On the “campaign” to tear down historical statues

John Richardson writes: Re. “Save our statues: Stan Grant compared to the Taliban, Stalin and Mao for fictitious proposal” (Thursday)

It seems that Stan Grant is becoming just another in the long line of ABC “personalities” who routinely use the public broadcaster as a convenient platform to editorialise on their particular view of the world. I was recently party to a complaint against the ABC, alleging it had breached the standards enunciated in its Code of Practice, by not presenting news and information with due impartiality, not presenting a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented & unduly favouring one perspective over another.

I think I could make the same complaint about Stan Grant, even though I may share some of his views. I’m not sure what the ABC’s “Indigenous Affairs” manager is expected to do, but if part of that role involves editorialising his particular view of the world, while being a paid employee of our national broadcaster, I would argue that it is entirely inappropriate.

If such editorialising is not a part of his role, then I think he should respect the standards laid down in the ABC’s Code of Practice or pay for his own soapbox.

Meredith Williams writes: Re. “Save our statues: Stan Grant compared to the Taliban, Stalin and Mao for fictitious proposal” (Thursday)

What is all this alarmist nonsense about statues being “torn down”? We won’t be tearing any statues down. We will quietly deport them in the early hours of the morning while chewing on onions to create a diversion.