Five days ago, the Honorable Mark Pearson MLC, gave his maiden speech to the NSW’s Legislative Council. With people watching streamed footage, and a packed public gallery, this should have been a watershed moment for the plight of other animals.
Never again will the animals have a captive audience where a supposed dedicated advocate of theirs would be able to champion their cause in such an open forum.
For all the talk and rhetoric of both him and the Animal Justice Party being a voice for the voiceless, he failed to mention anything about seeking justice for them, or that one things that could help the animals.
With the increase in the number of animal “matters” being ‘exposed’ through the media, is it time for animal protection groups to refer campaigns to an ethics committee?
In an ideal world, before any campaign or investigation was started, the group would lodge a submission with the ethics review board to assess the long and short term impact to the animals, and how the action compares to the aims of the organisation.
That way, only those activities which aligned with the aims/objectives of the group and had a long term positive benefit on the lives of other animals would see the light of day. Instead of how it is at the moment where groups are doing anything and everything for their share of the spotlight.
What’s More Important, Animals Or Attention?
For arguments sake, let’s use the recent greyhound live-baiting expose as an example.
Since then, more and more ‘animal advocates’ have started to fly the anti ‘ag-gag’ flag.
Even though they are starting to sound like chicken little with their endless preaching of doom and gloom the reality of things is more then a little different to what we are being told.
Sure the media and politicians are branding talk of draft bills as ag-gag, though that hardly means that they are. We all know that sensationalism is what the media thrives on, and politicians only respond to that which will get them votes and time in the media.
That being said, and understanding that both sides will say whatever will get them the most publicity, it is time to sort out fact from fiction
Activists Are Not A Law Unto Themselves.
First and foremost, we need to realise that those new laws have come about because ‘activists’ are ignoring the laws that we currently have.
Despite whatever altruistic reasons are being given for breaking the law, the law is still broken.
If these people are willing to break the law with trespass and property damage to get incriminating evidence, where will they draw the line?
On the other side of the coin, seeing as digital piracy is another issue that is gaining attention, I am sure that these activists wouldn’t mind if a farmer broke in a placed a camera above the area where they use their computer to ensure that have purchased the correct licenses for the software they are using.