Payman and Palestine challenge comfort zone

The question of what kind of society we live in is often posed rhetorically on the assumption that we live in a pluralist democracy where different groups of people with various ideologies come together to govern for all (Letters, July 3). There are layers to that pluralism, though, and the situation regarding Senator Fatima Payman surely challenges the comfortable notions of how real pluralism is in Australia.

For decades now, Labor’s binding caucus vote has been enforced to protect the dominance of the executive level of the party and government, and so Payman’s genuine anguish at the killing of Palestinians has nowhere to go.

It’s time for Labor to not just allow a conscience vote to its members on these issues but for our society as a whole to acknowledge there is more than one worldview for our collective future. Surely we need this honest discussion more than ever?

Colin Hesse, Nowra

It is disheartening to learn that Senator Payman’s falling out with Labor is being used as a trigger for the formation of a Muslim-based political alliance with federal election ambitions (‘‘Embattled Payman advised by controversial strategist’’, July 3). It took Australia more than a century to rid itself of the poison of Protestant/Catholic sectarianism. Section 116 of the Constitution confirms religion of any kind has no place in our public life, yet lip service to Christianity endures.

Our parliaments could lead the way out of this double standard by ceasing the practice of reciting the Lord’s Prayer. It is offensive to the majority of Australians who declared themselves not to be Christians at the last census, let alone the 39 per cent who affirmed no religion at all.

David Salter, Hunter’s Hill

Supporters of Senator Fatima Payman need to be careful what they wish for. A Muslim alliance running candidates against Labor may cost them the election and risk return to a government led by Peter Dutton. That would be something worth protesting about.

Dorin Suciu, Eleebana

Next to the name of WA senator Fatima Payman on the ballot paper was the word Labor. It did not add her ethnicity or religion, her gender, or her stance on any specific or general issues. A voter had to rely on the information available about the party she joined, was supported by, and that guided her to the important representative job that she is doing.

Some letter-writers say that in her understandable and compassionate support for people affected by the tragedy in the Middle East, she is obligated to cross the floor. I respectfully disagree. A representative may lobby her peers, go on talk shows, instigate petitions and present them, but only by following the rules of a political party can she be expected to change their policies. If a contender for an elected role is likely to change their vote in our democratic institutions based on personal interest, then what choice does a voter have? But it would be undemocratic and feel wrong.

Allan Kreuiter, Roseville