, on April 6 he spoke on 7.30 about the violation of sanctions for North Korea, and is well known for his support for the Dalai Lama and autonomy for Tibet. Danby supports marriage equality and is hosting Penny Wong on April 14 at a forum in the electorate. He works for animal rights and has been a longstanding vocal opponent of the Grand Prix. He has been outspoken about the City of Port Philip’s actions in transforming the character of Acland Street and Fitzroy Street in St Kilda. Crikey is well known for its plentiful criticism of Michael Danby. But would it have been too much for Josh Taylor to have spoken to Michael Danby or even watched a YouTube of the SkyNews interview?

Josh Taylor responds: “The basis of the Greens interview was in response to Danby’s Sky News interview – where the Greens were not sought for comment, either — and was more a response to the original interview. After the issue of a comment was brought up by Danby’s office, comment was offered to Danby after publication — and a potential follow-up piece was offered — but no response was received. The piece does in fact mention Hodgkins-May did run in Ballarat.”

On sexy Minions

Joe Boswell writes: Re. “Beware of sexy Minions doing sex things to your children with their sexy lingerie” (Friday). It was fascinating to read the many complaints about possible sources of corruption of children raised by the Australian Family Association, the Australian Christian Lobby and other bodies with loud voices, grand names and few members. (Is the word bodies too suggestive? On reflection, members seems ill-advised too.) Anyway, it was odd they found no time to include condemnation of those who whistle obscene songs, which is surely just as bad.

Samantha Chung writes: Christians and their relativistic sexual morality! Most schools have aggressively heterosexual formals and my Christian school even had a debutante ball. Yet, the ACL and company never complain about the plethora of traditional practices that coerce heterosexuality. These are the same people who proclaim that the Safe Schools program and LGBTI formals are “sexualising” children.

Get out the thesaurus

David O’Neil writes: Re .”A question of style” (Friday). It’s a pity that the authors of the Associated Press style book are not aware of a non-sexist word for “mistress”. “Paramour” is the word and its means illicit lover: male or female. Doesn’t seem too hard a word, even for American journalists.

On the Panama papers

Bruce Graham writes: Re. “The problem with massive data leaks like the Panama Papers” (Friday). Bernard Keane seems to believe that nobody will die because of the Panama leaks.  I suspect that there area few aggrieved people who would like somebody dead, and know how to achieve it. This is one case where the leaker will try to remain anonymous forever.