Industrial Manslaughter Laws Controversy in State Parliament

 It's a funny controversy, Trevor Whittington the WAFarmers CEO & the WAFarmers President Ryhs Turton gave a bit of a kicking to the WA Nats for voting with the Greens and the Labor Party. To a lesser extent Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party, The Pauline Hanson One Nation Party MPs were reported as being very miffed at the Nats.

So what's the go? Lets go dot points but firstly it all revolves around, not a clause but an amendment to a clause that the Nationals voted against. The unamended clause would have maintained the current status quo. The amendment would have changed things...

1. If the amendment was so needed & without it such a cruel travesty would be delivered upon WA then why on earth did all those yelling at the Nats not oppose the amended clause. It went through without dissent. Did they relish the chance to use it as political fodder outside of Parliament or were they a bit missing in action thought wise and staple themselves to something interllectually bankrupt. For me, kinda looks the the latter at least, but possibly both.
   
   
2. If you were compliant before that clause was accepted, then you're compliant now. It is now the status quo. There is no extra or legal exposure with the amendment lost & the clause left untouched.
   
   
3. My understanding was the supporting report used to bolster the amendment was from interstate and refers to "gross negligence" which has very poor definition in WA Law so what happens over east wouldn't automatically transfer to WA without extensive reworking of other Acts to add to "gross negligence". In fact if it were passed as is were might have ended up with legislation that contains a poorly framed term which then relies on a judge to interpret it and it may get very subjective which increases variance in penalty & judgement. Not wise.
   
   

So this is a very complicated bill. It's currently in Upper House Committee. Its not law, they're review & where needed reviewing it, correcting it. I'm told there's over 400 clauses so goodness know how many amendments there'll be when all's said & done. If they conclude it this year with the small number of sitting days left it'll be a miracle.

So did the Nationals do good or did they go over to the dark side of the Greens & Labor to the detriment of Western Australia.

No, they did good. Its not Law, its in committee & that particular clause remains unamended & it remains fact none of those complaining voted against that then unamended clause. They could have shown their disdain & called for a division to have their opposing vote recorded. They didn't oppose it.

This maybe an example of Wedge Politics in 160 days left before State Polling Day but it was certainly a strange move by the WAFarmers CEO & State President. Very little media pick up on it so I think some are looking at it as a grumpy pot shot by a disaffected complainant. Who knows, its very bizarre and I look forward to hearing a better defence of the position by WAFarmers. 

Perhaps, and its only speculation, we should be reminded that the pivotal relationship in an organisation is that between the Chairman & the CEO but it is actually the board's role to over sea that relationship and their individual & combined performance. They need to keep everything in check & accountable.
Not  sure were this is at, but does look a bit adbsurdly ominous at present.

No, I'm fine with the Committee direction and the loss of that amendment & the passing of the unamended clause. No worries at all.

As that weird song goes, "How bizarre, how bizarre"

The "Seal of Confession" & Child Sexual Abuse

 Yes the title has 2 seperate things that should be a million miles apart but they're sadly not.
There is currently a Bill before the WA Parliament. Below is a link to the Upper House Committee Report. It's pretty thorough but not completely exhaustive, there is more to add. 

But one of the key points that will end up stirring controversy for some through not being fully informed is the sanctity of the "Seal of Confession" that will allow a priest in confession to keep what details of serious crime they learn of in confession exempt from mandatory reporting. AND an exclusion from criminality should they keep those details secret.

Usually on religious matters whether supporting or opposing a matter I endeavour to argue from a secular point of view. Deliberately. Reason is whilst many laws of the land may trace their roots back to Judaeo Christian origins, the fact is the law of the land in Australia is secular. Many people are secular, or of differing denominations or completely unrelated, different faiths. You can quote chapter & verse with proper in context exegesis but it's pointless if the person you're talking to is either of a different paith, an atheist/agnostic or indeed could be very anti whatever faith you moght be. You cannot change their mind by citing things from a religion they don't follow or possible deeply oppose. Secular reasoning is the only  way more often than not.

The second preamble point is the "seperation of Church & State" argument. Probably one of the most misunderstood notions we see even in our free nation. It refers to us not being a theocracy or caliphate. 
Our constitution is very clear on this, the government cannot start a religion or faith, cannot enforce observance of a particular religion. Freedom of choice is paramount & immovable.

