Book on Australian animal law published

Feb 16, 2009

Book on Australian animal law published

Most of my policy related activities at the moment are in the area of migration and multiculturalism, but I am also managing some activity in the area of animal rights and welfare.

One of the things I’ve done recently is contribute a chapter to a book on animal law, which has just been released. The book is called Animal Law in Australasia, published by Federation Press.

As the blurb on the back cover notes

The original laws protecting animals from human mistreatment arose from community concern in the 19th century, and today community expectations are even higher. Most Australians and New Zealanders assume that their animal welfare laws still provide sufficient protection for animals, that cruelty is the exception and that, when exposed, the perpetrators are prosecuted. They are wrong on all counts.

One of the book’s editors, Peter Sarkoff from the Law Faculty at the University of Auckland, closes the book with an aptly named chapter entitled “Animal Law: A Subject In Search of Scholarship.” This reflects the growing significance and developing jurisprudence on the way animals are treated by the law, including whether and what rights may be present, but the relative lack of attention which has been paid to this to date.

The book obviously seeks to play a role in helping to remedy this. It is aimed at law students but is also suitable for activists with an interest in animal rights. Every chapter in the book is written by legal practitioners or academics, with the exception of mine which takes a look at the way animal rights is perceived at the political level (not surprisingly, it’s not an overly positive assessment).

(I’m not entitled to any royalties out of this book (as far as I know), so I don’t suppose I have much of a conflict of interest in mentioning it. In any case, my personal interest is fairly obvious in this case.)

72 Comments, Comment or Ping

Renée

Nice. Look forward to reading it. Thanks.

Feb 16th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Good on you Andrew Bartlett and thank you for your untiring endeavours towards mitigating cruelty to defenceless animals.

The majority of humans continue to feel immune to social justice issues when they are not directly involved. Humans seem to believe a certain amount of human cruelty to all animals is natural and justified and more particularly, religious persons. Our self-labeled Christians often turn toward the mistranslated and misunderstood “dominion” that God has given Man over the animals.

Unfortunately for Man (where the majority remain oblivious) the mechanised madness which Man has now invented in the livestock industry, over 60% of new, emerging human diseases are now of animal origin.

Similarly, the majority of antibiotics used in Australia are force-fed to food animals. It is clear that the foxes remain in charge of the chickens when Mr Tony Burke and the Meat and Livestock Association continue on their overseas junkets to dupe developing countries into buying more meat (dead or alive) from Australia.

Mr Rudd et al have now joined the economic Liberals in believing that the economy is far more important than the human mortalities which are emerging – deaths caused by antibiotic resistant super bugs.

Has Man’s brutal actions and his atrocity of silence resulted in the animal world fighting back?

Feb 21st, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

In answer to your question, “I doubt it.”

It seems to me that very stupid things are occurring with animals at either end of the scale.

Firstly we engage in live exports to advantage exactly who? It’s of no advantage to OUR abattoir workers or to the animals that die, become injured or ill during the voyage.

At the other end of the scale, we have the pampered pooches and pussies etc which have been humanised with clothing, jewellery, toys, gourmet foods, birthday parties, funerals, bequests etc.

It really sickens me when I think of all of the world’s children who are starving, while dogs have heart attacks from eating human food.

I think you might have overlooked the human/animal “interactions” that have caused interspecies disease transmission.

I think animals should be treated as animals – neither pampered nor abused.

Feb 22nd, 2009
Alpha Brain

Thank you for your response Lorikeet. My previous comment: “The majority of humans continue to feel immune to social justice issues when they are not directly involved” also includes the plight of starving children, however, I do try to remain on topic.

Nevertheless, many of the children to whom you refer cling to life only because of the milk and meat they can obtain from food animals. That is a very good reason to believe that we owe these animals a merciful life and a merciful death.

Your reference to “pampered pooches and pussies” I believe is a red herring – exacerbated by the media since the majority of responsible pet owners treat their animals sensibly but make no apology for the affection they have for their pets – nor should they.

“I think you might have overlooked the human/animal “interactions” that have caused interspecies disease transmission.” With respect Lorikeet, I believe it is you who has overlooked this issue – an issue which is scientific.

In addition, with regard to climate change, the UN FAO have warned that “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level.”

Perhaps you may reflect on the following words of wisdom, Lorikeet?:

“Man has not woven the web of life. Man is but one thread within it. Whatever man does to the web, he does to himself. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

Man, the greatest predator, is but one species of the “animals” to whom you refer.

Cheers

Feb 24th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

I don’t consider myself an animal, nor do I subscribe to the ideas of the climate change lobby, which I believe has its own much more damaging agenda.

I also don’t believe every bit of rubbish dished up by the scientific community, since a lot of it is proven to be fallacial.

All you have to do is go into a department store to know that the concept of “pampered pooches and pussies” is not a red herring, but I’m sure they’d like one of those on their dinner plates as well.

Your “words of wisdom” are very interesting reading, but we must all realise that it’s the scientists who want to change the course of evolution and interfere with Mother Nature.

But I think we are in agreement that animals should not be unnecessarily harmed.

Feb 25th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Hello Lorikeet

You are quite right. Many scientists have interfered with Mother Nature not least those who were paid handsomely by the likes of Monsanto, Dow et al who “revolutionised” agriculture by flogging the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to farmers who sprayed our fresh produce for some 4 decades. Australia continues to do so.

These man-made chemicals have invaded every eco-system on the planet. They are bioaccumulative and these pollutants, by another name, are dioxins which have now invaded the entire food chain.

The Arctic people in Greenland are now reported as having the highest body burden of dioxins on the planet, a result of their marine diet.

Of course, there is no need to elaborate on the poisoning of Vietnam by these heinous “scientists” who flogged off Agent Orange (dioxin) to the US military to bomb and destroy Vietnam with their defoliation strategy. Children there are still being born hideously disfigured.

As a result, all humans now have a body burden of dioxins – carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic. These dioxins are predominantly ingested by humans from the consumption of food animals. As I have tried to explain: “All things are bound together.”

Prior to the invention of dioxins by man, the closest chemical Mother Nature had to dioxins was sodium chloride which was then manipulated by man to produce the Darth Vader of all know poisons on the planet.

Your apparent obsession with pampered pooches and pussies is curious. Which is it you dislike? The pet or the pet owner?

However, rather than debate on the more fortunate pampered pooches and pussies, I shall leave you with some footage on the animals which are not so lucky – billions of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-kGq5LgKxg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxw-tEn2SE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=mJEQToveb_s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXV65Jvqjgk

Ch

Feb 25th, 2009
Nicky

Thanks for the heads-up on the book, Andrew. There are also a number of interesting papers from Summer 2008 at the Law Reform Commission website (Issue 91) Unfortunately, the ALRC says that that edition is now out of print, but I’m sure copies could be made available if there were sufficient demand. Some of the articles were posted at http://www.liveexportshame.com for those with the inclination. I’m a post-grad law student, and I will be buying the book.

Feb 27th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

Okay, I don’t like pet owners who spend large amounts of money on dogs and cats, while Zimbabwe has 7 million PEOPLE who are starving, and there are also plenty of Australian parents barely able to feed their children vegemite sandwiches.

Scientists from the climate change lobby are the most potentially dangerous people the planet has ever known. If we let them continue with their diabolical fanaticism, they will destroy our primary, secondary and tertiary industries, leaving us wide open to a global takeover.

Soon you will have no tortured animals (or people) to worry about.

