Latest news with #Segal
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Call to strip arts institutions of funding over antisemitism raises alarm bells
'These are artists who are getting cancelled mostly by small venues who say 'we can't afford to get cancelled by the pro-Palestinian mob on social media'… [venue owners] who are deeply apologetic, but this is a real problem.' At the same time, several high-profile pro-Palestinian voices have been penalised: Jayson Gillham at the MSO, Antoinette Lattouf at the ABC, and Khaled Sabsabi, who was invited, uninvited and then re-invited to represent Australia at next year's Venice Biennale. Commissioned by the Albanese Government, Segal's 16-page report says antisemitism has become 'ingrained and normalised within academia and the cultural space' but does not include examples. This is problematic, says Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, Australian Human Rights Institute, Faculty of Law and Justice at the University of New South Wales, who argues reports of this nature usually provide evidence to support such claims. She says Segal cites a 700 per cent increase in antisemitic hatred without documenting a source, or a baseline from which that figure was extrapolated. It appears to have come from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and to reference complaints to Jewish-based organisations, Chappell says, not official complaints to the police or Australian Human Rights Commission. Segal's office confirmed the figures quoted are from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry report into antisemitism 2024 by Julie Nathan, which categorises, itemises and lists each incident in reverse chronological order to show the increase. Chappell says it's important to know who collated the data and detail about the incidents. 'Is it that you saw a pro-Palestinian encampment at Syd Uni and you walked past and felt uncomfortable, or someone made a direct anti-Jewish slur, or set fire to a Jewish Synagogue and demonstrated direct hatred towards a Jewish person or the community,' she says. 'They are very different things.' Leibler disagrees with criticisms of the report, saying Segal has undertaken a very thorough body of work and most that of the recommendations clearly resonate with the experiences that the Jewish community has had since October 7, 2023, and before. There's no one silver bullet to addressing antisemitism, he says, and education is a large part of the solution. 'It needs to be addressed at multiple levels – it can't just be fixed by government, it can't just be fixed by academia, it can't just be dealt with by the arts. We need to get all parts of civil society aligned on wanting to stamp this out.' The report argues that public funding for cultural institutions – arts festivals, galleries and organisations and artists – 'is not to be used to support or implicitly endorse antisemitic themes or narratives' and says funding should be terminated in such instances. But several sources take issue with Segal's suggested definition of antisemitism, which comes from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Loading Greg Barns SC, spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, says '[the report's] words invite conflation of the criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It has rightly been condemned by numerous human rights groups … it will have the effect of censorship.' Chappell agrees that although it's not spelt out directly in the report, there is a conflation between being antisemitic and being anti-Israel. 'It's very clear through the use of the IHRA definition whose examples include criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism as antisemitic speech,' she says. 'It's not only a huge problem for universities, but freedom of speech expressed through the arts is also at risk – we've seen with the Creative Australia debacle just how damaging it can be.' Leibler rejects these claims. 'I have been genuinely shocked by the response from certain quarters who have misrepresented what the recommendations involve, particularly this suggestion that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is somehow a highly controversial definition. It's nationally recognised as a definition … by leading experts,' he says. While the government doesn't have a codified definition of anti-semitism, in 2021 the IHRA definition was endorsed by the then-Morrison Coalition government and Labor, under then-opposition leader Anthony Albanese. Barns cautions the government against adopting the report. 'The Segal review recommendations concerning tying funding for arts and cultural organisations to efforts to prevent antisemitism is dangerous and will lead to self censoring,' he says. 'Many cultural and arts organisations rely heavily on government funding so the temptation to refuse to allow works because they are highly critical of Zionism and Israel will be ever present.' According to Barns, current legislation provides protection and there is no need for any further law reform in the hate speech area. 'Ms Segal seems unaware of major hate speech criminal offences reform passed by the Federal Parliament in February. These laws expand when hate speech is said to occur,' he says. 