TO A POINT.

The Waco Massacre, the Jonestown Massacre were all avoidable, had authorities stepped in earlier its debatable what might or might not have happened but one thing is very certain. In Australia there is NO LEGAL PROTECTION for any religion, faith or worldview to allow any seriosu crime to be committed. NONE.

There have throughout history been world views that included human sacrifice & cannibalism to name 2 atrocious vile acts. Neither can be protected, allowed or ignored under "freedom of religion" tenants.

Add into this, there is under Common Law absolutely NO authority given to any religion, no law that delivers legal privelege to the idea of Confession. None. 

As a result there is no legal argument allowing confession to be excluded from mandoatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse. The argument that little or no people will come forward on Child Sexual Abuse in confession is irrelevant and a devious distraction. A victim might come forward, a perpetrator might come forward, a 3rd party who is aware of others victim of child sexual abuse might come forward and if they do, it is potentially hidden from the blind justice of natural law because some worldview believes it has the authority to have a safe harbour or blind eye option.

No, priests must not be excluded from mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse or indeed any serious criminal acts. 

That's a partial secualr view, now the often avoided faith based view.
Confessional is a cultural mechanism of the Roman Catholic Church & some Orthodox denominations.
There is no Biblical support for the practice at all but I do notice that some selective cherry picking of Scripture does occur. 

In the case of some churches the qualifications for the office of church elder, teacher, pastor is quite clear. They must be married, have children, not be a drunkard and there's a longer list. An unmarried celebate preist is not on the list, in fact Scripture is quite clear they need to be head of a married family due to them needing the skills to run a household if theyre to oversee a flock.
A church with unmarried preists is anti Scripture. Using the false statement that "times change and the church evolved" is factually wrong, there are covenants that supercede others WITHIN Scripture and there are some thigns that do not apply due to the destruction of the Temple in Jeruselum around 70AD and many of those things didn't apply before or after that point to Gentiles and Christians.
In any case, if the church were allowed to "evolve" then it means its man made in its aws & canons, subject only to man. 
Evolution of the church renders opposition to mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse interllectually bankrupt & corrupted.

Confession is a cultural mechanism, people can partke in that if they choose but it is not, nor should it ever be a legal safe harbour.

Members of whatever church should be allowed to prusue whatever part of their faith or worldview they want unhindered and without penalty, with the exception of where criminal activity occurs. Church followers and the church should be freely allowed to take part in confession but with the knowledge there is no exclusion from mandatory reporting exists. There is no exemption from God, there should be no exclusion from law.

As a result on both a secualr or Scriptural perspective there is no sensible support from Recommendation 17 on Page 60 of the report.. None.

Also be aware of the recommendation of the Royal Commission (7.4) is that:

“Laws concerning mandatory reporting to child protection authorities should not exempt persons in religious ministry from being required to report knowledge or suspicions formed, in whole or in part, on the basis of information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession." 

Confession, the seal of confession are all cultural mechanisms, they're not Scriptural, they're not defendable as safe harbours for criminal acts for anyone. 
The Minority recommendation immediately following Recommendation 17 insists that Clause 53 be enacted in full (without any criminal exclusions) and I cannot agree more.
It will as it gets closer to being voted on as a Bill get contentious, but it's not. Its straight forward. There is no secular nor Scriptural defence for excluding preists from criminal or legal responsibility. NONE.

Don't be fooled, it is not over reach of the religious freedom of citizens at all. 

The Upper House Committee Report link ->

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/D1E72E9FA7E26C2C482585DF000E56A7/$file/ls.ccs.200902.rpf.044.xx-%20web%20version.pdf

Clive Palmer - Sticking my neck out

As I type (13th of August) the so called nicknamed "Clive Palmer Bill" has passed the Lower House of the WA Parliament. I didn't watch all of it intently but I did watch some of it.

I'm not a Clive supporter. There may well be 2 sides you can choose from to support on this but there's a dozen aspects that this opens up.

I'm very uncomfortable that a bill like this was required at all. Only reason I'm even likely to become even slightly comfortable with it is...well to be honest I'm still looking to see how I can support such a bill. Can't find a reason to support this bill.