I also have no interest in eating genetically modified corn, with corn seed needing to be repurchased each year from the SAME COMPANY which also sells the glyphosate (poison). Interesting!

On the rare occasions when I’ve used glyphosate products at home, I’ve found they already do a very patchy job of killing weeds. Perhaps they will be better at destroying ordinary corn crops and killing consumers.

Feb 28th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Hi Lorikeet. I must reiterate, the excessive pampering of pets may make fools of animals, however, it is a relatively benign practice.

You appear rightly concerned about the global poor but frankly, this problem could be virtually eliminated with population control. Starving parents continue to give birth to starving and malnourished children. These nations must actively seek assistance in birth control programmes if they are sincere about climate change and current and future food wars.

Whilst you appear disgruntled with the IPCC reports, I assure you there is a consensus on the vandalism of the planet by livestock – not least in the arid lands of Australia and from the “primary” industry you defend.

Globally, over 4 decades, agricultural land has gained 500 million hectares from forests and other land uses and is estimated to gain another 500mha by the year 2020.

Producing one kilogram of beef requires 15,500 litres of water. Producing one kilogram of beef requires 10 kilograms of animal feed. Seventy percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is occupied by cattle and a large part of the remainder is taken up by crops to feed animals.

Livestock are among the largest source of land and water pollution with nitrates and phosphorous, slurries and silage runoffs causing relentless damage to the environment. Livestock in Australia are largely responsible for the destruction of native habitats, salinity, pollution, desertification and river contamination.

In addition, Australia is gaining an ignominious reputation as a cruel and immoral nation by the manner in which it treats its food animals.

The question I would ask Australians is: “Should this nation be herders or planters?” (I am not a vegetarian). Should the consensus of opinion be “both,” then we will indeed learn the hard way.

Cheers

Mar 6th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

It is a serious folly to believe everything you read.

This nation could continue to be herders and planters, but most of the food crops could be grown hydroponically and aeroponically in a tiered system, instead of being planted. When animals are crammed into feedlots, people complain.

The climate will continue to change as Mother Nature sees fit, regardless of any input one way or another by mankind or the IPCC.

People who want to get rid of the animal proteins from our diets have agendas of which you are clearly unaware. There are also various alternatives to feeding grain to food animals.

I suggest you read Andrew’s other posts and comments on the environment and animals for further clarification and more diverse options.

I don’t think that the humanisation of animals, as per the pampering of pussies and pooches, is a “benign practice” at all.

People have been suggesting that poorer nations gain access to birth control as a means of controlling poverty and starvation for decades. Some people use it as an excuse not to give foreign aid, both individually and governmentally. However, most of the problems in these countries are political in nature.

Robert Mugabe has driven white farmers out of Zimbabwe and then not made good use of the land to feed his people. The problem has little to do with contraception. If the people practised birth control, they might not end up with ANY KIDS at all. They would continue to die from disease.

Mar 6th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Hi Lorikeet
I can assure you I do not believe everything I read, but read I do and having been a member of a government appointed advisory group on matters of industrial pollution, I believe I am capable of separating fact from fiction.

Your allusion to hydroponics and aeroponics has merit though still futuristic on a mass scale, however, Dr Bugbee, director of the Crop Physiology Laboratory at Utah State University advises that aeroponic vertical farming is simply too reliant on the use of artificial light and he estimates that it would take 18 acres of solar cells to provide enough light for just one acre of plants. Currently there are obstacles to aeroponically growing large grain crops like wheat or corn too but are you suggesting that these industries would remediate the ecological destruction caused by livestock?

The volume of livestock manure pollution is mind-boggling. On a weight basis, the mass of cattle faeces alone exceeds that of the whole human race. Add to this about 19 billion chickens, pigs, turkeys, goats etc (the majority of which are kept in intensive production facilities) and the amount of manure is gargantuan and concentrated. Let us not forget Australia’s 90 million sheep and 30 million cattle either.

All but a small percentage of the roughly 80 million people added to world population each year live in the world’s developing countries, which are home to 80 percent of humanity and more than 95 percent of world population growth.

Human reproduction is such a “success” story that scientists advise that today’s large and ever-increasing population growth threatens the earth’s support systems and contributes to global poverty.

However, you again present a fatuous argument when you use Mugabe as an example of global food poverty, similarly to holding excessively pampered pets responsible for starving children.

Only those with vested interests would deny that the planet is groaning under the collective weight of human folly.

Mar 7th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

I would argue that it is those with vested interests that perpetuate deceptive Green ideology for their own gain. That would include the US Department of Commerce.

I wasn’t really thinking of large grain crops when I suggested hydroponics and aeroponics. In answer to your question, I think that growing some fruits and vegetables by this method could reinstate space for forests or provide further acreage for orchards or grain crops.

To reduce the need for artificial lighting, growers could try staggering rows of plants to make the best use of sunlight – also turning them to face different directions in accordance with the changes of season.

To my knowledge, even the Prophets of Doom expect the world’s population to start decreasing by 2050.

Your idea of a fatuous argument is not the same as mine. There’s nothing fatuous about pointing out that Mugabe deliberately fails to feed his people, or that giving pets expensive human food, instead of sponsoring a child through an aid agency, is a bad option.

What is fatuous is your lack of interest in the big picture created by world leaders, politicians and others with skulduggerous agendas.

Manure can be recycled into fertiliser and used to enrich the soil. It can also be broken down and compacted using vortex tube technology.

I trust you have taken a look at Andrew’s other posts for further information and debate. It would save me a lot of repetition here.

Yes, the planet is groaning under the collective weight of human folly – but it isn’t for the reasons you give.

Mar 7th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Hello Lorikeet

Your unnatural obsession with pet owners is becoming rather tedious therefore, I request that you provide ample evidence to substantiate your claim that these pet owners (clearly anonymous to all except your good self) do *not* sponsor children through aid agencies.

In Australia each year, humans consume some 250,000 kilograms of antibiotics and animals consume 500,000 kilograms. Apart from all the other drugs fed to livestock, multi-resistant bacteria to antibiotics now plague the livestock industry in Australia – widespread in pigs, cattle and sheep. Each year in the US, 8 billion food animals are raised for human consumption and human infections of animal origin have drastically increased.

Your argument remains fatuous since your proposals remain “pie in the sky” and have not been implemented. Animal wastes (and biosolids) are not being safely remediated. Endocrine disruptors contaminating manure and biosolids are dumped back on agricultural land as fertiliser. These endocrine disruptors are then consumed by humans and livestock through the food chain, seriously impacting on human and animal health. May I suggest you avail yourself of a manual on environmental toxicology?:

http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

“Western Australia has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers – whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold – are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.

“The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least.”

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/ruralsoc/v6n2p3.htm

Mar 8th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

I will suggest once again that you read the other environmental/animal posts for a broader perspective.

Mar 9th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Hello Lorikeet

Can one now presume that your accusations against anonymous owners of pampered pets were vexatious? Can one also falsely claim (with similar malice) that the sheep and cattle barons, who hit last year’s Rich List, also refuse to donate to aid agencies, preferring to spend their dollars on million dollar pleasure boats and private aircraft?

Having perused Andrew’s articles at random, as you advised, I have concluded (as have others) that you detest animals. You advise that you are terrified of dogs and have never owned one. Your allusion to bestiality and the “humanising” of animals is rather perverse to say the least:

“They probably want to take animals off our dinner plates and move them into the bedrooms.

“Perhaps the IPCC should be renamed Intergovernmental Panel for Canoodling “with Chimpanzees (substitute calves, cows, chooks, camels, canines etc … hopefully “not cadavas).”

Well they say “ignorance is as ignorance does” Lorikeet and that is one sick and twisted mind you possess particularly when you fail to allude to the hundreds of thousands of humans who have and are sodomising and raping little children – the victims, who like animals, are not consenting individuals.

You have now given me a “broader perspective” as to why your view is so narrow and crude and why you remain incapable of debating many of the issues I have raised, supported by academic and scientific papers on the health and environmental ramifications of intensively farming livestock.

I must conclude therefore, that you in fact relish animal abuse and the gratuitous carnage of the planet’s support systems which accompanies that abuse.

Unfortunately for you Lorikeet, the scientific evidence (which you deny or is beyond your limited comprehension) finds you in the losers’ camp.

Cheers

Mar 9th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

I do not “relish the abuse” of any person or creature, including myself by you.

I have an IQ in the top 2% of the population and have excellent comprehension skills.

I notice you neglected to mention that I said I thought some cancers might be contagious. Since then, I’ve seen researchers on TV who are now making similar claims, such as some oral cancers being triggered by transmission of HPV – also that other viruses might be responsible for triggering skin cancer. I am absolutely certain that skin cancer ISN’T caused by the sun.

I didn’t need to read anyone else’s material to come to these conclusions. I suggest you do some extensive thinking, instead of all that reading of OTHER PEOPLE’S ideas. Even taking a good look at what happens around you could be quite eye-opening.

Try to do a bit more investigation of the people associated with your first link.

Think about why global warming scientists are attached to the US Department of Commerce, and why Lord Chris Haskins from the UK REALLY wants to get rid of the cows.

I am neither a paedophile nor a bestial. I suggest you save your criticism for those who deserve it.

We will find out eventually exactly who is in the losers’ camp on many issues.

Mar 10th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Lorikeet

You state:

“I notice you neglected to mention that I said I thought some cancers might be contagion.”

My most humble apologies Sr/Madam.

I had no idea that cancer causing viruses were relevant to a debate on animal welfare. Nevertheless, the relationship between cancer causing viruses and contagion was discovered decades ago. Alas, to the best of my knowledge, you have not received the accolades you believe you are worthy of, unless of course you happen to be Zur Hausen or some other notable cancer researcher who shared a Nobel Prize.

You have also confused debate with denialism. I suggest you get a grip on yourself and find the definition of “troll.”

The topic, a publication on animal welfare, has no relevance as to why “Lord Chris Haskins from the UK REALLY wants to get rid of the cows.”

The publication is a result of man’s egregious cruelty of defenceless species and the morally repugnant scale of brutality which occurs in the mechanised madness of factory farming.

The brutality extends from the horrors of factory farming, where massive numbers of cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, goats etc. are treated like machines to produce our food, to the disgusting antics of live exporters, to the brutal slaughter of seal pups, lab animals, precious and rare elephants or whales by men who clamour for more lethal means to kill them with and the grizzly, skinning alive of other defenceless species in China and beyond.

Your red herrings and your persistent duckshoving, places you among those who have adapted to the falseness and insanity of ego-culture and all the exaggerations that result, including the abuse of non-humans.

Mar 11th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

“I had no idea that cancer causing viruses were relevant to a debate on animal welfare.”

Then I guess you haven’t heard about transmission of various viruses causing deadly cancerous lesions in Tasmanian Devils. The problem is very widespread.

It seems to me that you are being allowed to make plenty of libellous claims on this blog, not to mention name-calling. I don’t expect any accolades, but some degree of respect would be appreciated.

For gender identification purposes, it seems I need to tell you that I’m a woman aged 53.

It also doesn’t help that the moderator exercises Information Control in order to assist you.

Mar 11th, 2009
ken

Impressive Alpha Brain – but you wont beat the bird. She (it is a she) never ever concedes anything and will always argeu you to a point of “give up”

Mar 11th, 2009
Tony

ALPHA BRAIN

Alpha Brain or Brainless says: You appear rightly concerned about the global poor but frankly, this problem could be virtually eliminated with population control

History repeating itself. Kill off the unborn and can we afford granda & grandpa.? In the name of Sustainability I suppose ?

The worlds best known tyrant once said. ” Let them die in dignity”
Well brainless why dont you lead the way if youre so worried about over population.

As an interesting note: The worlds current population could live comfortably in the State of Texas USA. (It would hold similar density as the Netherlands, but without the mass housing units of Hong Kong.

Lorikeet
The green ideology is somewhat similar to any other extreme ideology.
It stems from man worshipping the created over the creator.

Tony

Mar 11th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

Tony – population control does not automatically mean killing off the unborn or the aged. Automatically suggesting someone holds such views just because they talk about overpopulation is just inflammatory.

Lorikeet –

“It seems to me that you are being allowed to make plenty of libellous claims on this blog, not to mention name-calling. I don’t expect any accolades, but some degree of respect would be appreciated…… It also doesn’t help that the moderator exercises Information Control in order to assist you.”

Pot/kettle black, Lorikeet.

I moderate in the interests of trying to encourage civil discourse.

As by far the greatest offender in regards to abusive comments towards other commenters, I have been incredibly lenient in not deleting far more of your comments. If you dish it out, you invite it back and that makes the entire comment thread incredibly tedious for everyone else.

I am interested in people being able to express their opinion without copping a barrage of abuse and in having comment threads that might be at least mildly informative for people who want to read them.

I will use my own subjective judgement about when I think comments do not encourage civil discourse, and I am less likely to be lenient with consistent offenders.

Mar 11th, 2009
Alpha Brain

Thank you Ken for your words of wisdom and I shall heed your advice.

Alas, I’m now being force-fed a lecture on abortion and the red herrings and the duckshoving continues.

Seemingly we now have posters on this thread who suffer from weird voices in their heads since the dodo is a self-confessed semi-illiterate who dumps a bucket on those who dare to read and heed the writings of experts:

Ecclesiastes:

“And still under the sun in the judgment place I saw wickedness and in the seat of justice, iniquity.”

“As for the children of men, it is God’s way of testing them and of showing that they are in themselves are beasts.”

“For the lot of man and of beast is one lot: the one dies as well as the other so that there is no superiority of man over the beast for everything is vanity.”

“All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. Who knows if the life-breath of the beast goes upwards or downwards?”

“Again I considered all the oppressions that take place under the sun: the tears of the victims with none to comfort them. From the hand of their oppressors comes violence, and there is none to comfort them……….”

“For nightmares come with many cares, and a fool’s utterance with many words!”

Amen to that!

Mar 11th, 2009
Tony

Alpha Brain

Alpha Brain says: Seemingly we now have two posters on this thread who suffer from weird voices in their heads since the dodo is a self-confessed semi-illiterate who dumps a bucket on those who dare to read and heed the writings of experts

What are the voices telling you Alpha…. Too many people too many cows ?
Alpha Says: For nightmares come with many cares, and a fool’s utterance with many words!”

How true

Mar 11th, 2009
AileenWuornos

In a country where we consume twenty-five times our own population a year in animals, we have to ask a serious question…. what the hell is going on here? I think what we really need is less animal welfare, which is just a load of nonsense – what difference does having a little bit of extra room, or not being pumped full of growth hormone when they’re going to die anyway. I really hope this book is about animal liberation – because we do not have the right to exploit, consume or abuse or animal friends.
But yeah, the book sounds awesome…

Mar 12th, 2009
lorikeet

Andrew:

The person who started dishing it out by the shovel load was Alpha Brain. I refrained from calling him Omega Brain, although I was sorely tempted once he really started letting loose with ridiculous claims and insults.

Luckily I am educated and experienced enough to know exactly who is a destructive cultist.

You break your own rules by allowing Alpha Brain to deal any rubbish he chooses, because it serves your own purposes.

At the same time, you delete evaluative information that DOESN’T serve your purposes or that of recidivist Greens.

There are people who seem to be allowed to dish up as many insults as they choose. I know I am much more polite than most of them. There is a significant difference between a debatable point and an insult.

Anyone who regularly reads this blog will know that what you are saying about me is fallacial. They will know that Alpha Brain is a fanatically indoctrinated pre-election “ring in”, being used to enhance the Greens’ chances in the 21 March election – not that he is doing them any favours with his outrageous claims, name-calling and unmitigated condescension.

No doubt you will exercise Information Control for a third time and delete this information to keep readers in the dark.

Mar 12th, 2009
lorikeet

Aileenwuornos:

I don’t know where you got the idea that we all consume the equivalent of 25 times ourselves in animal meat.

For me, that would be about 1500 kg of meat in a year – which might equate to 2 head of steer. I think the average consumption would be about 50 to 60 kg per year – the equivalent of one of myself, and only a small part of a steer.

For the average person to eat 25 creatures in a year, they would nearly all need to be small things such as chicken and fish.

If I tried, I could probably eat 2000 sardines in a year, if all other meats were cut out.

Food animals are not “our friends”. They are a valuable, protein-rich, nutrient-dense part of our diet.

Mar 12th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

Lorikeet

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and failure to have any self-awareness about one’s own actions and faults is one of the most common forms of blindness.

If making ridiculous claims was justification for letting loose insults, then I would not have deleted so many of the comments people have made in response to you.

You have no idea what else I delete or moderate.

You are both more abusive and less tolerant of differing opinions than any other regular commenter on this site, as your latest comment above so comprehensively demonstrates.

If you persist, I shall save myself time by just deleting every comment you make, rather than the very limited selective editing I currently engage in.

Mar 12th, 2009
ken

Putting aside the other issues Lorikeet, you may (incredulous as it sounds) missed the point with the post by Aileenwuornos.

I think the claim was the we eat 25 times the “number” of animasl than our popultaiotn. That is approximately 500 million animlas.

This sounds daunting but a quick google to the Australiann Chicken Meat Foundation, hardly an animla welfare front, reveals that in 07/08 we ate 471million chickens alone. So with all the other animlsa that would contribute to the meat dfiet, I think the claim of the numbers is eminently supportable.

However like you I also enjoy meat as a part of my diet and don’t intend to be railroaded out of that ny any one else. Equally I respect any one el;se’s right to eat their own preferences.

Mar 13th, 2009
lorikeet

Ken:

If you look at my post again, you will find that I have tackled it on both a weight basis and a number basis for a reason – mainly to show that the number of larger animals would not be very many – since they’re getting most of the blame for “global warming”. That’s also why I mentioned sardines.

I think the Australian Chicken Meat Foundation could be overestimating the number of chickens eaten in order to boost sales. Not long ago, a well known chicken manufacturer had quite an insulting ad on TV, having a go at anyone who didn’t eat their product.

Yes, we should all respect each other’s right to eat our own preferences. Do Greens do that?

Andrew:

Yes, none of us has any idea what else you delete or moderate. The important piece of information I was trying to deliver was deleted by you for A THIRD TIME.

Other people can believe whatever they choose. I would encourage them to look at the big picture and examine ideas on a broader basis i.e. try to be more visionary about the eventual outcome of certain ideas, especially as they interact with other issues.

Let readers be the judge of who is unfairly insulting.

Mar 14th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

“The important piece of information I was trying to deliver was deleted by you for A THIRD TIME.”

Well in my view it was irrelevant. not important ‘information’. It is also both incorrect and potentially defamatory. All of which means that in my opinion, it was not conducive to informed or civil discussion on my blog.

Mar 15th, 2009
Alpha Brain

“Anyone who regularly reads this blog will know that what you are saying about me is fallacial. They will know that Alpha Brain is a fanatically indoctrinated pre-election “ring in”, being used to enhance the Greens’ chances in the 21 March election – not that he is doing them any favours with his outrageous claims, name-calling and unmitigated condescension.”

Lorikeet, Your delusions of grandiose superiority contribute to your penchant to defame others. Anyone sufficiently sentient to fog a mirror, would realise that your meaningless, trivial and worthless assumptions are deceitful, wrought by your vested interests. The topic here is animal welfare. Why do you persist with the red herrings?

Despite your endeavours to corrupt rational debate, I must inform you that my fixed address is nowhere near Queensland – nor am I interested in Queensland’s pending elections. In addition, since two of my family members have been Liberal MPs, I would daresay “that (I) being used to enhance the Greens’ chances” in any election, could actually be to their disadvantage. Further to your disgraceful propaganda, Alpha Brain is not a “he” nor has *she* made any outrageous claims. She is simply a messenger.

The lack of animal welfare in the intensive farming of livestock appears to have escaped your notice, however, there are also many others involved in factory farming who peddle similar falsehoods about an industry whose effects and consequences, they know precisely nothing.

Unfortunately for you, the microbes, the emerging zoonotic pathogens and the grim reaper are winning – which may be just as well. The correlation between livestock abuse, factory farming, red meat and numerous cancers is now indisputable, however, the nexus between Australian health professionals and the meat industry is long and strong, just like it was with tobacco but each to their own poison as the saying goes.

Mar 17th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

I guess you have taken exception to my revelation that it takes several human beings to eat just one steer in a year, with the less edible parts being used in pet food, blood and bone fertiliser, upholstery, saddles, boots, handbags, wallets, purses, shoes, belts and possibly glue.

From dairy cattle, we get milk, cheese, cream, custard, yoghurt and ice cream. Yes, cattle are very versatile and useful creatures.

I think it’s a shame that you see them primarily as pooping, ground-pounding pests, deserving only of a pat on the head followed by a permanent trip to extinction.

Mar 19th, 2009
Alpha Brain

This is a thread about animal welfare, therefore I have no interest in your culinary whims Lorikeet for it is evident that for you, your own pleasures are paramount. Happily, in this age of enlightenment, many decent Australians are growing increasingly concerned about where and how their culinary delights are processed and many are adjusting their dietary habits and their carbon footprints accordingly.

Many alas, like yourself, continue to salivate over the ill-gotten gains of the bloodied mess they devour at meal times.

And I note that you allude to the other benefits that livestock provide for humans – not least upholstery and leather goods – yes indeed!

I daresay there have been “improvements” in this trade. Until recently in this civilised country, cows were incarcerated in a steel crush, their flanks slashed open and their ovaries hacked out. No analgesic or anaesthesia provided! Unfortunately for the grower, the scars on the hide reduced the profits therefore the Willis Drop technology evolved which the industry claims gags those who object to animal cruelty.

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that
our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively
outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal
compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860)

Mar 19th, 2009
lorikeet

If you go back to my first post on this thread, you will find that I don’t support cruelty to animals at all.

At no time have I tried to limit your food choices as you have tried to limit mine.

People have minds of their own. Just because they have relatives of a particular political persuasion does not mean that an entire family will only vote their way.

You said I didn’t care if paedophiles interfered with our children which is an extremely outrageous and fallacious claim.

Yes, there are perverts involved in bestiality also, but I am certainly NOT a supporter of that either. If I hated animals, I wouldn’t have a possum sleeping in a bucket in my laundry, would I?

I think your connection of cancers with consumption of red meat is eminently disputable. Firstly a person needs to have the relevant cancer gene, then a viral trigger (thank you for being the only person on this blog who has agreed with me in this regard) and possibly a low fibre diet.

When I’ve read links provided by other posters regarding meat eaters living shorter lives, I have found the articles discussed the diets of indigenous peoples living in harsh, medically unsupported conditions, with diets very high in animal proteins – probably living where access to grains and vegetable/fruit products is low.

That isn’t the diet that most Australians eat.

I’ve also read links provided which claim that babies who consume cow’s milk at ages below one year are intellectually deficient. I’ve never heard such crap in all my life!

It’s important for all of us to realise that lots of outrageous claims are made by avaricious fanatical naturopaths, who must then “detoxify” us at equally outrageous prices.

These days, you can even buy “organic clothing” at incredibly high prices for fear of your .

Some prominent dieticians and nutritionists are paid by breakfast cereal companies, meat and livestock corporations, fruit and vegetable sellers. All have a financial axe to grind.

Mar 20th, 2009
lorikeet

Alpha Brain:

To me, eating a varied diet is not a barbarous act, nor do I salivate over anything raw.

You seem to agree that we get plenty of useful leather goods, organic fertilisers, pet foods etc from cattle. But you want to get rid of them anyway (?)

What will your dog eat? Will it be forced to take a chunk out of the calf of your leg while you are busy blogging???

He might eat some vegetables and grains, such as he would normally tear from the stomachs of “kill” in the wild, but a dog is primarily a meat eater. Ever tried to get a cat to eat anything other than meat or fish?

I couldn’t finish the sentence in my second last paragraph, so here it is again.

These days, you can even buy “organic clothing” at incredibly high prices for fear of your baby getting a rash from “toxic chemicals”.

Mar 20th, 2009
philip travers

I kept clear of this site because I have anything new to add to previous thoughts on matters animals. And Andrew wastalking about a book,which I probably wont read.Living on a potato and cattle farm I see even my own attitudes when cattle need rounding up etc.I did take exception to Alpha Brain,not so much his or her arguments but,some insistences when I cannot recall seeing that name on Andrew’s before.I am a little bit pissed off by Michael Coulter of the Melbourne Age today,because he just seems to be intent on insulting without naming how just one vegan had upset his stomach.The news and commentary are the staff now at the Age.Not bad for a town like Melbourne with a million or whatever human beings.Must be a theme park around meat eating building up down there.Suggest everyone read it here to see the mental exercise involved…how long do you think it took to dream that article up!?

Mar 29th, 2009
lorikeet

Hi, Phil:

Can you please give us the nutshell version of what the article was about?

You said: “Must be a theme park around meat eating building up down there.”

What did you mean?

According to the National Seniors, scientists have found that people who eat more than 10 meals of red meat each week are more likely to get macular degeneration of the eyes. Who would eat that much meat in a week anyway?

I’d like to know who commissioned the study – probably a fruit and vegetable association.

To my knowledge, macular degeneration is caused by poor blood flow as the result of hereditary conditions, such as high cholesterol and diabetes.

Mar 30th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

Lorikeet

The article Phil was referring to is at this link. I think it is intended to be funny, but it came across as fairly juvenile to me.

But in any case, it’s just talking about diet choices, not laws that deal with animal cruelty.

Mar 30th, 2009
lorikeet

Thanks, Andrew.

Yes, the article was a bit rude, but I think it made a long list of excellent points.

The rudeness was juvenile, but I don’t think it was meant to be funny. I thought it covered quite a bit more than diet choices.

I thought the writer said he didn’t believe in animal cruelty, but he did believe in eating animals.

Mar 31st, 2009
philip travers

I suppose Andrew,you have seen the latest attack on Rudd by Cobb and a Karen Inge from some Victorian Sports Institute.This is only on subject re diet and the fact,Victorian Farmers, the lamb producers etc.connected to the Meat and livestock Org. as mentioned in the SMH today,which I dont want to link.I think these two named,except Rudd have used me to promote a lot of of garbage and insult,that I think, is worthy of a class action suit,because of the offensive declarations of both these people who are not practicising doctors making a claim about Rudd himself and anyone that doesn’t eat Red Meat.That is they are using advertising as a way of claiming medical conditions pursue without their product.Rudd is being told by Cobb that essentially he is enemic etc.Has his Doctor said that!?This board could also find itself competing with all the known problems associated with meat eating already easily identifiable by the medical profession. It about time Cobb has to realise his sense of smart arse using of individuals as a politician a man and a citizen could be met by either law or something else if he likes.

Apr 5th, 2009
lorikeet

Phil:

It could be argued that vegans and vegetarians use inappropriate criteria in determining the effects of eating red meat. I think it’s a well known fact that vegans need supplementation with vitamin B12, iron, calcium etc.

I think the NFA has every right to retaliate.

People who eat massive amounts of meat are a minority group. Indigenous races are often cited as living shorter lives due to meat consumption, with no other factors being taken into consideration (health care, genetics, access to shelter and a broader spectrum of foods).

In the study of macular degeneration mentioned previously, they said people who ate chicken 3 times a week were more likely to have healthy eyes. I think the likelihood is that those people were also eating more fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains i.e. a balanced diet.

Researchers cannot compare the local hamburger and pizza-eating junkie with the average Australian. I don’t know ANYONE AT ALL who consumes more than 10 meals of red meat per week anyway.

For years we were told we couldn’t eat more than 3 eggs a week for fear of raising our cholesterol levels. Now we’re being told we may eat as many as we choose, because eggs have little effect on our cholesterol levels.

Clearly what we are told is decided by those who are financing the latest ideas, in order to make money for themselves, and possibly some other not very well hidden agenda.

We are running a lot of livestock to feed people in other countries such as Japan (no space), the Middle East (desert) and China (not sure of reason).

If we listen to those who want to wipe out our livestock industries and reduce the food bowl (areas for growing crops), it will affect our ability to provide for ourselves and others – also consider trade ramifications.

You can raise livestock in places where crops will not grow, and if drought occurs, you can move them. Can you dig up potatoes or wheat and do the same? I think not.

Apr 8th, 2009
lorikeet

Phil:

I notice that criticism is coming from the Victorian Sports Institute. When I was talking with a guy from Broncos Football here in Brisbane, he said he needed to eat large amounts of protein foods (e.g. red meat, eggs etc) to keep up his muscle bulk.

If the diets of our sports people are limited by extremists, their chances of successful competition may also be limited.

Since the human body makes its own cholesterol, people’s cholesterol levels are genetically predetermined. If people don’t eat a balanced diet, it will increase their bowel transit time, with food fermenting in their intestines.

To get bowel cancer, you have to have the relevant genes and also triggers such as viruses, and possibly a diet which doesn’t contain a plentiful variety of fibrous foods.

Apr 8th, 2009
Nicky

The comment here has drifted some distance from what I think was Andrew’s intention – the fact that animal welfare/liberation should become the next social conscience imperative.

Australian livestock industries’ propaganda claims that Australia has ‘world’s best practice’ in Animal welfare. Now picture the rows of sows in tiny, confined stalls going insane in intensive pig farms; battery hens, with less than an A4 sheet of paper on which to spend their (mercifully) short, wretched lives.

Then there are the 40,000 animals (and the number continues to rise each year despite a drop in the trade) who die on export ships alone every year, and spare a thought for those unfortunate to survive the journey to face butchery in importing countries.

Mulesed sheep dying on farms from flystrike and neglect (see film footage at http://www.liveexportshame.com).

There needs to be an academic discipline in this that is not funded or influenced by the livestock industry of the government. If these animals are world’s best practice, Australia leads the world in shame.

Now the Federal government is considering allowing the slaughter of conscious animals to appease Middle Eastern interests.

Andrew, Malcolm Caulfield has also released a tremendous book ‘Handbook of Australian Animal Cruelty Law’ which you might also be interested in getting hold of.

Apr 10th, 2009
lorikeet

Nicky:

To my knowledge, a more humane alternative to mulesing has been found and is in the process of being introduced to animal breeders.

Live exports could easily be stopped.

I think an “academic discipline” should include the livestock industry, government and all other interested parties. To cut anyone out might be to allow extremists of any persuasion to have their way, perhaps without due consideration to employment, nutrition and trade.

If anyone should butt out, that would be Middle Eastern interests. As far as I’m concerned, they can buy our meat in frozen chunks after the animals have been humanely slaughtered – also keeping our own abattoir workers employed – and damn them otherwise.

I’m not sure who pays for animals which sicken, lose weight or die during live exportation. Hopefully it is those who insist upon such a cruel practice for their own gain, religious or financial (recipient country).

On the whole, I think we need to extrapolate out from the issue of Animal Cruelty, to make sure all of the bases and possible additional gendas are covered.

Apr 10th, 2009
Dolphins

Having worked in an abbatoirs, I’d endorse this fully. If people did, they’d think differently about eating meat.

Apr 10th, 2009
philip travers

There are many fine people who work in Abbatoirs,and probably on their holidays, think exactly like Dolphins, and then go back to work for valid survival reasons,as a problem that is overwhelming Australia is unemployment, and, not the need always for protein amongst Rugby players.I eat seaweed and eggs occasionally and beans etc.As I live on a cattle and potato farm and have been a long term lacto vegetarian,mainly cheeses etc, accept for occasional ordering wrong pies with the name tomato and onion., it gets boring hearing vegan vegetarians being explained the failure of their diets.Modern footballers are essentially unworked muscle except for the exercise regime.There is,and I dont know wether he is still going, a older cattle farmer who walks regularly into Melbourne to have a beer with his mates.Now that is long term muscle use over years and years of work and work exercise.He has a beef with vegetarians etc. but that’s alright…footballers generally could learn from him.They maybe mentally tough footballers for the game,but, off season toughness for the physical matters requires some other form of training…perhaps on a vegetarian diet as well.If the old fellow is still going, a few curse from him, about being on vegetarian diet maybe just the thing.

Apr 10th, 2009
lorikeet

I think I’d prefer to go back to the days when brave knights slew dragons and rescued damsels in distress – or perhaps to a time when gentlemen weren’t afraid to cut the heads off chooks or open doors for ladies.

When I went fishing with my brother-in-law, he cringed in a corner while I gutted his fish and cut off its head. He had no problem eating it once it was cooked.

Are we turning into a nation of gutless whimps without any manners?

Apr 12th, 2009
Nicky

Lorikeet, if you mean the mulesing “clips”, they are not particularly effective, nor environmentally or welfare friendly. There is plenty of evidence attesting to the fact that (a) sheep who are mulesed still get flystrike (b) not all sheep get flystrike so wholesale mulesing is a ‘just in case’ mentality and (c) not all flystrike occurs in the breech area.

That said, I agree with you about Middle Eastern interests “butting out”. There are feedlots and properties owned by Middle Eastern interests in WA, and this has been set up to keep their trade in live animals coming. There is no possible justification for exporting live animals, economic (meat workers job losses as a result of the trade are estimated at 40,000 by the AMIEU) or moral (Australia, so far at least, does not allow animals to be butchered fully conscious in the streets, so why do we allow them to be exported to that?).

How to stop it is a different story though, with uncaring governments at both Federal and State levels. The Federal government is now considering allowing fully conscious sheep to be slaughtered to appease Middle Eastern interests; some slaughterhouses in Victoria are doing it now under special AQIS licences. Meat workers say they don’t want to do it, on welfare and safety grounds, but the government doesn’t care about that. Linda McCartney once said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, the whole wold would be vegetarian.

But that doesn’t mean that everyone who follows an animal welfare/rights agenda is an ‘extremist’, as Lorikeet seems to believe. Most of us are pragmatic enough to know that the world is not going become vegetarian any time soon, but do we have to abuse the animals used for food as much as we do? Animals used in farming get minimal protection under animal welfare legislation because the authorities in place for their protection largely choose to ignore that part of their duty.

Apr 12th, 2009
lorikeet

Nicky:

I think there are plenty of extremists who follow an animal welfare/rights agenda.

Just the idea of cutting the government and the farmers out of any “academic discipline” relating to animals seems both extreme and exclusive.

Yes, the government is clearly selling us out yet again – this time by allowing people from the Middle East to come into the country and start dictating the rules.

The government should kick them out. They can do whatever they like in their own country.

Our abattoir workers should rise up against ideas they don’t agree with.

Do you really think farmers would have wasted their time and energy mulesing sheep if it were not effective in combatting flystrike? To my knowledge, most flystrikes occur in the breech area due to the presence of faecal matter on the wool – must be fairly unpleasant.

I thought they could do a mulesing operation using an anaesthetic. This might be a reasonable compromise if other methods aren’t effective.

Apr 13th, 2009
dolphins

http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/aap/sl/PreventionofFlystrike.htm is an example of the information out there on alternatives to mulesing. Note that they involve more work on the farmers’ part, and note also that they involve a long-term investment in different types of hseep and husbandry practices. Mulesing is done to all sheep as a means of avoiding the work involved here – it has been known for many years that mulesing is not by any means 100% effective, but it is less labout-intensive, and the size of flocks and properties has made it a reasonable risk management strategy if you ignore the welfareof the sheep and the effect on consumer demand of more information about what’s involved coming out.

If anyone reading this thinks that sheep, cattle, pigs horses or any of the other meat animals you have eaten today were anaesthetised before being slaughtered you have a lot to learn. Of course I am not in favour of live sheep export, because even our standards of animal welfare are better than those in many developing countries, but if you think that our methods of herding large numbers of animals together and killing them methodically in an assembly-line type fashion means that they are unaware that they are in danger and that they don’t suffer at all you are deluded.

Be aware if you eat meat that your custom at the butcher’s shop has caused the death of a sentient animal, and that they are not treated gently and individually .. eat meat if you feel you need to, but be aware of what you are complicit in, and don’t close your eyes to the standards practised in the meat trade. Health standards are good as far as food hygiene is concerned, but the welfare of the animals is not a paramount concern of most in the trade.

Lorikeet, aren’t you the one who said your son can’t protest about workplace practices for fear of losing his job? Exactly how does that differ from abbatoir workers’ position?

Apr 14th, 2009
lorikeet

Dolphins:

I didn’t say anything at all about animals receiving anaesthesia before they are slaughtered (could poison the meat for starters).

My son DID PROTEST about something much worse than a workplace practice. Superiors didn’t care. My son works in a high security job, which is quite different from an abattoir worker.

Abattoir workers could present a united front, and refuse point blank to cave in. If there’s enough of them, perhaps the government might listen.

Apr 14th, 2009
Dolphins

Lorikeet, my comment about slaughtered animals not being anaethetised in Australia was not in response to anything you said – it is not all about you. ;-) Nicky seemed shocked that ‘the Federal government is now considering allowing fully conscious sheep to be slaughtered to appease Middle Eastern interests …’ and I wondered if s/he thinks they are unconscious when slaughtered in Australia. A bit of investigation might pay off.

Lorikeet: I was pretty sure you said your son had _not_ protested over some workplace situation he thought was morally wrong, but perhaps we remember your comment differently. Your comment above seems to be sitting on the fence on what he did, not that it matters. I’m interested that you seem to think that it would be OK for abbatoirs workers to put their jobs on the line over a moral issue but your son could not be expected to do so because he has ‘a high security job.’ I am not sure that I think that lets him off from having moral standards, but I know many might think that sort of job under Howard would be a black mark against anyone.

Given the Howard government’s fairly successful attempts to crush the Meatworkers Union, they’d be pretty lucky to gather any sort of show of force, and many abbatoirs workers are recent migrants, who would understandably be wary of antagonising their boss, on whom their visa may depend, let alone their livelihood.

Apr 17th, 2009
lorikeet

Dolphins:

I know exactly what happened in relation to my own son. You clearly aren’t getting the message that it isn’t an issue of fence-sitting when you work in national security.

My son is a very highly trained and experienced professional. The government would have a very hard time trying to replace a person of his aptitude and skill – to say nothing of the additional cost.

For anyone to suggest that he should put his job on the line when his superiors won’t act is ridiculous. He did his part. They didn’t do theirs. The conditions of his employment precluded him from doing anything else. I explained all of this when you unfairly criticised him previously.

I also think it is very unfair to tar our hardworking Commonwealth public servants with the same brush as Howard. Your attitude would appear to support an invasion by Russians, Chinese or anyone else.

In regard to the abattoir workers, perhaps a certain percentage of them are from the Middle East and possibly some not opposed to the live slaughter of animals at all. That would make the situation more difficult.

On the one hand, we have Muslim extremists wanting to slaughter fully conscious animals. On the other hand, we have The Greens wanting to take a large slice of the food from our plates. I think common sense needs to prevail by adopting a moderate approach.

About 30 years ago, I knew a man who worked in an abattoir in Brisbane. He said a piece of equipment resembling a very large bullet whacked each steer very hard in the centre of the forehead, killing it instantly.

Apr 19th, 2009
Tony

Dolphins

Dolphins Says:Given the Howard government’s fairly successful attempts to crush the Meatworkers Union, they’d be pretty lucky to gather any sort of show of force

Howards attempts to crush the meatworkers union ? Dont forget his predessor Mr Keating and Hawke…. no one did as much damage as those two. Almost all levels of protection for small producers was removed under the ALP government of the day.

lets not forget Mr Rudds’ push for the pacific island guest worker scheme which as led to the recent arrests in the Kilcoy Meat works.
Yes their lust for the creation of a two tier worker in this country can not be denied. Your right tempory low paid imported workers are not only stealing local jobs from regional centres, but would have to accept almost anything to stay.

As for Moral issues. Prior to the ideology of economic rationalism introduced by the the Hawke government, (when we had small producers) the farmers always relaxed their animals before slaughter. This produced less stress which was better for the animal and our meat. (That was when we had a pork industry)

Lorikeet says: didn’t say anything at all about animals receiving anaesthesia before they are slaughtered (could poison the meat for starters).

Thats right Lorikeet, anything to add more drugs to the food chain.

The same people that support full term abortion(Including the incredibly painfull death of partial birth abortions). Have the hide to talk about giving anaesthesia to animals, yet in Victoria denied the same right for a child.
pain killers denied

Tony

Apr 19th, 2009
Alicia

Anyone who eats meat cannot call themselves peaceful or environmental. Most people say that they love animals “i have a possum in a bucket or whatever” yet their relationship with animals occurs three times daily when they sit down to eat them. In regards to starving children or what ever you are saying Lorikeet, you need to realise that compassion must extend to all beings including those in Africa etc. Because of the way we treat animals is the cause of the majority of suffering in the world relating to poverty and starvation. Alpha Brain is obviously an enlightened individual and probably doesnt believe everything he or she reads like majority of us. Infact good on you for saying what needs to be said to people like Lorikeet who have no concept of what is actually going on.

see http://www.suprememastertv.com for those that are interested

Apr 19th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

Tony’s comment went way off-topic, but I just have to ask – when Tony said:

lets not forget Mr Rudds’ push for the pacific island guest worker scheme which as led to the recent arrests in the Kilcoy Meat works.
Yes their lust for the creation of a two tier worker in this country can not be denied. Your right tempory low paid imported workers are not only stealing local jobs from regional centres, but would have to accept almost anything to stay.

What on earth does a pacific island guest worker scheme – which so far has seen 50 people from Tonga working as fruitpickers in the Murray Valley in Victoria on seven month visas – have to do with arrest
of people at the meatworks in Kilcoy?

In addition, none of these people are able to work in any jobs where Australian workers are able to found, so to say they are “stealing” jobs from anyone is a falsehood. Seeing you’re so keen on lecturing the rest of us on your higher moral standards Tony, it would surely behove you to withdraw that false accusation of theft against Pacific Islanders who have come to Australia because they were invited.

You also follow up your false accusation of “stealing jobs”, by saying temporary workers – of any type – would “have to accept any (job) to stay”. The visa the Pacific Islanders are can only be for seven months and only at approved workplaces. Other workers on skilled temporary visas have to find an employer to sponsor them (at extra cost to the employer than employing an Australian) and can only take jobs in their area of skill, which also has to be listed as an occupation where there is a shortage of available workers in Australia.

Again, given the higher moral standards you ascribe to yourself, I am sure you will be keen to correct your error, especially given that it creates an unfair reflection on people who are assisting to improve the prosperity of regional communities and Australian families.

Apr 19th, 2009
lorikeet

Alicia:

You’ve never met me. How would you know what my knowledge is about anything? Or whether or not I am “peaceful or environmental”?

I supported children in Latin America through World Vision for 18 years, and I am currently knitting warm clothing for children in the coldest parts of Russia and China – also for the Royal Children’s Hospital and Brisbane’s 6000+ homeless people.

The main reason for suffering in overseas countries has little to do with animals, but quite a lot to do with abusive regimes which exploit, and don’t care, about their own people.

I have said many times that there is room for improvement in animal management, even making suggestions as to how food wastage could be converted into animal feed.

I think Alpha Brain reads and believes too much of what extreme greens have to say – along with their fallacious extrapolations.

As an experienced exit counsellor of people leaving destructive cults, I am quite familiar with over-indoctrinated people going on the attack against people they have never met.

Now read again what YOU had to say and ask yourself if it’s fair.

Andrew:

In relation to Pacific Islanders, it’s not so much a “theft of jobs”, but the government giving them away.

Instead of importing workers (and exporting work) the government should make good use of the thousands of unemployed young people, which would also reduce welfare payments, raise self-esteem and improve the economy.

