We must protect champions such as Shore’s Clare Walker

Congratulations to brave ex-Shore teacher Clare Walker (“Teacher says Shore culture is ’harmful for women‴⁣⁣ , October 13) for standing up for domestic violence victim Lilie James by calling out her principal for gushing over the spurned murderer. It’s tragic that Clare felt forced to resign for supporting a domestic violence victim. If Shore were truly remorseful, it would not only publicly apologise but offer Clare her job back. If we had a whistleblower protection authority, brave individuals wouldn’t have to destroy their careers, with the added benefit that immoral, corrupt and disgraceful behaviour could be swiftly addressed. Anne Matheson, Gordon

This story is a good example of stupidity passing for normality, even intelligence. Once you introduce behaviour into a group whose members derive validation from the comfort of the coherence of the group, and however errant the behaviour might be, then you get an organic propaganda machine that outdoes rational argument, morality and equality. In the case of Shore School, with membership of largely male staff and students, and complying parents, you had a powerful machine broken, but hopefully it is on the pathway to repair. Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay

The actions of Clare Walker in taking a case to the Human Rights Commission regarding the headmaster of Shore’s address were both brave and selfless, as the personal toll it would have taken is evident. The principal’s speech obviously perpetuated the fallacy that someone who appears outwardly a good person cannot be an abuser. This belief is wrong on many levels. It shows ignorance of the complexity of personal psychological and societal factors leading to the need to control another and it is harmful with its ability to give an abuser credibility and to silence a victim. Hopefully, the gender equity and inclusion programs being run at the school don’t just pay lip service but do delve into the complexity of factors contributing to this tragic epidemic. Louise Dolan, Birchgrove

To men like John Collier, the Thijssens of this world present as “delightful” young men. Polite, good-looking, academically bright, sporty, they are a reflection of who these older men were or wish they had been. But the admiration of these authority figures encourages a sense of superiority and entitlement, which fuels an attitude that young women are theirs to take and own, and if the women won’t be owned, they should be punished. Thijssen’s actions were at the extreme end of the scale but the attitudes that fed his delusion are alive and well in many male cohorts. Who better than older men to teach boys that women are not simply objects for their predilection? Unfortunately, by their approbation, they often perpetuate entitled, controlling, demanding behaviour towards women that, taken to extremes, results in violence and death. Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga

Shore is probably over ready to become co-ed, with a new principal who gets what data tells us about male violence. Living under a mushroom, however, is not an excuse in this day and age for not having a clue in the world in any educational setting. Cecily Chittick, Wyong

So the principal of a boys’ school responsible for educating some of the most privileged boys in our society dismisses the murder of a woman by a male she rejected as “a really good man having a bad moment”. Like what happens once a week in our society? And the boys’ club that runs the school supports him; even when the Human Rights Commission admonishes them, they issue just a gentle general statement about how gendered violence is not a good thing; the principal is allowed to keep his job and is left undisturbed. And we wonder why there seems to be no political will to do anything about the epidemic of domestic violence against women in our society. Michael McMullan, Avoca Beach

Trump show all about him

In what must be one of the best articles ever written about Donald Trump (“The world needs a peacemaker, not a master of grift”, October 13), Cory Alpert carefully demonstrates how, with Trump’s short attention span and his unpredictability, and because he has little to do while Congress is in recess, he has again leaped to the front of the world stage and pushed forward a plan for peace in Gaza. For Trump, whether this is a solution to one of the major problems of the Middle East is irrelevant; it is more another opportunity for self-aggrandisement. In one way, it is a shame he never won an Emmy for his show The Apprentice because perhaps that might have sated his lust for recognition because now every foreign negotiation puts him at the centre of the world stage with the ultimate possible success being the Nobel Peace Prize. We all hope the peace will continue but, if not, there is nothing more certain than that the Sun Tzu for grift will find someone else to blame. Peter Nash, Fairlight

No to Nobel

Bruce Wolpe (“Nobel for Trump? Not now, not ever”, October 13) lists a slew of worthy recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, past and present, people whose lives have been dedicated to improving the world and making peace a reality. Then there’s Donald Trump. Trump the grifter, the liar, the charlatan, the holder of the “leader of the free world” mantle, who doesn’t want the world to be free, unless it suits him.
Trump obfuscates and bumbles and he destroys programs that would keep the world peaceful and fed. In relation to armed conflicts, his promises are largely meaningless or conditional. He has no concern for national or international law or convention. Trump is ruled by greed, not principle; by the deal, not by goodness. A Nobel for Trump? Not now, not ever. Geoff Nilon, Mascot

Finally, I can agree with Donald Trump: nobody has solved eight wars in nine months. Unfortunately, Trump forgot that this also included him. Battles with little green plastic soldiers don’t count, Donald. Now put your toys away. Peter Miniutti, Ashbury

Trump’s fixation on the Nobel Peace Prize, coupled with his supporters’ fervent advocacy for it, reveals a fascinating psychological tangle: a deep-seated hunger for the very symbols of “establishment” prestige that he and his base routinely deride as tools of out-of-touch “European elites”. This isn’t just personal vanity – it’s a microcosm of cognitive dissonance, where the desire for universal acclaim clashes with a worldview built on anti-elitism. At its core, it stems from Trump’s lifelong pattern of equating worth with external trophies, amplified by a need to eclipse perceived rivals like Barack Obama, all while framing rejection as proof of a rigged system run by snobby foreigners. Han Yang, North Turramurra

