Dear Editor

Letters to the papers from David Flint, Senator Soapy Brandis and Bob (Plain Nut) Carr ... What are they on about? ... Strange missives  

I'VE been collecting dotty letters to newspaper editors. 

Three deserve inspection. 

David Flint (a personal favourite of mine) recently told readers of The Australian that the High Court, in the ACT same-sex marriage case, "took it upon itself to demolish the original meaning of marriage ..."

The superbly genteel "Flint" went on to say: 

"If this meaning is to be changed, it should not be changed by activist judges or by politicians acting alone. 

It should be changed only with the consent of the people." 

Politicians "acting alone". What's he on about? 

His suggestion that, given half-a-chance, the people might scuttle gay marriage is dotty.  

The Galaxy Poll between 2009-2012 has support for same  sex marriage at 64 percent. Support among Christians was at 53 percent. 

Some 81 percent of people between 18 and 23 also support it, and 75 percent of those polled thought change was inevitable. 

See Galaxy poll

The most recent SMH/Nielson poll on the topic has support for marriage equality at 62 percent and News Poll finds seven in 10 Australians support it.   

Not much comfort for Flinty there. 

God Save The Queen

*   *   *

Wilson: elevated by Brandis

THEN we have Soapy (Passing Strange) Brandis "QC's" recent epistle to The Australian supporting his appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission. 

Goodness me, Soapy had been accused of hypocrisy because, prior to the bumptious Wilson's elevation, the senator had declared: 

"Appointees must be people who can command the confidence of the entire community that they will discharge their responsibilities in the human rights field in a non-partisan manner." 

Wilson, of course, was a long-standing member and devotee of the Liberal Party, so it goes without saying that the entire community would have confidence in him. 

The AG took exception to being called a hypocrite because Wilson was "anything but a Liberal Party partisan". 

Why, he had even criticised the Newman government's law and order policies, said Soapy. 

How non-partisan can you get? 

"I do see in him a person of strong philosophical integrity."

Last night's Lateline (Monday, Feb. 17) gave us a good indication of his "philosophical integrity".  

It's composed of gobbledygook.  

*   *   *

Carr: nutsTHAT leaves us with an epistle in last week's The Sydney Morning Herald from diva foreign minister, ex-NSW Premier, and anti-salted nut campaigner, Bob Carr.  

Carr wrote to complain about a scribble in the paper on mandatory sentencing written by your editor. 

The scribble claimed that the non-salted nut aficionado was "in love" with mandatory sentencing. 

Not so, claimed Bob. 

"In fact, I stared down and defeated Liberal opponents who in three state elections were advocating mandatory minimum sentences ... The reason we are having a debate now is that I blocked its introduction, that I defeated Liberals who on three occasions were pushing it." 

You can also read this on Carr's blog, Thoughtlines. 

How inconvenient of lawyer and former politician Peter Breen to write to the paper next day, saying: 

"Bob Carr has given us a selective report of his legislative record on the subject of mandatory minimum sentencing. He did 'stare down and defeat' Liberal opponents on the issue in 1995, 1999 and 2003.

What the former premier failed to mention is that he introduced legislation for mandatory minimum life sentences in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and then boasted about 'cementing in' certain prisoners. 

This legislation has been the subject of numerous appeals including to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Mr Carr holds the unenviable record of being the only leader in a common law country outside the USA to sentence children to life in prison." 

Ouch.