Was It A “Thoughtless Act” Or Arrogant Behaviour?

A little over a month ago, Mark Pearson did the unthinkable.

Not only did he consume animal flesh, he was caught eating the “morsel”.

As is usually the case, when someone gets caught doing something wrong, they put all sorts of spin on it, and attempt to deflect the focus.

This is exactly what Mark Pearson and the Animal Justice Party have done.

Rather than accept responsibility, and fall on his sword, the wagons were circled to protect him.

Mark Pearson and the Animal Justice Party put issued statements full of Orwellian doublespeak.

First came the Animal Justice Party’s salvo to those who were calling for Mark’s resignation

The “statement” was full of so many falsehoods that I am surprised it was published.

Deviation or Avoidance?

The Animal Justice Party are misleading their members, supporters and the public by claiming that Mark Pearson “deviated from the Animal Justice Party policy of a plant-based diet by eating fish”.

I doubt that he has ever “followed” their policy.

What I would like to know is, if he never followed a “plant-based diet” to begin with, how could he “deviate” from it?

Starting with one of his first interviews where he talks about eating eggs, through to his “almost vegan” comment in The Australian Vegan Magazine interview, he hasn’t said he was vegan or followed a plant based diet.

He has always been referred to as a “vegetarian”.

The ‘eggs’ article claims that he is a “pragmatic vegan”, which we all know is code for “I eat plant based when I can be bothered, or it isn’t a hassle”

This would lead a reasonable person to believe that he hasn’t followed his party’s policy at all.

If this is the case, how could the consumption of animal flesh be a “deviation”?

Doublespeak Continues

Way back when this first happened, Mark Pearson wrote that he was “committed to veganism”.

That has now changed to be “I am now fully committed to not eating any animal product where sourcing could have involved harm”.

The key words in that are “could have”.

It wasn’t “does involve harm”, or “comes from the exploitation of other animals”.

What this means is that he is free to consume any animal product he wants to.

I guess this means “happy” eggs/meat/milk are back on the menu.

I would also like to know why he felt the need to change it, while still claiming to be an “animal rights” activist?

Enter The Vegan Gag

Through out all this, what strikes me as interesting is the number of people that have been “gagged” for saying anything that wasn’t falling at his feet in adoration.

Mark Pearson says no to “Ag-Gag”, yet is happy to “gag” and silence others. Source: Facebook.

I have lost count of the number of people who have contacted me complaining that their Facebook comments were deleted, and they can no longer comment.

Sadly, this seems to be the accepted approach taken by those in the animal “movement”.

Not something that you would expect from someone who claims they would “blow the whistle” on animal ‘cruelty’.

Yet, doesn’t want people to comment on his part in it.

Which is kinda ironic when you think about it

What Are They Afraid Of

Screenshot of comment deleted from Mark Pearson’s facebook page.

For such heavy handed censorship to be going on, they must be afraid of something.

The only thing that I can think of it being is that if people start reading these comments, and start thinking for themselves, they make wake up to the fact they have been hoodwinked for all this time.

To begin with, how can anyone support a party that claims to be about “justice”, yet allows a sitting MP to consume animal products?

Hopefully, once they realise they can’t, they may begin to understand that the Animal Justice Party, ISN’T an “animal rights” political party.

Nor have they ever been, or eventually intend to be.

Yet this is a piece of misinformation that Mark Pearson and the various people involved with the Animal Justice Party continue to push.

Which brings us back to the original question.

Was Mark Pearson’s consumption of animal flesh a “slip up” as alleged, or the arrogant behaviour of someone who thinks they know better than everyone else?

4 thoughts on “Was It A “Thoughtless Act” Or Arrogant Behaviour?”

  1. Check it out … per capita meat consumption in Australia.


    The implication is clear, that the number of animals in factory farms, as eaten by Australians has been rising relentlessly for 30 years. Meanwhile some vegans continue to regard in-fighting as a sacred duty to be engaged in at a similar rate to breathing. Is it helping? I’d say it’s just a massive waste of time and energy.

    • Thank you for your comment, Geoff.

      If this is the Geoff Russell that is a committee member of the AJP, I think it is interesting that you made the comment that you did.

      Instead of holding Mark Pearson accountable for his continued consumption of animal products, you are attacking those who are doing what you aren’t.

      Seeking ‘justice’ for other animals.

      That being said, I am interested how this is “infighting” considering that Mark Pearson isn’t actually vegan. Or, that the Animal ‘Justice’ Party, isn’t actually a vegan political party.

      What I would like to know is how come it is acceptable for Mark to say he is “committed to veganism” one minute, then changed his mind and be “fully committed to not eating any animal product where sourcing could have involved harm” the next?

  2. Flippity floppity
    Animals aren’t property

    Blatant hypocrisy doesn’t do the animals any good. I consider myself a fairly pragmatic sort of person and haven’t found any occasion for eating animal products, even language barriers when travelling in other countries haven’t proven to be problematic. It’s not at all difficult relative to how to was 10+ years ago. I’m an enormous flake about a lot of things but try to be consistent when it comes to important ethical matters..? If we can’t hold our representatives to a higher standard..? Sheesh.

    • I totally agree, Ray.

      With the salary that Mark Pearson is on, and with him living in Sydney, there really isn’t any acceptable excuse for what he did.

      I still cannot understand why there are so many people defending his actions and dismissing what he did. The AJP is even letting him get away with it, despite his own words showing that he isn’t going to follow the AJP’s “plant based diet” policy.


What are your thoughts?