Forum –
Since moving from Sydney to the Central Coast I regularly read contributions to the Chronicle from local residents.
I recently noted that in differing views submitted by Garry Clifford and Geoff Cameron over the matter of climate change, Mr Cameron criticised the Chronicle (Forum Apr 7) for taking a stand of “balanced debate” and suggested the newspaper should “cease giving oxygen to a climate denier”.
Every individual in our society has a right to express their views, and as we all know, there are two sides/versions to every story.
The silent majority will inevitably make the final decision on key issues (eg. Brexit, Australia becoming a republic etc etc) and it is not always the noisiest voice that is judged to be correct.
The key point here is that everyone in our society is entitled to put their case forward in any debate.
Any action to suppress / silence a view simply because it is completely contrary your own is not how a free society operates.
To suggest not allowing a person to express their view on the basis that it does not conform to your own, is nothing more than an attempt to bully others to submission.
This type of belief that it is acceptable to suppress an individual’s right to give an opinion is becoming more evident over recent years and is far more toxic to society than any lump of coal that will be burned.
I will continue to read the various submissions that the Chronicle prints, many of which I no doubt will totally disagree with, but importantly, these are views that every person is fully entitled to express.
To the Chronicle I say: “well done” and keep up the good work in maintaining a balance in what is printed.
It is critical that we are not bullied by the “zealots” that lurk amongst us.
Freedom of Speech must be preserved at all costs.
Email, Apr 8
Ed Pearson, Glenning Valley
Freedom of Speech to be preserved at all costs? So, can we expect publication of Letters to the Editor from the leaders of Islamic terrorist factions, from Nazi sympathisers, from all and sundry racist groups? Surely their right to free speech must be defended at all costs – I think not Mr Pearson. In the specific case of global warming, there is no such thing as a balanced debate. A debate implies opinions. The IPCC deals with facts. In the 1890’s Arrhenius used sound physical chemical principles to demonstrate that fossil fuel combustion was inevitably creating global warming. There was no debate about his findings then. There is no debate about the issue now.