Power, privilege, protection: Society has come to this

So, integrity is about doing what is right or following strong moral rules even when no one is watching. Jacqueline Maley (“How wealth, privilege protect boys and men accused of sexual violence”, August 23) channels the reminder that “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters”. Steve Ngeow, ChatswoodJacqueline Maley shines a light on gendered violenceSteven SiewertJacqueline Maley powerfully analyses the world of privilege and its impact on the attitudes that males emerging from that world have towards women. She unfortunately was blinded by a simple truth – each of those boys was also raised by a mother, who needs to take the same responsibility for the attitudes their sons now have towards women. Or maybe they presented that to them – submissive, focused on personal grooming, attracted to power and money, incapable of calling out wrong from right and prepared to turn a blind eye to their own partner’s inappropriate behaviours. That’s the world we need to be unpacking for this to have any chance of stopping. Brian Barrett, PadstowJacqueline Maley makes a good case against victim blaming and, while correct, she misses two vital points: one is that a 14-year-old, by law, cannot consent (even if they do); second, who was responsible for the other 14-year-old drinking with 17-year-olds (mind you, all underage)? Maybe we need education around the law. Jenny Greenwood, Hunters HillJacqueline Maley is rightly outraged by “the men and boys who commit violence against women, or enable it”. Recent instances of sexual violence by snobbish blokes with misplaced notions of superiority because of their privileged upbringing, and boof-headed yobbos with little self-control and even less sensitivity, are a disgrace. And I certainly don’t want people like that, or their enablers, in any positions of authority or public adulation. I hope Maley and other women don’t assume that all men are like that, or that they think it’s OK or even just shrug their shoulders at it. I’m just as revolted by it as they are. Adrian Connelly, SpringwoodPark the perfectionismThe Greens have the devil of a dilemma to deal with (“New forest proposal to dwarf Koala Park”, August 23). The National Parks Association’s proposal to create a Great Southern National Park based on the state government’s Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method, allowing the use of carbon credits, appears to have much in its favour. Like its counterpart, the Great Koala National Park, it promises the end of native forest logging and the protection of habitat for endangered species. It has the support of some Indigenous groups and the Nature Conservation Council, but is opposed by the Nationals and Greens’ luminaries Bob Brown and Christine Milne. The fact that the INFM was devised by a harsh critic of dodgy offsets, Professor Andrew Macintosh, gives the park proposal credibility. On the face of it, it would be a great pity if the Greens put conservation perfection ahead of the immense practical good of this scheme. They will need to consider carefully what its rejection could entail. Tom Knowles, Parkville (Vic)Cap rent risesShane Wright (“Rents spike up to 80% as housing crisis bites”, August 23) sets out the various hotspots where rents are spiking and ends with a brief note that Canberra is again the “outlier”, recording the smallest increase in the country. Absent from this short observation is the very important reminder that the ACT is the only state/territory that explicitly and legally caps the percentage amount a landlord can increase rent by (with a process for a landlord to get approval to exceed this threshold). Notwithstanding the admirable efforts of other state governments to make renting fairer in Australia, most have baulked at mandating the capping approach. It seems to be working in the ACT. Is it worth a try in NSW? Cathryn Callaghan, CroydonFar down in this story was the line: “The pace of growth in rents has slowed this year”. Surely that should have been the headline? Brendan Jones, AnnandaleOutspoken AbbottTony Abbott just can’t keep his mouth shut (“Abbott backs Hanson’s challenge to High Court racial vilification ruling”, August 23). He is the president of the Liberal Party, not its leader. He should take a look at One Nation’s Free Speech policy – it is a doozy. It calls for absolute free speech, which would result in the repeal of any legislation that now controlled it. If it had been in place for the past three years, then the racial and religious hate we have seen would be permissible, even stopping the police from acting. No need for a royal commission; anarchy and violence would be the order of the day. Well done, Tony, who failed drastically at being a prime minister. John Rome, Mount LawleyIn Tony Abbott’s latest example of his bizarre brand of logic, he claims that his decade-long fight to overturn section 18C is because it is a “risk to free speech”. He says that “leadership is about preserving national unity on the essentials, and this is why I have taken this position”. So, to preserve “national unity”, we should all be able to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group because of race or ethnicity”? Go figure. Alan Marel, North Curl CurlSit down, Tony. You are not a party. Anne Eagar, EppingTo submit a letter to The Sun-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.From our partners