PTSD not diminished by being a volunteer
I note the quandary and somewhat confusing aspect of one station officer in the NZ Volunteer Fire Service who had to take time off work after experiencing horrific sights at a bus v car crash scene.
Leaving work he had no income even after being diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress.
Been there, done that. As a fulltime fireman locally you don’t expunge those sights and feelings after "a few beers and a good night’s sleep". They stay.
The sad irony in this is that if this man had experienced a horrific or devastating incident at his workplace, he would be covered by ACC. Why the difference?
We all know why and it has nothing to do with the welfare and wellbeing of a volunteer organisation. Without them New Zealand would be in serious trouble
Double standards
New Zealand recognises the state of Israel, although only some — but not all — of that society agree with their own government dominated by Netanyahu and his right-wing cronies, and agree with their ruthless war. Yet Winston Peters and the New Zealand government refuse to recognise a Palestinian state as only some, but not all, of that society includes a Hamas-terrorist dominated government.
As it says in the Good Book, "Let he without sin cast the first stone".
But, according to the New Zealand government’s stance, one stone thrower and its allies is legitimate, while the other is not. Double standards rule when hypocrites speak.
Full coverage
Kiwis involved in the Gaza flotilla and then detained by the IDF were warned not to go by New Zealand, as this was an active war zone.
An Italian Navy vessel offered to carry the aid carried by this flotilla to the port of destination under safe passage. This was declined and the inevitable detainment by IDF occurred .
Now these Kiwis expect we, the taxpayers, to cover the cost of their recovery?
Sticky wicket
"Sticky" does not mean like a stick, and "dogmatic" has little to do with dogs.
Similarly, the meaning of "anti-Semitism" has nothing to do with the outdated racial grouping of Semitic people referred to by Stuart Mathieson (Letters 29.9.25). "Semitic people" is no longer seriously used as a racial grouping by anthropologists, while "Semitic" has limited use in linguistics as the description of a language family.
The meaning of anti-Semitism can be found in any dictionary, and, however confusing this may be to Mathieson, its meaning is a prejudice or hostility towards Jews.
At a time when actual anti-Semitism is on the rise, it is sad that, of all the letters it receives, the ODT would choose to print a letter questioning whether the word anti-Semitism has any meaningful reference.
Also, I note that in today’s issue of the ODT (30.9.25) one does not have to reach the editorial before discovering whether the ODT approves of the government’s decision not to recognise Palestine as a state. The articles on p2, the choice of headlines, and the prominence given to the views of Prof Patman are enough to show that the ODT disapproves of the decision.
Imagine all the amazing things we could do
Imagine the hospital we could have in Dunedin if the money for the unnecessary Waikato Medical School was added to the amount promised for the desperately needed Dunedin hospital.
Leave them be
Thinking about the rogue plantings at the cenotaph, reminded me of seeing Buckingham Palace for the first time this year. Would the palace or public appreciate colourful potted geraniums placed by a well-meaning tourist? To brighten the rather bland and massive facade? Absolutely not.
These places that draw the public or call the public to remember, respect, reflect do not need anyone’s personal embellishment no matter how well meaning. The more notable or famous these places are, the more individual interpretation is given some scope. These places are public but also very personal to each of us. Leave them be.
Voting rights
Opponents of the Albany St project describe the council’s latest decision to restart the project as undemocratic. How can that be? The latest decision was based on one-councillor one-vote, and no elected representative was excluded. Compare this with the earlier vote to abandon the project: one councillor (Jim O’Malley) was excluded, while another (Jules Radich) had two votes. Surely that was undemocratic.
I can (just about) understand how a legal challenge might prevent a councillor from chairing a committee, but I am mystified as to how it could prevent an elected representative from casting a vote on a matter of public interest.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: letters@odt.co.nz
