Journalists' attacks on Ben Roberts-Smith unjustified

Sydney Morning Herald

2 days ago

If Chris Masters were to apply the same standard of behaviour to himself as he does to Ben Roberts-Smith, he would not be defending his journalism by resorting to personal attacks on those who hold a contrary view to him about whether Roberts-Smith is a war criminal (' Roberts-Smith and his rabid band of supporters has an outspoken new member – Gina Rinehart ', May 25). There is no justification for describing such people as 'rabid'. As one of them, I'm offended by the characterisation. Masters claims there is 'profound evidence revealing Australia's most decorated living soldier is a war criminal' yet Roberts-Smith has never been charged, let alone found in a criminal trial to be guilty of murder. Why is that, one wonders. Until he is found guilty, accusations of wrongdoing by Roberts-Smith should properly always be qualified as 'alleged'. It is true that four judges 'have now found to a civil court standard that Roberts-Smith murdered four captives', that is, that he probably did so, though it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he did. This finding is only on the basis of the evidence before them in the civil defamation matter and applies only for the purpose of providing the defamers with a truth defence for their defaming of Roberts-Smith by calling him a war criminal. Most critics of Masters, his fellow journalist Nick McKenzie and the Herald and The Age for what they have published about Roberts-Smith are not rabid. Instead, they have a healthy and genuine concern for the man's right to his former good reputation and, too, for the upholding of the foundational legal convention that courts are to presume an accused person innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Surely this defence of a man found by a civil court to have murdered lets down the many thousands of people who have served in our military and complied with the rules. Australia has always been quick to stand up and condemn war crimes by other countries; apparently it is different when it is us. And what about the compensation recommended for those poor families whose husband and father Roberts-Smith was found on the balance of probability to have murdered? As far as I am aware that has never been paid – another great shame for Australia. It seems we have one rule for others and a different rule for ourselves.
Michael McMullan, Avoca
Trump's free ride
The ethics surrounding Donald Trump's acceptance of an out-of-date replacement for his big boy's toy, aka Air Force One, are questionable to say the least ('Love at first sight – but Trump will have to wait to fly new Air Force One', May 25). Presidents past have coveted this obscene display of power and self-indulgent importance. Protect the so-called leader of the free world by all means, but why such a gas-guzzling, flying mini-White House?
Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook
Leyding the way
Jacqueline Maley has helped me to see Liberal leader Sussan Ley in a new light (' Littleproud's Trumpian tactics showcased Ley's grace under fire ', May 25). After the monumental disaster for the Coalition that was the federal election, the break-up fiasco spearheaded by Littleproud, followed by its swift repudiation, has turned the Nationals into a laughing stock. Through it all Ms Ley has emerged with her credibility firmly intact. She must not now simply give in to the Nationals' demands, but rather concentrate on doing what she promised to do: respect, reflect and represent modern Australia in an honest attempt to listen and learn from past mistakes. Nothing less will return the Liberal Party to the capable opposition our country deserves.
Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills