How would you handle it if you became aware of an ‘animal rights’ group that was deliberately misrepresenting events to deceive people?
What if those furphies were substantially different to what actually happened at an event?
Would you or could you be the one to raise your voice and say that what they said was untrue?
That is exactly what happened on Tuesday night, 26 March 2013, in that funny and quirky little place called Facebook.
Animal Liberation Queensland made a comment on their Facebook page about the protest against Lennon Bros Circus that they held on Sunday 24 March 2013, and a little bit of a discussion began about it. A comment was made about this photo where someone had called it the walk of shame, and of the chants that were made during the protest.
Animal Liberation Queensland claimed during this online discussion that the chants were mild and good humoured, (as if there could be anything good humoured about the oppression of animals for entertainment) and that there was an alternative entrance for circus goers to use if they didn’t want to run the gauntlet of protestors in the walk of shame.
As I was actually at the protest site on Sunday, and had a different impression of what occurred, I asked Animal LIberation Queensland if they could please explain where the alternative entry was, as the protestors formed a gauntlet both parallel to the fence and perpendicular to the entrance. This meant that it was virtually impossibly for any circus goer who wished to enter the circus area to do so without passing through two rows of protestors.
The other question that I asked was if they could please let me know what the words to the mild and good humoured chants were, as the two that I heard were not mild or good humoured. A screen shot of that comment can be seen here.
Without any warning or reply, my comment and the comments of another person were promptly deleted and both of us restricted from making a comment on that page.
Before I go any further, I would like to make it clear that I am not claiming some denial of free speech or anything like that, as that is only something that exists in the real world, not online. What I am drawing attention to, is Animal Liberation Queensland (an organisation that people donate time and money to, believing that they are helping the animals) can make a deliberate attempt to deceive the public, and then when the deception is exposed, erase all trace of it, along with attempting to silence those who blew the whistle on the deception in the first place.
If you have a look at the screen shot that I linked to above and type the url into your browser or follow this link, you will see that there are not 8 comments attached to the post, there are only 4. This means that a substantial chunk of the discussion was removed when the lies perpetrated by Animal Liberation Queensland were exposed.
None of this changes the fact that the comments were made and attributed to Animal Liberation Queensland, and therefore the question needs to be asked, why if the comments were indeed untrue, which they appear to be due to having been deleted, why were they made in the first place?
If one comment has been made and exposed as being untrue, how many others have been made by Animal Liberation Queensland? And of those other possible erroneous comments/statements, how many of them have been used to deceptively or fraudulently get well meaning and innocent activists to part with their time or money?