The latest government proposal to crack down on vandalism draws some more letters to the SMH:
Art of the matter: is graffiti vandalism?
Kay Orchison (Letters, November 10) has a strange understanding of our system of government and law if she believes an elected legislator, in proposing legislation, is ''interfering with the legal system''. I don't necessarily agree with Nathan Rees's legislation on graffiti sentencing, but I certainly defend his right to propose it. Kay possibly thinks that function is the preserve of judges. Not yet it isn't.
Gary Howe Elizabeth Bay
I am a Sydney bus driver. Alex Dudley (Letters, November 9) wants us to ''get some perspective'' and believes graffiti vandals are angst-ridden and misunderstood. Don't ascribe any justification to this mindless, premeditated, malicious defacement of public and private property, to be expunged at taxpayers' and owners' cost.
They do it simply because they can, egged on by their peers, expressing nothing worthwhile and with little chance of being held to account for the anger and distress caused. We provide clean, modern, vehicles with qualified and courteous drivers and to find evidence of graffiti vandals' ''work'' makes me sick. It's like having them spit in your face.
Still, not many train or bus windows are ''etched'' in Coolatai, I guess. How's that for perspective?
John McLean Wentworthville
I'm with John McLean on this one. Vandals are not running around spraying things with paint because they are putting up art - they are doing it because they can, and because they have no self control, no perception as to how their activities affect others, and no sense of right or wrong. They are doing it for the rush and for the notoriety that it brings amongst their peers.
No comments:
Post a Comment