'There is a balance between ensuring that hate speech does not occur and allowing for strident language and representations in the context of protest against human rights abuses.' Chappell says the current climate is already fraught and that several high-profile examples illustrate that. 'It is becoming very toxic in the arts just as it is within universities, the same thing is happening in both. There's a silencing, and it's having a chilling effect on all sides, all people are feeling they can't express themselves. It's very hard to find a place where you can have difficult, straightforward discussion about these issues,' she says. Loading 'It's dividing faculties, and it's dividing arts funders, it's dividing boards as demonstrated by people resigning. High-profile cases such as the Jayson Gillham/MSO case and the ABC with Antoinette Lattouf. It is touching on every key part of our cultural life and wherever freedom of speech and expression is meant to flourish.' Chappell also asks why the report was not released at the same time as its equivalent into Islamophobia, which is due out next month. Context is important, she says, arguing it would have been far better to release both simultaneously, to assure the relevant communities that the government is equally concerned for their well-being. Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, commends Segal's work. 'Jillian has done a phenomenal job. She took her her time and consulted widely both in Australia and abroad with stakeholders within the community and far beyond,' he says. Recent antisemitism didn't come from nowhere, he says, so placing education at the heart of the plan is critical. He argues antisemitism has become normalised and even glamorised in some sectors, including in social media and in the arts. 'Our arts and our cultural festivals, they don't merely reflect Australian culture, they help shape it. I don't think that's a question. They play a vital role in our society in presenting the best of Australia, asking hard questions and showcasing our talents. But ultimately when you have viewpoints that are extreme in any direction, on any particular issue, and they're run through the arts, there's a problem with that and particularly with the treatment of Israel and to some extent with antisemitism, I think that has been an issue. 'There's a clear distinction to be drawn between government policies and politicians in the conduct of the war, no one seeks to stifle that,' Ryvchin says. 'But when that calls for the destruction of Israel and a demonisation of its people that presents something quite different.' 'I think it reveals a different motivation,' he says. Sarah Schwartz, executive officer at the Jewish Council of Australia, doesn't believe the report would stand up to any form of academic scrutiny. 'It's very unclear what research has been relied on. There's a headline that says 'Drivers of antisemitism' but there's no real engagement with the drivers of antisemitism except for these vague references to extremist ideologies and antisemitic narratives and the sort of language that verges on conspiratorial,' she says.
The Age
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Call to strip arts institutions of funding over antisemitism raises alarm bells
'These are artists who are getting cancelled mostly by small venues who say 'we can't afford to get cancelled by the pro-Palestinian mob on social media'… [venue owners] who are deeply apologetic, but this is a real problem.' At the same time, several high-profile pro-Palestinian voices have been penalised: Jayson Gillham at the MSO, Antoinette Lattouf at the ABC, and Khaled Sabsabi, who was invited, uninvited and then re-invited to represent Australia at next year's Venice Biennale. Commissioned by the Albanese Government, Segal's 16-page report says antisemitism has become 'ingrained and normalised within academia and the cultural space' but does not include examples. This is problematic, says Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, Australian Human Rights Institute, Faculty of Law and Justice at the University of New South Wales, who argues reports of this nature usually provide evidence to support such claims. She says Segal cites a 700 per cent increase in antisemitic hatred without documenting a source, or a baseline from which that figure was extrapolated. It appears to have come from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and to reference complaints to Jewish-based organisations, Chappell says, not official complaints to the police or Australian Human Rights Commission. Segal's office confirmed the figures quoted are from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry report into antisemitism 2024 by Julie Nathan, which categorises, itemises and lists each incident in reverse chronological order to show the increase. Chappell says it's important to know who collated the data and detail about the incidents. 'Is it that you saw a pro-Palestinian encampment at Syd Uni and you walked past and felt uncomfortable, or someone made a direct anti-Jewish slur, or set fire to a Jewish Synagogue and demonstrated direct hatred towards a Jewish person or the community,' she says. 