Well its a big day (not really) not being "blogging" long but finally reached some sort of maybe important/unimportant milestone...we gathered our first "comment". Thanks to Jessie R for sharing his/her view :-)
Now while I'm certainly not going to construct a blog post on every comment received, (no precedent here) I felt the need to this time because something was lost in translation. Just a little thing called context. Now here's a few reflections on Jessie and they are opinions so grain of salt, step away from the computer, what is quite ok. Jessie R. has an opinion (Good, very good!), Jessie R. has expressed his/her opinion (Good, very good). Jessie R has been able to express his/her opinion because he/she is a member of Google (all good, no worries). Jessie R. has been a member since January 2014 which means he/she is new here, real new (as I type) and either stumbled upon the blog or saw a link on a Farcebook page that supports or opposes Live Export (all good, no worries). As best I can find he/she has had one profile view on the counter (me) and yet to find his/her blog (all good, no worries). With that in mind I'll colour his/her comments and address them as best I can whilst trying to keep in context. Not saying I won't fail, but I'll try my best :-)
While busy wallowing in his own self interest, the author of this opinion piece failed to mention the most important aspect of live export - Animal welfare!
Busy wallowing? Ok, I don't take offence to that, nor the term opinion piece, keeping context it is a BLOG. It is an opinion, might be right and still be rejected by some or vice versa. Being very new to blogger, Jessie R may have either missed this or dropped this in order to set up a desired framework to fire shots from. Either way I'm not offended but try to see how much in context is used. In regards to failed mention Animal Welfare, well Jessie R possibly left the context in the lost and found box and boarded a train to somewhere in a different direction. Referring back to the topic, it is about looking closely at Andrew Wilkie and his trip. This is just a small part of the Live Export debate. I deliberately looked at it and its reasons, its goals and possible other agendas involved. No I did not look directly at animal handling or treatment...funnily enough, neither did Andrew Wilkie whilst he was interviewed in the north. He mentions its very important to take this trip to help improve things in the system we have.
My point was, he suffered his critics wrath for a long time now over his reluctance to venture north and actually see the trade. Finally he does, after more than a few years I might add. Is it really important to him, if so why now and not before? People talk of decency, ethics, morals what is right and wrong etc, yet only now it deserves a trip (???) See that is the context, and the post topic reflects that more closely than it does actual animal handling procedures.
I guess he's been too busy...what with more important matters? Hang on, whats more important than morals, ethics, decency? Again let me use the word "ODD" and this is the whole theme of the original post. Animal Welfare, don't worry I'll post up about that, but keeping in context of the Wilkie post, its about him, his comments, his agenda and what's really going on.
Making a profit and living the desired lifestyle does NOT give anyone the right to break the fundamental laws of decency and ethics.
Again world's away from the context of the thread, which was about Wilkie, his long, long overdue trip north, his reasons and his motivation, obvious and possibly not so obvious. However since Jessie R. has now used the Comment option to post his/her own opinion piece (all good) lets look closely that that comment as closely as possible, lets break it down somewhat.
Making a profit and a living the desired lifestyle in this case is a legal and lawful pursuit. No legal statute has been violated whatsoever so the old saying "All honest work is noble work" is in this case quite correct (opinion).
But apparently some have broken the fundamental laws of decency and ethics?
Who? Primary producers? If so report them. Exporters? If so report them. Overseas slaughterhouse? If so, get a passport, a visa head over to said country, legally collect the evidence required and report it to the relevant authorities...oops that's legal statues, Jessie R said "fundamental laws of decency and ethics" So what are these fundamental "laws", what is the authority he/she is referring to?
Sadly no mention. For comments about ethics being professional standards there's another post on that, but has he/she deftly avoided the term moral/immoral because his/her view will quickly implode and crumble. Who gets to say what is ethical and decent? Later in his/her reply the Australian domestic processing industry is referred to as "more humane". So the problem lies overseas? Grab a passport, visa...yes mentioned this before. The thing is, the producer is doing the same thing in Live Export and the Domestically Processed market. They are primary producers, making a legal and lawful living. No before we mention "ODD" again, lets get completely off track, to unrelated topics that have some odd parallels. If cigarettes were invented to day they would banned, they don't have health "risks" they do damage health and cause illness, sickness and premature death. So are they that sell them humane, decent, moral? It is a legal and lawful pursuit. Every shop that sells them, is it owned or run by people with immoral blood on their hands? Alcohol, lastest science (just in the media this week) has on doctor saying alcohol should not be taken by people under 25 because a human's brain is still developing right up to 25. There's serious irreparable damage being done. But selling to an 18-25 year old is indeed legal and lawful. 40,000 women are sold as real life slaves into the Japanese Sex Trade every year...decent? humane? fundamental laws? If we were to stack all these issues into a "moral leader board" how would they rate, what order would they be in?