At this stage, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has retained the dignity of the Nobel Peace Prize by not awarding it to Donald Trump. If the underlying theme behind this prize is humanitarianism, it should never be in Trump’s hands. Lyn Savage, Coogee

I second the proposal of your correspondent (Letters, October 13) to add the word “tantrump” to our dictionary. I think the definition should include “dummy-spit”. Paul Reid, Campsie

Skewing the Senate numbers

George Brandis’ claim of hypocrisy (“Forgotten hypocrisy of dismissal”, October 13) over the blocking of supply that set the scene for Gough Whitlam’s dismissal is astonishing. If it wasn’t for the trashing of another “entrenched constitutional convention” by Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen in replacing Labor senator Bert Milliner (who had died) with Labor-hostile Albert Field, the Senate in 1975 would not have been able to block Whitlam’s budget. That action was a pivotal Coalition connivance at state and federal level that contributed mightily to the crisis. Yet Brandis ignores it. What was outrageously underhanded was the Coalition’s opportunistic smashing of those rules by snatching the vote of a dead man to stymie a government and piously pretending ever after that it had some kind of lofty moral duty to do it. Brandis can sneer at the left all he likes about “airbrushed” history, “hagiography” and “grievance”, but if there’s been any hypocritical myth-making about the dismissal over the years, the sanitising into innocence of the Coalition’s skulduggery has been one of the most skilfully crafted. Adrian Connelly, Springwood

The outrage people felt at the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government is not invalidated by George Brandis’ claim of hypocrisy due to the actions in 1970 of the then Whitlam opposition. Rather, it is in Malcolm Fraser’s conniving with our unelected governor-general to use the reserve powers bestowed by the unelected Queen of England to dismiss the elected government of Australia. The proper course of action would have been to allow the political processes to play out in parliament. There was plenty of time for that to happen. Supply is commonly not formally approved for many months after its theoretical expiration. Cracks were already forming in the Coalition’s resolve. Instead, we had the will of the people subverted by a power-hungry opposition with the assistance of a morally weak governor-general. Alan Phillips, Mosman

No one disputes that threatening to block supply was a tactic used by opposition parties in the 1970s. What George Brandis overlooks, though, is that the High Court had ruled in early October 1975 that the Northern Territory and the ACT were entitled to two senators each, with full voting rights. This meant the Senate could have potentially been controlled by Labor, and survived. No wonder the stakes were high in October/ November 1975 and the Fraser opposition desperate for an election to be held. Michael Blissenden, Dural

I see George Brandis is getting in early to revise and distort the history of 1975. He is conflating and confusing normal political behaviour by Whitlam in 1970 with the unprecedented dismissal of an elected PM by an unelected proxy for the Queen. My first vote was in 1974 and I recall in 1975 being horrified by Whitlam’s shenanigans, but that did not justify governor-general Kerr’s actions at the behest of Malcolm Fraser. Kerr should not have agreed to see Fraser, and we all just needed to wait for an election that would have been held in 1976 or 1977 anyway. Peter Kamenyitzky, Copacabana

So amid Liberal Party infighting, George Brandis has nothing to say but needs to dredge up a story from 55 years ago to bag the Labor Party and Gough Whitlam. Shame he has no constructive advice for the current Liberal politicians who are determined to manoeuvre themselves into extinction. Stephen Woods, Artarmon

Ley’s surprise ratings

So Sussan Ley’s approval ratings have tanked (“Ley’s approval tanks amid party turmoil”, October 13). In the past month, we’ve watched Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Andrew Hastie jump ship and move to the backbench. We’ve had Peter Dutton dump on Andrew Hastie, calling him lazy – and, let’s face it, you’d think a former SAS officer could come up with a half-decent defence policy in three years and release it more than 10 days before an election. Meanwhile, watching from the sidelines is leadership aspirant Angus Taylor – the man who, in three years, couldn’t come up with a tax policy or even hit Treasurer Jim Chalmers with a lettuce leaf in Question Time. Then we have the Nats pretending climate change doesn’t exist and spruiking the virtues of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Considering what a rabble the opposition is, why haven’t Ley’s approval ratings dropped even further? Malcolm Freak, Armidale

Design is the Quay

It seems we have a once-in-a- generation opportunity to upgrade the ferry terminals and promenade at Circular Quay (“Quay makeover put on ice over funding”, October 13). Rather than a piecemeal approach that will be dictated by political and financial constraints, can we not incorporate a wholistic new design for the whole precinct? One that includes removal of the outdated Cahill Expressway and the relocation of the train station? Opening up the whole area to allow unencumbered passage for pedestrians in a public square, similar to the much-admired piazzas in Europe and then in turn facilitating practical access to architecturally pleasing ferry wharves, would embellish what for many is the greatest harbour in the world? If we did it for the Harbour Bridge and Opera House, we can do it again. Robert Hickey, Green Point

Sydney cycle

As David Crowe writes (“In London, the bike love-in blooms – never mind the odd bumpy ride”, October 13), the global cycling boom is reshaping urban transport, with cities such as London seeing a move towards faster, cleaner and less congested streets. In Montreal, bicycles now make up a fifth of all journeys in some areas, and over a third of residents cycle weekly. New bike lanes have helped halve retail vacancies on once-struggling streets. In London, cyclists now outnumber cars in the financial district, and in Paris, remarkably, they outnumber motorists across the entire city. From Copenhagen, where nearly half of commuters cycle, to Chicago, where e-bikes dominate bike-share use, the shift is undeniable. Despite political rows over road space, cycling is proving an economic, environmental, and social success. Sydney should follow suit and invest more in bike infrastructure. John Kempler, Rose Bay

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.