Australia's women's cricket team after winning the 2022 ICC Women's World Cup (Image: AAP/John Davidson)

Your Say gives readers a chance to tell Crikey what they think about the stories we’ve published. Today you weigh in on war, how women lose out in sports funding and sponsorship, pubs using facial technology, and plenty more.

On funding for women’s sport

Barbara Ryan writes: It is way over time for sportswomen in first-class teams to be properly remunerated – and for all levels to be sponsored. Women definitely should be paid equally if they are at the highest level because they devote just as much to training time and game time as men. Major advertisers need to realise that women are huge followers of sports teams these days and thus follow coverage on all media. The proof is in the following of women’s AFL as well as netball — just for starters.

Young girls are participating in junior sports at an escalating level and sporting organisations need more funding to encourage them to continue throughout their teenage years and into adulthood.

Panayiotis Loukopoulos writes: Funding for sports is guided by a number of complex parameters and should be strategically planned. Some points: the level of funding for any sport should not be guided by the success at the elite level. Even if it was, why would one take the Commonwealth Games as a snapshot indicator, and not map success across a range of international forums, weighted for impact, and over a number of years? If a country is falling behind in a sport, wouldn’t that be an argument to increase funding in that sport? I am not necessarily suggesting it would, but surely such a suggestion would be reasonable and worthy of a debate.

In terms of TV coverage, I do see the point (although I sadly had no time to watch the games) but thought that coverage was decided and planned before the games, and not modified depending on Aussie success in a particular sport. As far as Australian success in these games, one should perhaps consider the possibility that the countries participating may on average be behind the rest of the world in women’s sports to a degree higher than the corresponding men’s sports.

On ICAC and Barilaro’s NY gig

Terry Mills writes: This should go to ICAC if for no other reason than to establish how it is that a highly qualified Jenny West can be offered the position, then have it withdrawn, and then find out her old job is gone too.

Patricia Berry writes: Yes, the Barilaro case should go to ICAC — as should any other such similar case. Political corruption of any kind must be eradicated if we want a safe and prosperous future.

Eamonn Hennessey writes: I’m no longer surprised or shocked by anything the major parties do. I fear the federal integrity body will be formed with broken dentures rather than teeth in the hope that it won’t catch Labor in any corrupt activity. The major parties appear to be blind to their falling numbers in the polls and the disdain the average mug has for them.

Ronald Hall writes: I come from South Australia which has just stripped its corruption watchdog of a lot of its powers. Are we not supposed to be morally and ethically opposed to Russia and China because they have systems designed for their leaders’ best interests, not that of their people, and for whom there is no accountability? If we let this slide, democracy dies just a little bit more.  

On Amnesty International’s report on Ukraine

Robin Fester writes: Amnesty International (AI) needs to maintain a bias-free approach to what it does.  For anyone to suggest it should take into account politics before reporting is absolutely ridiculous. Effectively it would be asking AI to pick sides and that would lead to an erosion of human rights, allowing an offending nation perceived to be on the side of right to engage in human rights abuses knowing it would go on unreported. What could ever justify that?

The army could — if it was planning to use residential areas for strategic or tactical reasons — help evacuate civilians from that area, and certainly nothing could justify using areas such as schools or hospitals. Truth, they say, is the first casualty of war — but it is essential we do not become that casualty.  

Carol Neill writes: You can’t have war without casualties. The Russians do not care where they fight and how many die. Ukraine tries to limit civilian deaths but it’s unfortunate that to defend a city or town you need to be close — and that presents danger to those living there.

Unfortunately Amnesty International’s report gave Russia the ammunition it wanted to provide credibility for its war. Ukraine would not be in this position if Russia had not attacked. Russia instigated this war on a false narrative and Amnesty has provided the bullets Russia wanted. I am sure there could have been a different way to present this report had it considered the ramifications.

Gordon Stevens writes: Obviously the report is extremely flawed, in that the only option Ukraine would then have would be to surrender its cities and country without a fight rather than do as it is attempting to do and evacuate cities to prevent Russia exterminating its populations. The premise that Ukraine is not allowed to defend its cities from Russian terrorist aggression and physical takeovers is pathetic and could only have been instigated by pro-Russian investigators.

On Dutton and his drums of war

Peter Schulz writes: It doesn’t matter if Dutton beats the drums of war or not. Defence Minister Richard Marles and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are doing it for him with their enthusiastic support of the AUKUS sellout of sovereignty to the bellicose US — which is intent on threatening a war with China.

On the stigma of abortion

David Wright writes: As a man, and an old one at that, I am very much in favour of women being in control of their bodies. If they have become pregnant and don’t wish to carry the baby to term, it should be entirely their choice to terminate — perhaps in consultation with the father, but not necessarily. Our planet is grossly overpopulated — why bring unwanted children into the world?

On pubs using facial recognition technology

Donna Murphy writes: Any basic fool can come up with reasons to use something like this, but their reasons do not mean it is justified. There are just as many reasons — if not more — not to. I do not want some algorithm deciding what my mood is. I am autistic and do not feel comfortable being “watched” while going about my social activities. I am very uncomfortable about this technology and this would be enough to ensure I do not use the businesses who exploit it. Also, who has access to these photographs and information/biometric data? Are they psychometrically tested? Do they have the necessary confidentiality training? As a woman I fear what may happen — the potential for stalking, and that perverts may see this data and start tracking/following someone.

This should be stopped. If and when it is used, the public should be fully informed in advance and not just one tiny sign on a front window three metres from a store entry.

If something in Crikey has stirred you up, let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.