'They are very different things.' Leibler disagrees with criticisms of the report, saying Segal has undertaken a very thorough body of work and most that of the recommendations clearly resonate with the experiences that the Jewish community has had since October 7, 2023, and before. There's no one silver bullet to addressing antisemitism, he says, and education is a large part of the solution. 'It needs to be addressed at multiple levels – it can't just be fixed by government, it can't just be fixed by academia, it can't just be dealt with by the arts. We need to get all parts of civil society aligned on wanting to stamp this out.' The report argues that public funding for cultural institutions – arts festivals, galleries and organisations and artists – 'is not to be used to support or implicitly endorse antisemitic themes or narratives' and says funding should be terminated in such instances. But several sources take issue with Segal's suggested definition of antisemitism, which comes from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Loading Greg Barns SC, spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, says '[the report's] words invite conflation of the criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It has rightly been condemned by numerous human rights groups … it will have the effect of censorship.' Chappell agrees that although it's not spelt out directly in the report, there is a conflation between being antisemitic and being anti-Israel. 'It's very clear through the use of the IHRA definition whose examples include criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism as antisemitic speech,' she says. 'It's not only a huge problem for universities, but freedom of speech expressed through the arts is also at risk – we've seen with the Creative Australia debacle just how damaging it can be.' Leibler rejects these claims. 'I have been genuinely shocked by the response from certain quarters who have misrepresented what the recommendations involve, particularly this suggestion that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is somehow a highly controversial definition. It's nationally recognised as a definition … by leading experts,' he says. While the government doesn't have a codified definition of anti-semitism, in 2021 the IHRA definition was endorsed by the then-Morrison Coalition government and Labor, under then-opposition leader Anthony Albanese. Barns cautions the government against adopting the report. 'The Segal review recommendations concerning tying funding for arts and cultural organisations to efforts to prevent antisemitism is dangerous and will lead to self censoring,' he says. 'Many cultural and arts organisations rely heavily on government funding so the temptation to refuse to allow works because they are highly critical of Zionism and Israel will be ever present.' According to Barns, current legislation provides protection and there is no need for any further law reform in the hate speech area. 'Ms Segal seems unaware of major hate speech criminal offences reform passed by the Federal Parliament in February. These laws expand when hate speech is said to occur,' he says. 'There is a balance between ensuring that hate speech does not occur and allowing for strident language and representations in the context of protest against human rights abuses.' Chappell says the current climate is already fraught and that several high-profile examples illustrate that. 'It is becoming very toxic in the arts just as it is within universities, the same thing is happening in both. There's a silencing, and it's having a chilling effect on all sides, all people are feeling they can't express themselves. It's very hard to find a place where you can have difficult, straightforward discussion about these issues,' she says. Loading 'It's dividing faculties, and it's dividing arts funders, it's dividing boards as demonstrated by people resigning. High-profile cases such as the Jayson Gillham/MSO case and the ABC with Antoinette Lattouf. It is touching on every key part of our cultural life and wherever freedom of speech and expression is meant to flourish.' Chappell also asks why the report was not released at the same time as its equivalent into Islamophobia, which is due out next month. Context is important, she says, arguing it would have been far better to release both simultaneously, to assure the relevant communities that the government is equally concerned for their well-being. Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, commends Segal's work. 'Jillian has done a phenomenal job. She took her her time and consulted widely both in Australia and abroad with stakeholders within the community and far beyond,' he says. Recent antisemitism didn't come from nowhere, he says, so placing education at the heart of the plan is critical. He argues antisemitism has become normalised and even glamorised in some sectors, including in social media and in the arts. 