It targets Clive Palmer based on the idea he is a threat to WA. 
BUT...it's still potentially dangerous in intent & in action as a precedent.

I'm not the shadow of Lawyer's bootlace so it's untrained thought here...I'm not sure we should be dissolving a person's right of law to pursue through the courts. It prevents Mr Palmer from taking the WA Government to court whether the WA Government is in the wrong or not. That's a strikingly dangerous jump. (Understatement on over reach)

There's only one reason why I'd be comfortable & I'm not sure it's enough to get me over the line to supporting this bill. I'm hoping there is very heavy Legislative Council scrutiny of the advice driving this bill and whatever sunset clause is put in it. As it names Mr Palmer, any transferees past or present, his companies etc it is very much targeting him and only him (and his interests) This is THE Clive Palmer Bill. So perhaps THAT is the Sunset Clause. 

The concern is we need not only a serious push for Upper House oversight, but later after its all over full scrutiny. Nope even with that I'm still thinking it's a very bad idea taking away someone's natural rights under law.

The danger not explored here is this opens the door to this type of legislation where we can legislate away the rights of anyone. We're entering a VERY dangerous place. By all means the government can state this is large & unique threat however there is no mention what is stopping this being applied to others of a not so large, not so unique threat. Where is the prescriptive cut off line?

Legislating away a persons legal right to damages is probably a way bigger milestone bill than Voluntary Assisted Dying ever was. No...correction, it is certain not probably.

So yes I am all about protecting Australia or in this case Western Australia. I am largely disappointed that some rules, laws penalties were not enforced without fear nor favour during this State of Emergency some of which set Palmer on his course of a Constitional Challenge and now this latest claim. He is a unique challenge to WA and required very unique (and I hope a...) one off resolution.

Yes I think the McGowan government and Mr Quigley should have been able to prevent it getting to this point but alas, here we are.

Don't be over joyed just yet. Once passed, it isn't over. The likely result is a High Court challenge and as we know, Mr Palmer has never been afraid, indeed possibly been very keen to launch legal action.
Expect discussion using the phrase Sovereign Risk & Over Reach to pop up regularly

Now this is central to a consitutional democracy's rights and it is a pivotal moment in Australian legislation. As huge as it is I'll be sitting with the stopwatch to see how much time is devoted to this on ABC's Political Programme "Insiders" on Sunday. I'm thinking close to 8 minutes, maybe 12 minutes tops...actually I'll be surprised if it snares a total of 5 minutes. It's WA afterall & a Victorian or NSW state election would take up half a programme.

Wait n see. 
In any case, the bill has to pass the Upper House & probably go to an urgent committee, soaking up more time but at least some explanations.

Like the COVID situation, the fat lady hasn't sung, she's not even in her dressing room, she's at home & won't be leaving for the theatre for a very long time.

I think those that voted in favour of the Bill will regret it dearly. This is politically toxic and will probably result in a number of political scalps.

Late Edit - (Sept 2nd 2020) -  I did tell one MP I know (after it passed the Lower & Upper House,

 "I'm not in Parliament but I would have voted against this very very dangerous Bill"

Late Edit - (Nov 6th 2020) - An MP has told me it was rammed through with such urgency with opposition MPs told about it "just as Mr Quigly was presenting it in the Lower House. Even though it now turns out the Government had been working on this action for at least 3 months. The West Austrlian went into full Attack mode to demonise & mock Mr Palmer so public support gathered around the Act in the weeks that followed it ascension. Love or hate Mr Palmer this is a very uncomfortable spot WA is in having passed a Act that effectively removes all legal avenues on a contract & removes all Freedom of Information access afterwards. Its a dark day of dangerous over reach. I'm not a Palmer supporter at all, but he needs to win this case for proper natural justice for all of us. So again  "I'm not in Parliament but I would have voted against this very very dangerous Bill"

Conversations with interesting "thunking"

Probably a few edits and/or additions to come into this...

Went to a fellow's 50th birthday last night, wide range of interesting people there, diverse thinking. Among them city dwellers, grain growers, political nerds and good ol' common sense thinkers & question askers.

CBH came up & I was asked about my view now I'm an ex-grain grower. Yes I think it's a stellar outfit with some problems. If I was still in grain I'd not be in favour of privatising it but now I'm out with no skin in the game so its up to all its owners. But interesting thing was I was sounded out by a mate who's a shareholder/member & what he wanted to know was my thinking on the board, the way they do things, who was a good director who was a numpty & who was where in between.

Legal Actions - Fact, I couldn't give a very accurate view on the pdirectors involved, most I've never met. Yes I have a view on legal actions pending between directors, ex-directors or possibly between CBH and previous directors. Most of my view there I'm not sharing but I think it's likely CBH's D&O Insurance needs cleaning up. Director & Officer Insurance is a funny area with traps and pitfalls with many boards not reading & understanding their agreement. They could very easily find themselves having little or no financial protection if they're not following it properly. Personally I think its fair to expect any ex-director to be copping legal action by the board/company (or in this case Co-Operative) to be covered by the D&O insurance if the action is over something that happened whilst they were on the board. Legal action between 2 parties covered by D&O is not uncommon & its probably not popular with Insurers but it does prevent one party or the board employing 2 Queens Councillors & pouring 100s of 1000s of dollar in a deliberate thuggery/bullying campaign.

AGMs - Other point discussed was AGMs and I gave my view and staggered to hear my friend say "Yeah but we haven't got governance training, we don't know what questions to ask, how to ask them and if we go close to doing that we get shut down". Now I don't know if this is a legit thign or someone just sounding off because they've had a few beers & are grumpy about something...(??)

True or not I don't know but there is this. The AGM is the "Member's Meeting". The board runs the company and once a year the board, all of the board must give an account of their year, their actions and their chosen strategic thinking. So too an account of management's strategic planning and the resulting outcomes.
Board does the strategic thinking, management builds the strategic plan of that instructed thinking by the board and they set about to enact, report back & hopefully acheiving.

At the AGM a lot is in the annual report/s (or should be) and the meeting is where members have the right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to information. If the chairman and /or the board are shutting you down, time perhaps to consider wiping sections of the board out if they can't be persuaded to pull their socks up.

What members should be asking (and not limited to this list) is...

1. Do you do regular board performance assessments
2. Do you do regular chairman performance assessments
3. Do you do regular individual director assessments of skills missing & needed
4. Do you have a regular Director Education Programme driven by the results of number 3
5. Do you have a set Board Training level or qualification and equally importantly how often is the regular refresher courses? Because skills perish/
6. Do you have regular CEO performance evaluations, education/training requirement assessment
7. Do you list directors attendance record for every board meeting & every committee meeting 
8. Do you have a Conflict of Interests register and is it working as it should
9. Is the Chairman selected by the board or by the members. (if its by the members a board with a poor or poor & corrupt Chair is stuck with him/her until the next AGM. Not a good practice)

And if not any of the above...why? (Don't expect assessments to be made public, but you should expect the board to freely explain what issues they found and what improvements they put in place.

Members should know that Directors are personally, legally & financially responsible for every decision they make on the board & heaven help you if any director isn't keenly aware of this.
Be aware also, not making a decision IS A DECISION.
Be aware they have a fiduciary duty, they owe it to the perpetuity of the organisation and the shareholders. Whilst they're to take into account other stakeholders and always work with the law, the primary interest is the shareholders interest...always.

The Chair does not control the AGM, he/she chairs it, they control traffic. But if the members want answers they are entitled to ask questions and if there's insufficient time according to the Chairman, then the chairman needs to think quick and work out how to extend the AGM or address those concerns out of session with everyone's agreement. He/she cannot shut down debate just because they have to be somewhere or don't want to be there anymore.

Yes I got asked about zone based directors and only my no-skin-in-the-game view but I think they'd be better served by dropping the zones & just having any eligible aspiring director applying for a board seat irrespective of where they grow/deliver grain. You want the better applicants & not siloing them into small contests which means potentially good directors might miss getting elected in the their good director crowded zone and a dud or factional plant might get in via another zone. Unwise.

Many are protective of the zones as they see their zone needs representation on the board. Well all zones must be represented by all directors. The currect system is akin to nominess directors and whilst they have in the past got things done for their own area, its not what a nominee director can or should do. Their fiduciary duty is to the entire membership not to a select home crowd.

At any rate, the cases in the past where directors intervened and got a new wheatbin or extensions or whatever, was a crossing of the governance line between board & management. Its indefensible for a director to do anything more than approach the CEO with the concerns of home town growers & stand the hell back, leave it to management to decide and for management to report back to the board.

You look at a company's books and once you learn how to recaste the numbers in an annual report you can generally see where the red flags lie, where the company is failing or killing it, no matter how well the management MIGHT try to cloud it in smoke & mirrors. The red flags pop up clearly with the right ratios & equations. So too red flags can pop up about the board and how they operate with the right questions from the outside.

A smart board will seek out the best training, the best refresher courses and set about trickling down learning and training to the members to keep them better informed and better assured. Also keep a number of them interested enough to consider running for the board.

Away from CBH, Politics - Politics and things. This was interesting what people said they thought, thought they knew and weren't sure about but took a guess.
I define politics as anywhere where 2 or more people gather to discuss things, debate things to try & improve things. Could be the local footy club or Federal Cabinet.
Politics has some angles to it...

1. Sometimes politics is the elegant form of tribal thuggery. No spear or hammer, but sometimes devious plans are hatched, sometimes fair and common sense.
2. Sometimes in life we have to do deals with people we wouldn't have dinner with. Its a fact. It's not a wrong thing. What is fact is all political parties have run cloak n dagger stuff in or around Parliament ticking along with some techiniques of undermining, tricking, deceiving etc. What & where this goes pear shaped (and it has in every single party ever) is these darkened tactics spill over into their own party room (factions) and even to the operational side of their respective organisations (branch stacking, ambush motions, conflicts of interests ignored or hidden etc) - Yes fiduciary duty exists and is sometimes ignored in the party machines.

And thats some of it.

No I haven't done the science, I haven't done the physical trials but I think its fair to say that sometimes it's easier to herd a 100 cats into the yards with a bull whip than getting humans to work well together for the common interest...egoless, self interest aside etc. Humans...world was a perfect place until they got here. One of the greatest things I miss from my youth is not good working knees, back, stamina, eyesight, hearing etc, what I miss most is the naivety I had thinking everyone did the right thing all the time.
Not to be mistaken, I have great faith in humanity and its remarkable how crime doesn't pay, integrity is for the real win everytime and most people are good and understand this.

The Left, the Right & Fascism

If you're of the Hard Left, then EVERYTHING differing is hard right, oppressive, greed & fascist.
If you're of the Hard Right, then EVERYTHING differing is hard left, incapable of needed hard decisions, keen on public theft & communist.

Both seem to declare themselves as enemies of Conservatism.
I don't think Consevratism sits in the middle. I don't think it sits on the same spectrum as the Left & the Right.

Both hard Left & Right are keener on state control, oppressing someone, high taxing, state ownership and against individual rights, responsbilities. Both have failed business plans as a form of governance.

Hard Left use the word fascism as a derogatory attack word to replace a proper argument even though strangely it's origins are of the very hard left (see its founding philospher Giovanni Gentile). Its made even stranger as some of the very Hard Right actually embrace the term Fascism despite it's origins being of the Hard Left. Fascism is state control, state ownership, state declaring what is good & bad in society and the people do not get a vote, a say. 

You cannot have fascism AND a Westminster System, a Constitutional Monarchy, a democratic republic. From those positions call it Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism or Tribal dictatorship...its anti the people, it crushes dissent, free speech, individual rights and explodes the size of government & taxing.

Call it Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism or Ceramic Unicorn Figurines...it doesn't matter what the name is, its what the intent is. If its authoratarian, state controlling the people & their way of life it is not consevratism.

As a conservative I don't think I sit on the linear left to right spectrum. I sit in a camp that sees a spectrum that is anti conservatism, anti the people, their individual rights and left to its own devices will turn into a brutal murderous regime.

Where have the Hard Left or Hard Right ended well?
Where has it ever worked without brutal murderous oppression and other people's money?
Where?

There is a Left-Right Spectrum but the huge cavernous void between the Left & the Right isn't filled by Conservatism. There's is a spectrum of hate & oppression and the only thing that happens in the middle patch is less state sanctioned theft & murder.

