On the “anarchy” of Tudge, Hunt and Sukkar

Colin Smith writes: Re. “Trump hardly the first US president to be a disaster for the world and environment” (Wednesday)

 Well said, Joe Boswell (21/6). I have long felt that “conservatism”, taken literally, was a good thing within reason — like “conservation” as in Australian Conservation Foundation. Indeed, I regard myself as as much a conservative as a radical – my penchant for protesting about lots of things notwithstanding.

However, I also have a bit of time for the more thoughtful sort of “anarchism” — and suggest that that description rather flatters the merely lawless and self-serving. A better adjective for the reckless politics of the born-to-rule, who are interested only in “conserving” their own power and perks, is the literal opposite of “conservative” – that is, “destructive”.

On the coverage of the Finsbury Park Attack

Niall Clugston writes:  Re. “How did the Australian media cover the Finsbury Park attack?” (Tuesday)

In discussing the Finsbury Park attack, Charlie Lewis says, “the alleged perpetrator is white and the victims are Muslim”. The implication is that being white and being Muslim are mutually exclusive. (A similar implication is made in “Tips and rumours”.)

But there are many Muslims of European descent, some are converts like Yusuf Islam and some are Muslims from birth, like the Bosnians. Some have even faced terrorism-related charges, like Joseph “Jihad Jack” Thomas and David Hicks. To suggest that perpetrators of attacks are treated differently based on their “race” is questionable. Would the “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid have been treated differently if he didn’t have any Afro-Caribbean ancestry? I doubt it.

It is ironic that, while criticising distortions of the issue by other media players, Crikey is distorting the issue as well.