Putting fact before myth
BEFORE rushing into print it is always important to establish the facts, however if the facts stand in the way of your view of the issue you can always ignore them and substitute myth.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Myth seems to be at centre of the letter to the editor regarding the rail trail in The Daily Advertiser on Monday.
Myth 1: That the railway corridor is not public land.
Fact 1: The Wagga Wagga to Tumbarumba rail corridor belongs to NSW Transport/crown. If landholders have any doubt they may wish to check their property deeds.
Myth 2: No compensation was paid.
Fact 2: Compensation was paid - if not to all, it matters not. At some point in the past the land title passed to the state, and the land is held by NSW Transport/crown.
Myth 3: Rates will increase as a result of the proposed rail trail.
Fact 3: Rate pegging legislation applies in NSW and as such the amount rates may rise is fixed by the state, unless council seeks a special rate variation and one of the requirements of IPART is that the council has consulted with its ratepayers as to the reason council is seeking the variation. Council has no plan to seek any special variation.
Myth 4: It is known the line has asbestos fibres all along the track.
Fact 4: Railway brake blocks are cast iron not asbestos. It is only of recent times that railway brake blocks are made of composite materials that do not contain asbestos.
It is true that two councillors do not support the rail trail however six councillors do. I am sure the debate will continue but it is hoped that the myths around rail trails do not take precedence over the facts.
Cr Ian Chaffey
Tumbarumba
Injustice cuts both ways
IN AN earlier letter I attempted to establish the “essential starting points” for any discussion about same-sex “marriage”. The UNO and the Australian state are consistent in their attitudes towards the family, its constitution, and the protection of children. The family is regarded as the “fundamental group unit of society”.
The current demand that we change the definition of marriage in Australia to give homosexuals the same status in marriage claims that the change will be simple, and not create any problems while securing equality. This is incorrect. There are already serious problems developing within societies which have changed the definition of marriage from a man and a woman to between two people. There are now an increasing number of unseen consequences in jurisdictions where the definition of marriage has been changed. Issues include Christian ministers being obliged to perform same-sex marriages under the threat of imprisonment and fines; the removal of marriage licences from clergy who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages; clergy threatened with prosecution for “hate speech” simply for upholding their faith’s traditions and view of marriage; clergy ordered to submit sermons for legal scrutiny when they discuss sexuality; clergy forced to conduct same-sex marriages in their churches or halls.
This vilification against church and clergy is to be expected, but it remains an imposed injustice against ordinary citizens. The list of issues reaches through politics, education and schooling, employment - where businessmen, athletes, commentators, lawyers, teachers, doctors, nurses have been vilified in the media, denied employment and business because they have voiced opinions about same-sex marriage. These people are not all motivated by religious beliefs.
A whole new set of social injustices is being introduced in the name of same-sex “marriage”.