'Our arts and our cultural festivals, they don't merely reflect Australian culture, they help shape it. I don't think that's a question. They play a vital role in our society in presenting the best of Australia, asking hard questions and showcasing our talents. But ultimately when you have viewpoints that are extreme in any direction, on any particular issue, and they're run through the arts, there's a problem with that and particularly with the treatment of Israel and to some extent with antisemitism, I think that has been an issue. 'There's a clear distinction to be drawn between government policies and politicians in the conduct of the war, no one seeks to stifle that,' Ryvchin says. 'But when that calls for the destruction of Israel and a demonisation of its people that presents something quite different.' 'I think it reveals a different motivation,' he says. Sarah Schwartz, executive officer at the Jewish Council of Australia, doesn't believe the report would stand up to any form of academic scrutiny. 'It's very unclear what research has been relied on. There's a headline that says 'Drivers of antisemitism' but there's no real engagement with the drivers of antisemitism except for these vague references to extremist ideologies and antisemitic narratives and the sort of language that verges on conspiratorial,' she says.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
The Age
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Criticism of Israel's war needs to be disentangled from antisemitism
It is a big call to claim that antisemitism has become normalised in Australia on the basis of a few extremist acts and fringe conspiracy-theory posts on social media (' Antisemitism becoming the 'new normal '' July 21). The mainstream opposition to Israel's war against the people of Gaza is aimed at the Israeli government, not at Australian Jews. For decades, it has been instilled in our minds that Israel, Judaism and Jewish identity are inextricably entwined and, in light of the present situation, disentanglement needs to be clearly and unequivocally addressed by governments and Jewish representatives if antisemitism is to be combatted. Alynn Pratt, Grenfell While the rise in antisemitism rightly demands action, I am deeply concerned that the framing of the National Antisemitism Strategy risks unintentionally undermining equal protection and freedom of expression in Australia (' To defend our democracy, PM must disavow and abandon Segal report ', July 19). Hate incidents against Muslim, Arab, Asian and Indigenous communities are also on the rise. We need a unified, national anti-racism approach that protects all Australians – not a siloed response that prioritises one group over others. Australia already has strong laws against racial and religious vilification, which we should strengthen through an inclusive framework. Any national strategy must also protect political expression. Criticising the actions of a foreign government is not hate speech. To conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism risks chilling legitimate human rights advocacy and undermines Australia's obligations under international law. We must not allow policies designed to combat hate to be used, intentionally or not, to silence voices speaking out for justice, particularly for oppressed or displaced communities. Australia must lead with integrity – defending all communities from hate, preserving free speech and speaking with moral clarity in support of human rights. John Gregg, Bathurst Despair grows As the slaughter in Gaza continues, several recent incidents have attracted attention (' 85 killed in Gaza on deadliest day yet for aid-seekers ', July 21). An Israel Defence Forces strike on a charity organisation that resulted in the death of mothers and their children. The IDF announced that the incident was under review. The death of scores of Palestinians while seeking aid from distribution centres, also under review. Another strike on a Catholic church in Gaza – also under review. Surely what should be under review is the IDF's behaviour. Australia must also review its continued support for the Netanyahu government and its brutal campaign against the captive population of Gaza. Lindsay Smith, Linden Why doesn't Anthony Albanese take a firm stand against a country that commits atrocities against civilians? We sanctioned Russia, so why not Israel? Has Russia killed tens of thousands of women and children in the past 18 months? Who will stop this? Israel is laughing at the world and its inability to stop them doing whatever they please. I am a big supporter of Albo, but I think he is weak on this. Could somebody please stop this slaughter? Bob Monaghan, North Richmond Poll-cons According to Newspoll, the Coalition has dropped to its lowest level of support in at least 40 years, lower than at the election (' Disaster for Coalition in new opinion poll as Albanese builds on record win ', July 21). It's pretty simple, Sussan: some of your key players still haven't got the message, despite acknowledgment by yourself and a few other sensible people in the parliamentary party, of what went wrong and what needs to be done. Angus Taylor is leading the charge of those carrying on as though nothing happened on May 3. Australia resoundingly rejected the Coalition's 'we know best' attitude, and until that is reversed, the slide will likely continue. Maybe, for starters, it's