It is often said that to a boy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail; so Angela Shanahan celebrates the beatification of Pope John Paul II by focusing entirely on his conservative side (“John Paul towards sainthood”, The Australian, 30/4).

True, John Paul did not budge on sexuality and opposed Communist tyranny a little more than the other kinds, but he also criticised the excesses of capitalism, utterly rejected war (in particular the first U.S. invasion of Iraq), campaigned for social justice, accepted evolution and supported Vatican II. He appointed many liberal bishops.

By not mentioning the former Pope’s progressive side, Shanahan commits a serious sin of omission.

Fortunately for liberty, the Constitution does not say that only the Federal government may initiate international boycotts, as The Australian tries to imply (“Middle East shames inner west” 19/4).

Individuals, sporting bodies and municipalities began adopting BDS against South Africa in the 1960s. and public opinion, businesses and the Federal government tardily followed. History judged this correct.

Israel is not South Africa, but to characterise BDS per se as far-Left lunacy is a smokescreen for the real question of whether sanctions are appropriate and effective in this case.

Does Cut & Paste (The Australian, 12/4) seriously expect us to interpret Nicola Roxon’s attendance at a tennis match sponsored by Phillip Morris – twelve years ago – as a conflict with her current battle with big tobacco?

There are plenty of real conflict-of-interest stories around: tune in to Media Watch for tips. Cut & Paste often gets a mention there.

Why does Greg Sheridan find it necessary to hide the real subject of “How I lost my faith in multiculturalism” (The Australian, 2-3/4) in its title? His critique of militant strands of Islam has nothing to do with multiculturalism, immigration or refugee policy, Lakemba bad boys, or gilded reminiscences of his youth. By mixing these elements willy-nilly, he obscures his own argument and succours bigotry.

The Australian has long been telling us that Labor and the Greens represent “progressive inner-city elites” while the Coalition is the party of a purported socially-conservative “middle Australia”. But when Gillard buys into this fortune-cookie, they abruptly switch to the ultra-dry view that politics should exclude values and deal only with economics (“Gillard needs a debate on policies, not values”, April 05). Apparently the opportunity to criticise Gillard takes precedence over consistency.