So no, I'm not of the Left or Right. As a conservative I'm actually the direct opposite of the Left & the Right.

Remember the "Left/Right Political Spectrum" comes from France,  French Revolution where with 1500+ members it was easier for counting to put the supporters of the King to the right of the Speaker & the supporters of the revolution to the left.
Things changed over time but even after the revolution & the guillotine began to rust the Left & Right division remained.

Pity in a way, there's more of a triangle shape than a line spectrum. Its more Right & Left vs Conservatism but the more moderate either side, the closer they are to the Conservative point. Regardless if them have some differences, Hard Left & Hard Right are both authoratarian, distatorial leaners and against the conservatives.

Me disagreeing with Jane Marwick

I get crabby with new buzzwords that pop up from time to time. Probably more peeved because at the time they begin as good words to use when describing things even though they get over used. Here's a few... drill down, narrative, optic, paradigm. And now here's me using them.

I really enjoy listening to the podcast called The Jane Marwick Show. Yes its great for long car trips but try as I do to save a few up for the 4 hour drive to Perth I generally end up listening to them long before a car trip. Why is it a good podcast. (enter catchy buzzwords)

Its due to the length of the show.  Which although it varies greatly its generally way longer than a radio show or TV slot, there's no adverts. That and (brace yourself...) because it's got little in the way of time constraints it has the ability to drill down past the usual sell optics, past everyone's own personal bias or narrative and crack open the shell to see the real contents.

The podcast with Jacinta Price was Walkley Award winning stuff. It was real, raw, confronting, challenging but it had to be said & done. Without full rigour in a debate, without all the facts no matter how shocking they are, without this we lose to a better prepared argument that might actually be hiding facts.
Its tough to be fair. But its right.

Now where do I disagree with Jane, well 2 places. 
Firstly, Beverley is better than York.

Secondly, debating is a great learning tool. Why did I disagree with her? 
(And yes I have changed my mind).

Well firstly, yes I did debating in school. I kind of liked it but the thing that stunned me was you could win the argument even when you were wrong, very wrong. That began my dislike of debating.

I remember the completely one sided argument of "Is breathing oxygen bad for you"
The affirmative won. Amongst it was cited research of a mouse being kept alive breathing nitrogen...not for long I suspect. A liquid nitrogen which contained just enough oxygen from memory. Then the angle of how many carcigenes are in the air, acid rain, radioactivity and on it goes. Slim pickings but the affimative won. I became very cynical. It was wrong I thought that the right premise didn't win.

I could have studied law or become a police officer. I still maintain they were two of the biggest mistakes I NEVER made. As much as they can do good, I probably wouldn't have been flexible enough in my thinking as a young person to cope with good people losing and bad people getting off.
That wiring I had meant the right & correct has to prevail, always. 
Which is not how life works sadly & I too have been as wrong & incorrect as anyone.

The English teachers back then I thought were brilliant...except for their love of debating.

On her Podcast I heard Jane speak highly of debating in school and whilst I didn't cringe I was having a real "Yeah nup" moment with Jane. 

Then I accidently drilled down as I heard why it was a good thing in her mind.
Its not that people lose because some other people are bad or compromised...well not always. Debating teaches you to prepare very well and to do that you have to find all the facts..WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR.

Now debating does mean you have 2 sides with predetermined positions and they respectively THEN have to find the facts, but whilst that happens in life a BIt, that's NOT how life is supposed to work.
To counter that interllectual bankruptcy we have to be prepared very well when making decisions, get all the facts we can and never rely solely of debating or oratory skills to outspeak the opposing view...OR OUTDO US.

It is still only about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts...in proper context.

The penny dropped. Those brilliant teachers I had that craftily taught us how to learn and not what to think just went up even higher on taller pedestals. In my 50s I now look back & think they really were the teachers in every sense I thought they were & then some. I learnt how to learn with them & I'll stop demonising debating now.

Debating is a learning tool, it teaches what mechanisms you must use in discourse and discussion but you will never actually discuss things in real life in a debate format.

The mechanisms are all about finding the fullest facts, the proper context and extinguishing ego. Edward De Bono wrote that there was arrogance arguing, where one side will not bring up facts that will destroy their argument and that was my real problem with debating. That is what many employed.
But the way to head that off at the pass we have to be very prepared, gather all the facts we can, apply them in proper context, don't let it get personal and find what determination the facts point to. Its not my position, its just facts & truth.