If people were honest and did this we would have a much clearer picture of their perceived "fundamental laws of decency and ethics". Is sex with an animal ok? I would say no, because for me I am a Christian and although I personally think it is an abomination, that is wrong on every single level imaginable, Peter Singer, the well known professor of ethics, founder of Animals Australia says openly he does not know why it is a taboo. If the dog is willing the (in his words) woman is receiving pleasure and no one is trained or forced or coerced...what is the taboo?
Yep, place bestiality on the moral leader board too please.
If "fundamental laws of decency and ethics" have been breached, where are these laws, who is the moral authority who authored them ??? If its the innate inner feeling of whats right and wrong that one is either born with or isn't that's venturing into relativism which means everything is right and wrong, depending on your view and its just whatever the majority of people come up with is the way to go...so far the majority of Australians haven't agreed with Andrew Wilkie, many remained holders of the position known as "staggering indifference" and a good many are in favour and against. Relativism, or rather a position where no moral author is cited except the individual who gets to determine things, means it rests with the numbers and there's no true ethic or moral code...just the numbers. Christians however have it real easy, they can cite an Author, a Moral Law giver...it snot up to us.
These animals suffer, for no other reason that those incapable of compassion want to make more money.
Says who? Yep there is definite cruelty, we've seen images and footage of heinous treatment of animals for sure. I don't have a problem with supporting the trade and opposing cruelty. I support the use of cars but oppose car accidents. I oppose smoking but support the smokers right to do so. Will cruelty be eliminated completely, will animal welfare be 100% good? Hard to say because you can never get a unified Animal Welfare - 100% good picture painted for you. What does it look like? Is it BBQ tofu with green leafy salads with meat eaters prosecuted for eating cooked flesh? Is it at Jessie R almost seems to suggest that its 100% chilled/frozen exports and no live exports even to countries and stakeholders that meet or even exceed the set standards of society?
Incapable of compassion? That's quite a truth claim, of course it isn't based on truth because one could easily say "Incapable of compassion? Prove it please"
It is deceptive and emotive, it is deliberate in its intent to put up a moral outrage against those producers Jessie R has never met. Kinda like Andrew Wilkie has been for several years in this very important issue...so important that only now he goes and visits the north. If all producers are incapable of compassion I call bulldust unless he/she can verify the claim. I call rubbish motivated by good intentions clouded by highly emotive anger. ODD (Just an opinion, as you'd expect in an opinion piece like a "blog" ;-)
Our more humane processing industry here is very successful with record sales of boxed exports to all live destination countries.
There are reasons by overseas based importers prefer live export animals. Ask them.
They know their market, they know their margins and the logistical limitations that we who live in a progressive affluent 1st world nation arrogantly ignore or aren't aware of yet we project our worldview upon them despite their domestic limitations :-) ODD
I admire Andrew and his commitment to better animal welfare, that's what decent people do.
I have no doubt though that his trip will be heavily staged by industry and will stink of the usual industry smoke and mirrors but I have confidence Andrew will see past that.
He will see past the deception?
What deception and what's the point when he's already stated he will not roll over based on one trip.
He has effectively stated his stance will not change no matter what he sees, he's going to see what changes can be made to the system that's already in place. The industry is happy for him to (FINALLY) head north and get on a boat.
He has stated there is NOTHING the industry can do in one trip to change his stance. That's fair, if he takes a few more trips...unless it is the case he will not change his stance no matter how many trips he takes and how far each operator meets or exceeds standards. Hardly a very independent approach, rather its very much wallowing in self interest despite what he sees or encounters.
He is on the record as saying he's not changing his mind, he thinks its important to see what changes can be made to improve the system we have.
Forget the deception, if Andrew Wilkie can be deceived, who is it who can say it hasn't already happened.
FOCUS FOR A SECOND PLEASE - its taken years with two failed private members bills on this moral, ethical and decency based issue to finally head further north than Canberra, even then he says he's not going to change his mind based on one trip but he's ACTUALLY going there to see what improvements can be made. Good on him. If after all these years he's realised he needs to see, learn and understand the trade so it can be improved rather than sit in the latte enclave of Hobart several thousand kilometres away and pontificate on that which he has never experienced or seen then good on him, that's less ODD than a lot of his previous approaches to Live Export.
