Brian Fox writes: A war memorial should never misrepresent events nor the people associated with those events (“‘As a veteran my PTSD has been triggered’: War Memorial’s Ben Roberts-Smith fallout”). It is, therefore, appropriate that the Ben Roberts-Smith memorabilia, together with a full record of how he has disgraced his unit and his country, should be there in the Australian War Memorial (AWM) for everyone to see — the Australian people and, of course, the Afghan civilians murdered at his hands or by his commands deserve no less.
June Miller writes: If the Roberts-Smith display is allowed to stay, the very least the AWM should do is add a large notice detailing the evidence of colleagues and victims about Roberts-Smith’s actions. It should state that no heroism can be allowed to place anyone above the law, and that his actions have let down his colleagues in the Special Air Service Regiment, which has heretofore had a proud history of respecting the rules of the Geneva Convention.
Sonja Vukovich writes: Roberts-Smith’s shrine is an offence to basic human decency. But then so is he. So perhaps an apt shrine after all.
Steve Brennan writes: Of course the display honouring this soldier should be removed. Despite his bravery, he murdered innocent civilians. All the display does is diminish the image of the entire Australian Defence Force and the values it represents. You cannot spin this any other way.
The glaring question is: why on earth is the AWM’s council trying to defend Roberts-Smith?
Marcia Sikimeti writes: If the display is to remain one can but hope a full explanation of all that surrounded the decision of the court be clearly displayed. Personally, I would like the whole thing removed.
Vivienne Skinner writes: Definitely the Roberts-Smith’s display should be taken down. The findings against him are horrifying, confronting, criminal. When we visit the War Memorial, do we really want to have to explain to our children, grandchildren and overseas visitors about this man? Really?
I am sorry for the AWM that its grand warrior hero has been found seriously wanting. But what does it say to those brave soldiers who have come forward, often under great duress and emotional cost, to tell their stories? That despite what they report, the bullying they experienced, the things they saw that will never leave them, that Roberts-Smith is still to be lauded and lionised by the AWM’s establishment? Take it down.
Stan Rosenthal writes: My view on whether to continue exhibiting Roberts-Smith’s uniform and medals is that they should continue to be displayed, along with a prominent sign setting out that he has been found to have committed war crimes and that he is appealing that finding. And then someone should write an accessible piece describing the complexities of how a brave person can act so brutally and illegally.
Jean John writes: What does it say about those making decisions at the Australian War Memorial that the display is staying up? It says they are prepared to deny the truth in order to preserve their idea of a “hero”. Let’s not forget that Roberts-Smith chose to take his defamation case to court where witnesses attested that he murdered people. He lied and was exposed. Yet still people want to be associated with a Victoria Cross winner and so-called war hero.
For their egos and self-interest something as important as our national war memorial is being misused. I am amazed that the chair of the AWM, Kim Beazley, and other members of the board cannot see the immense damage their stance has caused in the eyes of the Australian public and our many soldiers who fought according to the rules of war.
Let’s take our national war memorial back to its original purpose: a sacred place of remembrance rather than a Disneyland theme park to take the kids to on a wet Canberra day.
Trevor Jensen writes: Continuing to keep the display is an affront to the thousands of fantastic service men and women of Australia who understand and apply the rules of engagement.
Margaret Hulme writes: I think that part of the display could stay but it needs to have an explanation of the findings from his defamation case. It needs to be made clear that he is a murderer, a bully and a disgrace to the service.