So Jane unknowingly caused me to see a school activity from 30+ years ago in a different light and yes now we agree on debating.

However Beverley is decidedly the better town because home pride can be excused for over looking facts a little...so I respect her decision to wrongly choose the wrong town to love :-) 

Quite rightly, out of this whole blurb, I'm only going to get into trouble for that last sentence...fair bump, play on.

Twitter Court - Online Version of Angry Mob Rule

So a WA Government employee, in his own time went overseas and paid to take part in a Safari Shoot. The ABC in its wisdom spotted the Twitter Mob go ape over it and sought out some extra facts. The result was "All Rise, Twitter Court is Now In Session" and it got quite ugly.

Facts we do know that the mob don't like is there are probably good Trophy Hunting operations and bad, but no one bothered to check which is which or explore what each do really well or really bad. Basic mob line is, "All Trophy Hunting is Evil"

Anyone supporting it, asking for more facts, cutting the guy some slack because facts are few or even being reasonable with the small amount of facts presented is intolerable, evil, disgusting, immoral and on goes a list of emotional personal attacks.

Many overseas Torphy Hunting operations operate, mainly on the African Continent. No I've never been on one, not going to go on one because whilst its not my thing they exist for a reason and each to their own.

The contention is they're evil and villagers suffer but no one says where NOR how widespread that actually is if that claim is at all correct. There are a number of hunting outfits & the ones I could find were heavily government regulated. They provided jobs for people who otherwise had little or no job opportunities. The meat is distributed to local villages. Taxidemists find a market. Local accomodation and transport have a new market. Poachers have no market because poaching is opposed by locals & officials. The animals targeted for destruction are not Alpha males but generally outcast bulls or rogue bulls & sometimes others to keep herd numbers within the determined sustainable numbers.

By applying a legal market value, the herd is managed, its part paid for, in places fully paid for by the Hunter Tourists, jobs and small satelitte industries pop up & poachers have no market at all. Local villagers can still hunt, their life isn't changed because they generally aren't hunting rogue bull elephants, lions, big cats etc. It means though that the rest of the animal food chain slips into sustainable numbers & populations roam less. The boom bust population numbers becomes far less common.

Present those views in Twitter Court and you will be attacked, mocked & vilified. Indeed many shouting Karma will have its day, others saying the person should be hunted & killed in the same fashion. I mean how the hell have humans descended to this point of vile moral superioirity that they wish others dead who partake in a legal, lawful, government regulated activity...in a foreign country?

No the mob rule slipped into action. The person at the centre didn't lose his job but he was demoted & then he was described by the WALabor Premier Mark McGowan as "depraved, disgusting and disgraceful" which really sounds like a very personal attack.

Lesst han 240 days to the next State Election and of course the Premier is quickly trying to politically weaponise everything possible. The minister of the environment said he was physically sick. Really? Then clealry he hasn't seen or heard of the pastoral stations that Alannah McTeirnan doesn't want to talk about with masses of dead livestock. There are some brilliant Aboriginal stock operators, station operators but these 2 were mind blowing bad & for the most part absent causing death by starvation & no water. Grab a bucket Minister Dawson sit down with the Premier and see if it is "depraved, disgusting and disgraceful" & what is to be done, who is to be held to account, charged etc.

I think in the meantime the WA Government employee who went on the legal, lawful overseas paid hunting trip has a very good chance of an appeal for his demotion. He has a very good case for damages & the Premier has opened up a big can of worms which for him probably won't go through the courts until after March if it goes to court which is after the election. It's a calculated move but in the meantime someone's life & career is destroyed.

Cancel Culture, Post Modernist Marxism on display...all for political votes.
But go view the ABC Post, then go to the Twitter post on it & see the angry mob.
It's quite ugly, it doesn't ask for facts & it attacks anyone asking for any or offering a differing view.
The Mob Rule thing is now in Australia. Its growing and its a very worrying sign when Feelings crush Facts.

Twitter post on the article - https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1283498717044043777?s=20

ABC Article - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-16/trophy-hunting-esperance-wildlife-officer-fair-south-africa/12457884