I THANK S Sellway for his letter (The Bunyip, In response to the Voice debate, September 20).
I’ve chosen to respond because I believe it would add to what could and should be a respectful and robust discussion by people obviously interested in the topic.
I want to make the first point that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from rebuttal.
It means freedom to participate in the contest of ideas. Mr Shawn Lock and I, having both sought to be in public life, understand, when you make a public statement, you invite public criticism.
Such is people’s democratic right. If S Sellway believes this view is radical, we will have to agree to disagree, such is also our right.
While I may not agree of those advocating for a no vote, I respect their right to have this opinion.
However, I do not respect rhetoric that advocates that people remain uninformed or become apathetic.
I don’t for a second question the character of Mr Lock or anyone else who holds a strong view against the voice.
However, cheap partypolitical taglines like “if you don’t know, vote no” will always be no more than a cynical catch cry that aims at appealing to uncertainty and fear over facts and reasoning.
I share S Sellway’s sentiments about the importance of facts but telling people not to seek them or to ignore them is in my view, the wrong message.
Whether you are voting Yes or voting No, you should do so with intent having taken the time to properly inform yourself and understanding the full consequences of your actions.
For anyone reading, I hope that you are enjoying the discourse and have a clearer idea of the perspectives in this debate.
Prior to S Sellway’s letter, in the spirit of what I’ve just said, I had planned to write another letter speaking about some legal misconceptions that exist around the Voice to Parliament.
Unfortunately, due to the length of the letter, I will have to do that another time.
Isaac Solomon, Gawler East
