Browsing through some old files this afternoon I discovered an archive of all the editorial opinion pieces I wrote while editor of The Border Watch.

One published on November 19, 2008 related to smoking in public places. The issue was a subject of community debate following the Mount Gambier Christmas Parade.

Things have moved on since then, with smoking bans planned or enforced in hospital grounds, children’s playgrounds and Rundle Mall.

I would like to go a step further and ban smoking anywhere in public where people gather.

I dislike running the gauntlet of smokers in Adelaide laneways. They congregate there during the smoko breaks the rest of us don’t get to have.

Smokers pollute bus stops and footpaths across the city.

Walking past the Royal Adelaide Hospital last week, I saw a sorry collection of patients and staff gathered outside the fence, puffing away miserably in the humid heat.

They were also blocking the footpath and sharing their pollution with passers-by.

If it sounds like I regard smokers as second-class citizens, I do if they insist on making a public nuisance of themselves.

I know they pay more taxes than the rest of us, but they also cost more for provision of health services.

I don’t imagine that governments will ever make smoking illegal (lock this in a capsule and see if I’m wrong in 50 years’ time), but I do think we’ll reach a point where people will only be allowed to smoke on their own properties, and not in the presence of children.

Here is the full text of my 2008 article:

There has been some understandable debate following the successful Mount Gambier Christmas Parade about the suitability of allowing people to smoke in public at events where children are present.

The simple answer is that such behaviour is not acceptable.

Smoking is a major risk factor for the three diseases that cause the most deaths in Australia: heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

It is responsible for about 80pc of all lung cancer deaths and 20pc of all cancer deaths. Smoking has also been linked to cancers of the mouth, bladder, kidney, stomach and cervix, among others.

There are known risks associated with passive smoking.

And for non smokers, it’s generally unpleasant to be forcibly exposed to another person’s bad habit.

With smoking widely recognised as being dangerous behaviour and increasingly anti-social, it seems irresponsible to allow smoking in public when children are present.

Not only is smoking a physical risk to the children, observing adults indulge their habit sets a negative example.

This newspaper has previously decried the “nanny state” and only calls for new social regulations with reluctance.

However, times move on. What was acceptable 100 years ago may not be today (such as using opium). Smoking may have been acceptable as recently as 20 years ago, but should not be today.

Smoking is sensibly banned in buildings and at work. It is banned at major sporting events.

Smoking should also be banned at major public events and in cars when children are present. Adults can made choices, children can’t.

The government needs to legislate accordingly.

• Color television
• Video recorder
• Electric typewriter
• Desktop computer
• FM radio
• Facsimile machine
• Air conditioning
• Telephone answering machine
• Windows 3.1, 95
• Internet and email
• Mobile phone
• Personal organiser
• Pay television
• Windows 98, XP, Vista
• Smartphone
• Plasma television
• iPad

Considering I started work in 1985 without computers, fax machines or mobile phones, that’s a lot of changes.

Tintern is an Anglican grammar school in Ringwood. The principal is Jenny Collins.

I don’t know Ms Collins, but I feel confident in my assumption that she’s a reputable educator.

I don’t feel comfortable about the disparaging website that’s been created under the pseudonym of Julie Barkly.

Apparently the website’s creator is a “human rights and welfare lawyer”.

She’s obviously passionate, but if her son was wrongly expelled there are other ways of dealing with it.

The stated purpose of the website is to “raise legitimate issues about”:

• Use of excessive levels of school funding on aggressive & ineffectual lawyers (for questionable purposes) instead of appropriate expenditure on updating school resources;
• The acceptance of responsibility for failing to provide contracted services & management restructuring resulting in the termination of loyal & long serving staff member’s employment, and;
• Highly questionable & disingenuous use of student’s names to improperly facilitate a disgraceful expulsion.

I fully support freedom of opinion and expression, but this seems an excessive reaction.

And if the desire is to raise legitimate issues, why doesn’t the author give her real name?

The school is suing “Ms Barkly” for defamation.

However, the website and the defamation trial are curious sideshows to a more disturbing phenomenon.

The website provides an external link to “student views on principal Jenny Collins”. I won’t repeat some of the comments here because they are defamatory and nasty.

I’m shocked that such a site is allowed to exist.

It lends credence to the argument of people like former South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, who described a news website as “a sewer of criminal defamation” for allowing open slather on comments.

Ratemyteachers.com claims “the Supreme Court of the United States has held that anonymity of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Mr Atkinson was wrong in that newspapers have to be wary of defamation laws when deciding whether to allow particular comments.

There is no such protection for Australians who are defamed on overseas websites by anonymous posters.

Some people go through them too aggressively and some are too defensive. Not enough are sensible like me.

In Mount Gambier, authorities prefer roundabouts on major roads because truck drivers don’t like red lights.

At the town’s worst unmitigated intersection, the transport boffins reckon it will cost a million dollars to install traffic lights.

I find that hard to believe, but there are still many people who think a roundabout is a better solution, because God forbid, trucks might have to stop if there are traffic lights.

A two-lane roundabout at that site will require the compulsory acquisition of land and major engineering works, costing at least twice as much as traffic lights.

In Mount Gambier, if you see a truck approaching a roundabout on your left, don’t assume the driver will stop and give way, because he won’t.

If you are behind an elderly driver, don’t assume he will proceed through the roundabout when it is clear of traffic, because he probably won’t.

If you see a male probationary driver on the horizon to your right, it’s probably safest to give way, because chances are he’ll be in the roundabout before you get half way through.

Publicans took the matter to the District Court after permission to trade was initially refused.

The Gardaí (police) objected, but the judge ruled in favour of the publicans, agreeing the Magners League match between Limerick and Munster was a “special event”.

That was a sensible decision.

As the judge said, it would have been absurd to have 26,000 people drinking at the venue and then having nowhere to disperse and celebrate or commiserate afterwards.

Franciscan friars have called on devout Catholics to boycott the match.

I doubt they’ll receive much support.

It has always puzzled me how secular Australia shuts down on Good Friday, and to a lesser extent Christmas Day.

I support public holidays on these dates, but believe people should be free to choose what they do.

There isn’t much choice about what to do on Good Friday because nothing is open and nothing happens.

I suspect it won’t be long before the AFL bows to pressure and schedules a game on Good Friday in the future.

I don’t think too many people will object.

I was proud of Kathleen earlier this week when she showed some excellent initiative.

The police put out a missing person alert for a 14-year-old girl, saying they had concerns for her safety. I saw the police media release on Monday morning.

Later that morning, the high school rang me to say Kathleen might need to be interviewed by police; did she have my permission?

On her way to school by bus, Kathleen and her friend saw the missing girl being pulled into a car. They reported that to the school and the police were informed. The girls even recorded the car’s registration number.

It turned out the police didn’t need to interview Kathleen and the missing girl was found safe and well. It might have been her family that Kathleen saw.

Nevertheless, it was good observation skills to notice and good citizenship to report what they saw.

He still cops flak about the decision from some of the (ex) players’ wives, apparently.

However, it puts into context the decision by current Australian vice-captain Michael Clarke to return home from a tour of New Zealand to support his girlfriend model, Lara Bingle.

Bingle is said to be so distraught over former sexual partner Brendan Fevola distributing a nude photo of her that she’s suing him for an undisclosed amount.

Clarke’s unprecedented decision leaves the touring team with just 12 men.

Earlier, Australian cricket management had simply stated that Clarke was heading home for “personal reasons”.

His manager Chris White, told The Punch today: “Michael has come home to support Lara through this tough time.”

Society has changed since 1989, when I was 22, but my sense of perspective hasn’t.

Clarke has abandoned his teammates to be with his upset girlfriend, not a dying relative. He has left his workplace.

Since when did “upset girlfriend” qualify for personal leave?

An employer should be reasonably compassionate, but under Clarke’s rules, anything goes.

Bugger your work colleagues (fellow players) and customers (spectators). They can go to hell. A girlfriend is more important.

Michael Clarke, you don’t deserve to be captain of Australia.

Like: “How are you?” and the lengthy response is a recital of human misery.

Waiting for a haircut yesterday I heard this conversation –

Barber: “So how is Sid? I haven’t seen him for a long time.”

Customer: “Sid isn’t too good at the moment.”

Barber: “Sorry to hear that.”

Customer: “His wife found him unconscious in his den. She had to call the ambulance.”

Barber: “Oh!”

Customer: “It’s one day at a time for Sid now. We were lucky to have him home for Christmas.”

Pause.

Barber: “He was always in good shape for his age.”

Customer: “Mmm.”

Silence.

The dance academy is very professional and has an excellent reputation across all year levels.

Some of the students have gone on to be professional stage performers.

The end-of-year-concert is a gala occasion for the studio and the dancers. The preparations are very thorough and intense.

As parents we look forward to it, but we’re also rather relieved when it’s all over.

One aspect that disappoints me, however, is the ban on video recording in the theatre.

I understand there should be restrictions on filming and photography, but I don’t accept or agree with the reason we were given.

That is, it would breach the Child Protection Act.

I don’t know if this is true. If it is, it’s a sad reflection on what’s happened to our society, or possibly an example of political correctness gone mad.

I can accept banning photography back stage and flash photography in the theatre.

I can accept banning video recording from a standing position. It’s ugly to have eager dads forming an amateur media scrum at school concerts or the like.

But what is wrong with filming from your seat with a mobile phone or a web-standard video camera?

The theatre is a public place, holding about 500 people. The children who perform there are doing so in public.

I’d be disappointed if it’s true that the Child Protection Act bans this practice.

PS: The studio does provide a professional recording of the whole performance for a fee. It’s not the same though as being able to zoom in on your daughter.

Pressure comes to bear on journalists and editors to not report suicides at all, presumably out of a copycat fear.

The hostility from health agencies toward media reporting of suicides has gone too far in my opinion, beyond even the guidelines recommended by the Mindframe project.

These guidelines, which are apparently given to university students, suggest being non-specific about method, which is fair enough.

The Geelong Advertiser came in for some stick recently when it reported the fourth suicide within a year by students at the same local high school. I believe the paper was justified in highlighting the problem.

In 1998 the Australian Press Council released guidelines for discussion:

1. Suicide should be reported when such reports are in the public interest. Media professionals avoid the distribution of material that is likely to incite or encourage self harm or suicidal behavior.

2. Media professional exercise care to not trivialise, romanticise, nor glorify suicide, particularly in media which targets, or is likely to be available to, young people.

3. Media professionals adhere to existing Australian media industry codes of practice for reporting suicide.

4. Media professionals consult, when appropriate, reputable associations, research centres, counselling services and Departments of Health when seeking comment on suicide and mental health issues.

5. Media professionals show sensitivity to persons bereaved by suicide in a way that is respectful of the deceased and the family since people bereaved by suicide are themselves at increased risk for suicidal behavior.

I’m comfortable with these suggestions, which are similar to the mindframe recommendations, although “public interest” is often subjective. The difficulty with point (4) is most health workers tell us not to report the story at all.

It’s a far cry from a century ago when newspapers reported life and death in full detail. Are there fewer suicides today?

I wonder if in the intervening years we’ve become too precious about some things, whether a do-gooder misinterprets some data or jumps on a questionable study to change the way we write and talk about important social issues.

The Australian media doesn’t talk much about suicide because some people might copy it. Should we also stop writing about domestic violence, rape, murder, etc?

The prompt for this post was a story from The Border Watch 100 years ago, which surfaced in our historical column that appears tomorrow:

Attempted suicide

Harrison was 27 years of age and single.

Update: The Press Council released new suicide reporting standards in August 2011, which lifted most of the restrictions.