The attacks on animals welfare advocates by vested industry buffoons and bully boys is ongoing and vicious, but it only serves to motivates people more to get moving and support an end to this animal welfare disaster of live export.
Buffoons, bully boys? Would this be the industry stakeholders who've trying for years to get the member for Denison to actually go see the trade? What actually is an Animal Welfare Advocate? Who are they, what do they believe and can someone set out what it is they actually want apart from ban the live export no matter what? I think like the Paralympics there should be some sort of Animal Activist rating system so we can see the extent of their beliefs and the source of their beliefs and standards. I'm not so sure all the Animal Welfare Advocates are that, but instead are Animal Liberationists wearing a stolen Moral Cloak. Whatever motivates a person is mute point, they can still be wrong. Very hard to know how right or wrong a "Animal Welfare Advocate" is when they can be moral shape shifters and part of any number of segments within the advocacy industry.
Several things are quite certain...
1) Live Export is a legal and lawful trade which not only supplies product, its an economic wealth creator for direct stakeholders and many indirect stakeholders. Its a important part of international trade & the life blood of the pastoral north.
2) Eating meat from farmed animals is legal and is not a moral issue.
3) Andrew Wilkie has had 2 failed private members bills to halt a legal trade. A legal trade which has had a number of Animal Cruelty incidents and an indeterminate number of problem free exports as well. The bills received very little support, however I think the endeavour was completely successful in that its going to stand him in very good stead come the next election. If the acceptable level of transport fatalities is zero, then its all hands off ALL transport of animals EVERYWHERE. That's guide dogs to pets to you name it. ALL TRANSPORT MUST STOP. (ODD, did we mention ODD???)
4) Andrew Wilkie definitely thinks its an important issue, however its only after failed private member bill attempts and years of critics panning him for trying to legislate on an industry he's failed to see up close that he NOW determines its important enough for a look see. A cynic could easily pointed to Animal Liberationists in his electorate, laugh and say "you been rounded up by a clever politician" - And I think he is a very clever politician but we need nation builders and great legislators, not popularists vying for another term and willing to swing their rear out to get more votes.
5) Andrew Wilkie headed north, finally. He admitted straight up he would not be backing down, nor rolling over. So really, no matter what he sees or other people do, or show he will continue to oppose live export, no matter how much improvement is possible. He is going ONLY to see what improvements can be made to the system we have at present. Get used to it punters, no change of mind is possible. Nothing unpredictable there. He's going to help the trade improve is all he's going for.
6) If there is a breach of the rules, report it. All rules governing the industry have reviews. SO called moral breaches, ethical breaches, fundamental laws of decency breaches are all invalid without the full disclosure and citing of the origins and authors of said morals/ethics/laws. You can't make this stuff up and you can't make a claim without citing the authority. Yes this rests very uncomfortably for the atheist activist. Ironically an atheist producer has a philosophically tenable position...its all just evolved nature. For the Christian producer, they can point to a Moral Authority, support live trade and oppose cruelty but still eat meat.
Again, the Wilkie post was not about Welfare, it was about Wilkie, his long long overdue trip and the words he's used to deftly dance around the subject and what they really mean.
Animal Welfare? Yep gotta have a post on that specifically too, and its coming.
Because that opens up a whole myriad of fun issues, central and side.
It opens up a whole lot of canned worms for all involved.
Cannot wait. In the meantime we all need to remember if someone is running a blog, its publishing a view...not wallowing in self interest in my opinion. I can say that here cos its my opinion piece ;-)
If someone has a different view, an opposing view it does not make them a buffoon, a bully or immediately a moral bankrupt. That in itself is a very intolerant view, foisted on others. If its a moral issue, cite your moral authority...or don't get too upset if, when you refuse, you're dismissed, ignored or shown to have a self imploding argument.
If you're a vegan, good on you. Your choice, not mine. No morals to be had or foisted I'd say.
ODD to say otherwise but remember, the Wilkie post was about Wilkie and the "oddities" that seem to always be very close by when his mouth opens. We'll go into more later, but the Animal Welfare thread has me hooked already and if you wish to post a comment, do so. Not unlikely for me to post a thread on it...or not. Don't let it scare you, call me a buffoon and turn the computer off, there's no need to stress ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment