The announcement that voters in NSW were waiting on, was made last Friday afternoon. The final distribution of preferences for the last seats in NSW’s Legislative Council were made, and Mark Pearson from the Animal Justice Party NSW was fortunate enough to score one.
Once the announcement was made the social media accounts of animal groups and their supporters went into overdrive with claims that this was a great day for the animals, that the winds of change are blowing through NSW and so on.
Once everyone’s emotions have settled down, and we all get back to reality, will Mark Pearson and the Animal Justice Party be able to live up to their hype, or will they implode like other micro parties have throughout history?
Nothing Is Going To Change
Despite all the big talk that Mr Pearson and his supporters are claiming, there is very little chance of his vote in the MLC having any impact on proposed legislation.
The AJP don’t hold the balance of power, so there is no need for the government to have discussions with him regarding anything on their wish list.
Sure, Mr Pearson may get some more air time in front of the TV camera’s now that he is, or will be an MLC, though only time will tell how much good that will do.
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.
Chris Delforce from Aussie Farms has stamped his foot like a spoilt toddler, and demanded that Katrina Hodgkinson, New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, and Steve Coleman, RSPCA NSW CEO, face off against him in a public debate.
Would a debate, public or otherwise, advance the cause for equal consideration for other animals, obtain some sort of justice for pigs/other animals in general, or allow the challenger to increase his unwarranted 15 minutes of fame?
Cameron Blewett thinks it is the latter, and that he is still doing more harm than good, and explains why.
Carrying On Like A Spoilt Child
There is no denying that what was exposed at Wally’s Piggery was atrocious, and the maturity of the movement can be measured by the way that it responds to this set back. A movement that has a matured understands that there will be ups and downs with progress towards equal consideration for other animals.
Except that hasn’t happened in this case. Instead, the movement, and those who want to be leaders of it, are stomping their feet carrying on like spoilt little children. The protests and theatrics of the past weekend are indicative of this.
I’m not really sure if this behaviour is because they were told no, or that the pride and ego of some has been damaged by the dropping of the charges or a combination of both.
One thing is for sure, that these people have now made it about them, rather than what has happened.