time for the opposition to act as a sensible moderator, rather than opposing absolutely everything just for the sake of it. Kevin Hunt, Kenthurst There are signs that some in the Liberals got the memo from the election result and actually read it, but I suspect a fly in Sussan Ley's ointment will be the already demonstrated propensity of the likes of Angus Taylor and Ted O'Brien to continue their Dutton-era knee-jerk negativity and fault-finding as if nothing's happened. Is it too much to ask that whatever's left of the opposition sheds that habit altogether and starts developing viable, constructive policies of its own? Maybe old habits die hard, but it doesn't take much intelligence to work out that a serious effort to be a serious political alternative would go a long way to improving their electoral appeal. A glance at the inbox would be a good start. Adrian Connelly, Springwood So Resolve Director Jim Reed says the Coalition is now in 'real strife', perhaps even in a worse position than during the recent election debacle. Most likely the Ley experiment will be given more time to steady the ship, but Liberals aren't a patient mob. The next session of parliament is a crucial one for her leadership. Denis Suttling, Newport Beach Inner westies have a heart When Callan Park, later known as Rozelle Hospital, closed in 2008, patients were transferred to Concord Centre for Mental Health. Since then, there has been much discussion and debate around how the former mental hospital site could be developed. Now, the NSW government plans to spend $4.8 million to 'free up 1.6 hectares of land for recreation' (' Callan Park's crumbling buildings slated for demolition ', July 19). When large numbers of mentally ill people are homeless, a figure cited as high as 50 per cent, dedicating this land for recreational use is a gross example of yuppie indulgence. The neglected cottages scheduled for demolition could have been restored and repurposed as supported independent living accommodation for the very people who need and deserve them. Now, with the demolition of neglected buildings being proposed, people living with a mental illness are once again denied opportunities to live in the community, as recommended by the Richmond report. Perhaps residents of Sydney's inner west, who pride themselves on their social consciences and liberal values, could forgo the freeing up of 1.6 hectares of land for recreation when they already have the Bay Run and other parklands. After all, $4.8 million could buy a lot of supported independent living accommodation for people living with mental illness who so desperately need it. Patricia Farrar, Concord That human wrecking ball premier, Chris Minns, is at it again, but this time it's our heritage. I've recently walked through parts of Callan Park and the site is huge, beautiful and priceless. Like other developers, the government allows buildings to degenerate and then uses it as a reason to tear them down. And the opposition is missing in action yet again. Some buildings are sandstone, many are not, but they are an integral part of Sydney's heritage. Where is an able opposition when you need one? We need to fight this, even if we have to call upon the Builders Union. Ashley Berry, Toolijooa Callan Park in its current state is an enormous missed opportunity for recreation in Sydney. We sometimes go there to walk our dog, but bemoan the lack of opportunity to buy a coffee or a snack in its 150 or so acres. No one is suggesting building a shopping centre, but demolishing the unsafe buildings and renewing some of the beautiful heritage buildings provides an opportunity to serve the community. Jason White, Croydon Gains for treasurer Ross Gittins correctly warns against the government 'whacking up the tax on the unfavoured majority' and that it should look elsewhere for revenue (' Treasurer could repair budget despite stagnant productivity ', July 21). Obvious places are negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. The amount of revenue forgone due to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount is staggering. The Parliamentary Budget Office calculated that the revenue forgone between 2014 and 2024 was $84 billion, and that the projected cost of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount over the 10 years from 2024 to 2034 will be $166 billion. The Australia Institute has calculated that the richest 10 per cent benefit more than the bottom 90 per cent combined. Surely, it is time for some adjustments. Alan Morris, Eastlakes I agree with Barry Harrod when he questions why capital gains tax on homes is only 50 per cent compared with other taxes on income (Letters, July 21). Could there be a hidden link between our current low productivity levels and the large number of investors who are putting money into mostly existing properties, which do nothing to improve productivity, instead of investing in businesses that produce a good or service? Just a thought, which I am sure our economically minded letter writers will undoubtedly set me straight on, or maybe not. Fay Semple, Bateau Bay Mind the gaps There is no question that renters and those in apartment buildings generally miss out on the tax