InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Your views: on conversion therapy, Crows, magnet Adelaide and GM crops

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on an Opposition bill, Crows woes, attracting under-40s to SA and the fight over GM farming.

Print article

Commenting on the story: SA move to outlaw conversion therapy

Finally, many South Australian families will be extremely relieved that this SA legislation is being addressed.

Conversation therapy is outdated and so damaging, and has been at the detriment to the health and wellbeing of many LGBTIQ people.

As a parent of a young gender diverse person, I am hopeful that other legislation such as providing adequate protection from vilification of the LGBTIQ community such as ‘hate mail’ will also be dealt with by the Attorney-General. – Jane Russo, Transcend Australia SA representative

So we had a law reform whereby gay couples can now marry, but there are still demonic practices to convert people from straight to gay!

Like seriously, there are some bigots around. – Chris Keynes

Commenting on the story: Inside the Crows’ downfall: The old guard prepares its power play

“Since the club’s inception for the 1991 AFL season, Adelaide has commanded stability off the field – just four chairmen: Bob Hammond (1991-2000); Bob Campbell (2001-2003); Bill Sanders (2004-2008); and Rob Chapman (since 2009).”

It seems there’s a simple formula to finding the next chairman: just get someone called Robert.

It might have to be Sideshow Bob if the club’s present woes continue. – Peri Strathearn

If the Crows’ hierarchy are seriously considering bringing back Trigg, the man who set them back several years with his draft shenanigans, it illustrates how delusional they are.

As Rucci rightly says, they overreacted to the grand final loss, and Fagan, the current CEO has failed miserably to deliver what he promised to justify his salary.

This is the man who admitted in an interview with Graham Cornes that he was aware of the problems uncovered by Dunstall’s review – but had done nothing about them.

Seriously what is he paid to do? Get rid of him and bring in some fresh blood with an increased football background to refresh the whole club. The supporters craving this refreshment are not stupid. – Ian Cooper

It’s interesting to note that we are 3/4 way through this series – and Phil Walsh has been mentioned just once, and then only in passing.

There has not been a footy club (or any sporting club for that matter) who has had to deal with the murder of their head coach in recent memory.

As a “rusted-on” journalist (and a fanatical Power supporter to boot) Rucci simply can’t correctly interpret the catastrophic damage that was caused to the playing group as a whole from this tragic event.

You can point to a genuine tilt at the flag in 2017 as an example of “moving on”, but don’t forget a great number of variables went the Crows way that year. From virtually no injuries, to a favourable draw and a huge slice of luck – they were fortunate to get where they did – and were ultimately exposed in the final contest.

Rucci would be well advised to revisit his opinion pieces and amend where appropriate, but I suspect he just doesn’t have it in him.

Or maybe write a piece about how Port Adelaide have managed just one finals victory in six years of the Koch/Thomas/Hinkley reign? Ashley Draper

Commenting on the story: Marshall’s plan to make SA a “magnet” for under-40s

Re Angeles Quiroga’s claim that you have to go to a shopping centre to shop in Adelaide (Your views 16/7). Did she never go to Norwood or Unley or Goodwood or Semaphore or North Adelaide or Prospect or Glenelg or Brighton etc.

And given that the river is walkable/cyclable from the hills to the sea, it’s hard to understand the suggestion that we need walks along the river. Let’s hope we never have gyms there. Though if she is talking about outside gyms we have lots in parks around the suburbs.

And Sally McLean (Your views 16/7) is right: give young people a secure future. Let them have jobs that aren’t on short contracts, the guarantee of being able to buy a home and plan a life.

That would surely encourage some to stay and others to come. We need to think more about treating people decently. Cathy Chua

Commenting on the story: Councils considering GM crops opt-out after SA ban lifted

I’m very disappointed that some councils have chosen not to apply to be declared a GM-free Crop Zone. They clearly have not considered the benefits of our GM-free status to South Australian food-growers overall.

There is global opposition to genetically modified ingredients in food. A 2017 survey of 23,000 consumers in 17 countries found 48% stated that food products being GM-free was “extremely” or “very” important to them.

The organic industry is another rapidly growing agricultural sector. In Australia, the area of certified organic agricultural land has grown at 22% per annum over the past five years.  South Australia is the leading organic state in Australia, accounting for 40% of Australia’s certified organic acreage (and 20% of the world’s certified organic acreage).

With GM-free Crop Zones widely adopted, there is potential for South Australian regions to protect and improve these rapidly expanding market opportunities, capitalising on the positive image of non-GM foods and beverages and a general wariness of GM products.

 The trade benefits of a GM-free Crop Zone are already evident on Kangaroo Island which the SA government has allowed to remain GM-free. Japan is a big buyer of non-GM food, with one co-op buying canola and honey for $6 million each year, only from Kangaroo Island. GM-free zones are critical to keeping and increasing sales throughout the state.

 South Australia’s key export markets include China, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Europe – all of which are extremely sensitive to GM foods.

 GM-free Crop Zones afford agri-food businesses the opportunity, free of charge, to market produce from those regions as GM-free, with the virtue of its provenance. A GM-free Crop Zone removes the need for businesses in the area to continually test for and demonstrate proof-of-freedom from GM contamination.

Without local GM-free status, all the businesses marketing GM-free produce would need to establish systems and bear the cost of proving their product’s freedom from GM contamination.

If some farmers pursue possible, but unproven “benefits” from GM crops, many other SA growers will suffer financial losses, and our State will be much worse off overall. Donella Peters

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

 

Help our journalists uncover the facts

In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.

Donate here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article