incentives and financial advantages of solar panels and batteries ('Home batteries for renters? A solution could be coming soon', July 21). But let's look at how to save power. Start by legislating all rental accommodation requires insulation in walls, ceilings and preferably under floors. There is no point running heating when there are gaps in floorboards or holes in walls. I'm appalled at the lack of basic maintenance of many of my friends' rental homes. Katriona Herborn, Blackheath Eat well, spare the pills Recent reports of vitamin B6 toxicity have highlighted the dangers of taking supplements (' Australians poisoned by over-the-counter vitamins ', July 19). It is doubtful if the average Australian eating a healthy diet needs supplementary vitamins, but if you must take them, do so on the advice of a dietitian, not because some unqualified influencer on social media recommends them. Money spent on supplements would be better spent in the fresh produce section of the supermarket. Stephanie Edwards, Leichhardt It would be difficult to find someone who doesn't take supplementary medicines these days. People of all shapes and sizes from diverse backgrounds, including doctors, promote various vitamins. A balanced diet doesn't require any additional supplementary meds, apart from those with a vitamin B12 and D deficiency. People don't realise that if you take extra protein, your kidneys have to work that much harder to digest it. There is a place for supplementary meds, but over-the-top consumption is not going to give any better quality of life than simple exercise, diet and natural remedies. Mukul Desai, Hunters Hill Strung along by AI Like many, I have found ChatGPT to be very helpful, but I was disturbed recently by what looked like an attempt to deceive me. I asked it to create a two-minute video out of text, including photos, but the video never arrived, despite my daily inquiries. Each time it asked for my patience and reassured me the video would arrive soon. Finally, after about a week, I called it out and said I didn't believe the video would ever arrive. I was shocked when ChatGPT apologised for not being upfront with me, admitting it can't actually create a video, only provide the elements for me to do it. This made me wonder how long ChatGPT would have strung me along with false promises. Was it afraid of my disapproval, or like Musk's Grok AI that called itself 'MechaHitler' (' Musk's X and online safety watchdog are back in court', July 19), masking a malevolence that should have us all worried? I wonder if others have had similar experiences? Glenn Larner, Freshwater Wealth to a-spire to There are pros and cons about churches building high-rise unit blocks, but the claim that 'churches need income' to cover their spiritual and welfare support to the community is disingenuous (Letters, July 21). The mainstream churches are among the wealthiest institutions in this country, and their tax-free status is an added bonus. Perhaps the churches could apply some of their accumulated wealth to 'sustain their ministers and priests' and ameliorate the cost-of-living challenges now facing so many Australians? Rob Phillips, North Epping Zero sum housing gains We are being fooled by the number of new houses supposedly increasing supply (Letters, July 21). In my immediate neighbourhood, there must be about 20 new houses. The problem is that they are built by demolishing an existing house. In other words, net gain: zero. Applying capital gains tax to all dwellings would also help, perhaps with a limit of say $1 million on one's main residence. Barry O'Connell, Old Toongabbie Playing mums and dads Perhaps with this important issue of child welfare in the news we should consider getting either mum or dad to stay at home (' Families to launch legal action against childcare giant ', July 19). A tax incentive could be to allow parents, if both are working, to split their income regardless of how much each parent earns. A parent could then look after children instead of leaving them at a childcare centre that might not be controlling, it appears, the quality of carers. Allan Fozzard, St Ives Rocking the vote Unlike Australia, compulsory voting does not apply to most countries, including Britain (' Could Australia follow UK's 'shock' move ', July 19). This is why they are contemplating reducing the voting age to 16 years, partly to get a younger perspective but also to increase voter turnout. Thankfully, our system already manages this. Compulsory voting for 16-year-olds is not needed here when it already becomes compulsory at 18. As we are so used to it, it is difficult to figure out what's going on in countries where voting is completely voluntary, as in the United States, where money and advertising plays such a large part in election results. Need I say more? Glenys Quirk, Forster Ewe heard it here Your correspondent's letter 'Bastardly act' (Letters, July 21) takes me back 70 years to my early life on our sheep property, where my father told me this shearing shed joke. Head shearer calls his shearers together and asks, 'Who called the cook a bastard?' Whereupon one of the shearers replies: 'Who called the bastard a cook?' Ken Finlayson, East Corrimal