Apr 19th, 2009
Dolphins

Tony – well done on managing to drag the abortion debate into a discussion of humane slaughter of animals. You win the Irrelevant Prize for this week. I have no idea why you imagine that anyone who advocates humane practices in the meat industry would ipso facto advocate inhumane treatment of human foetuses, if I had understood you correctly. If I thought you had any idea what you are talking about I’d be offended.

The abbatoirs workers from overseas I was talking about are the (mainly Iraqi and Sudanese) workers in places like Shepparton in Victoria and I think there are some near Mt Gambier or Bordertown in SA. They are residents of Australia and only too keen to become citizens .. you meat eaters ought to be grateful to them.

You can thank Peter Reith and Howard for the greatly weakened state of the meatworkers union Tony- a bit of research might save you some embarassment to say the least.

What you are talking about is a captive bolt pistol, Lorikeet -and in trained hands, combined with well designed premises and properly trained handled stock, they are certainly better than the practices of other countries. However, the way meat is killed in this country is a business, and is subject to the vagaries of the transport system, for a start. Stressed animals which have been on the road for a long time do suffer – there are many reports to show this. Pigs are very excitable, cattle less so. No idea why you mention the slaughter of live animals though – there can be no slaughter of dead ones. Unconscious ones are still alive, and as I said, the stress and suffering on the animals depends on a lot of factors – you might care to find out how often they are inspected. No idea where you got hte idea I want to add drugs ot meat animals – stress itself creates cortisol .. look that one up.

Apr 19th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

Lorikeet – you have been one talking about supporting Australian farmers and keeping jobs in Australia. How can it be that when Australian farmers cwho annot find enough labour to harvest all of their produce are assisted by the government to get workers – thus increasing farmers’ incomes and Australia’s GDP and overall earnings – this is “giving jobs away.”

And farmers cannot find the labour, even with 100 000 backpackers a year in in the country (no one seems to complain about them “stealing Aussie’s jobs” or allegedly driving down wages or creating a “two tier worker”).

The same applied to meatworks, as Dolphin says (and to get somewhat back on topic). Meatworks in a number of regional towns were and are still being kept open only by overseas workers – many refugees and also many on temporary worker visas. These meatworks provide significant numbers of jobs and flow on income for regional centres. Some of them could certainly improve their performance in reducing suffering for animals, and in improving OH&S for that matter, but many are certainly surviving only through migrant labour.

(This of course is totally different to using labour from people who are working illegally – that should be discouraged and prevented wherever possible, in the interests of the workers as well as the wider community and taxpayer. Trying to link the use of foreign labour that have no work rights with the use of migrants here on valid work visas would be a sign of complete ignorance about our labour and migration laws, or of someone desparately clutching at straws to make an argument)

Apr 19th, 2009
Alicia

Lorikeet Yes I believe my comments are fair. Are you saying that you are not peaceful or environmental? I was not attacking you personally, as you appear to do so here for some reasons that you find of positive benefit to yourself, simply using your naivety as an example. “Exit Counselling” for people from destructive cults? Is fairness to all beings (human and animals) a destructive cult? I surely hope not otherwise I am surely a Cult Leader in your eyes and should be feared and perhaps seek counselling. I didnt know starting with a peaceful diet was a destructive cult – thank you for your insight.

I hope while you are knitting your sweaters for the children that you might please take some of your time think of the thousands of baby chickens having their sensitive beaks seared off with hot irons just today, or the screams of the immobilized mother cows as their calves are dragged from them just hours after birth (destined for veal, the males and dairy cows, like their mums, for the females) so that you can greedily suckle the milk that was destined for her pregnancy and birth. Seems very natural doesnt it. I have been vegetarian since I was 11 and vegan for the last year – I am healthy and do not require animals to die horrible deaths as a part of my diet and daily life.

Sometimes we need to accept responsibility for our direct actions. This includes what you eat and what happens to these animals as a direct result of you being a meat consumer.

I do not see how a Cow, Chicken or Pig is any different to a Monkey, Possum, Dog or Cat.

I am very sorry that you do not like the truth. I do understand how you must feel having your views challenged by us “radical greenies” as I know your views are common of those people who have not been educated about the atrocity that an Australian meat diet, and how it is produced.

Oh any FYI Andrew is featured on many of the Supreme Master’s DVD’s and TV streams among other politicians in Australia.

Apr 19th, 2009
lorikeet

Dolphins:

I don’t need to look up “cortisol”. I once worked in a University, Faculty of Medicine. Sorry I meant “butchering animals alive”.

Alicia:

I’m not afraid of Cult Leaders. To say I am naive is a very false assumption.

As a vegan, you probably consume more grains than an omnivore, and make a greater contribution to any grain shortage.

Recently a nutritionist on TV who was promoting a balanced diet said that if you only eat “fodder”, you will turn into a fat cow.

Then she went on to say that lots of people have trouble with their digestion from eating too much wheat – Weetbix, cakes, biscuits, bread, pasta, puddings. She said it would be better to eat a mix of grains. (That would also reduce the shortage (and price) of wheat.)

You don’t know what all of my views are. That’s another false assumption.

If you think The Greens are only interested in the welfare of animals, I suggest you become better educated.

For example, you might consider what the net effect would be of The Greens wiping out our livestock industries and also reducing the size of the food bowl (economy, trade, population growth).

Greens are also responsible for an expensive carbon tax, which will end up being paid by all consumers, including the poor. In the meantime, Asian countries which seem to be receiving the vast bulk of the contracts will still be using overworked, underpaid slaves and paying NO carbon tax. China has the world’s strongest economy. No surprises there!

As far as I’m concerned, animals fall into 3 categories.

1. Native animals.
2. Domestic pets.
3. Food animals.

BTW I don’t greedily suckle anything. You can eat whatever limited diet you choose, but you can’t take other people’s choices away.

Andrew:

If you want to keep abattoir workers and others employed, why do you want to get rid of the meat industry?

I don’t need to clutch at straws, nor am I “completely ignorant”. I said we should get our own young people into the orchards to pick fruit.

Apr 20th, 2009
Dolphins

Lorikeet – my point was the effect that the stress-induced cortisol has on meat eaters.

Apr 21st, 2009
Tony

lorikeet

lorikeet Says: Andrew:

If you want to keep abattoir workers and others employed, why do you want to get rid of the meat industry?

Thats right they want to control or wipe or cattle. (methane) This ideology will stop at nothing. If cows weren’t bred for beef or dairy how long would that species survive….. China and Japan would no doubt take up the slack.

I don’t need to clutch at straws, nor am I “completely ignorant”. I said we should get our own young people into the orchards to pick fruit

Like many others in our community Aboriginal leaders are heavly against this explotive scheme but mad ideology drives him against even the people he once championed.

forget our own

They are just not interested in common sense.
Ideology gone mad

Lorikeet says: As far as I’m concerned, animals fall into 3 categories.

1. Native animals.
2. Domestic pets.
3. Food animals.

Thats too logical for for this mob.

Tony

Apr 21st, 2009
Tony

Lorikeet:

Although constantly denying it, it looks like the democrats ended up so far left that an ex minister is adopting communist china’s one child policy.

Unbelievible….. Ditch your own…. hate your country…kill off your old and the unborn, have no borders (as they hate their culture) and then try to rob our youth of any sort of choice.
One child population control

Yet they’ll still try to sell themselves as centrists.

Tony

Apr 21st, 2009
Alicia

Wow you guys really do have no idea. Did you forget to place humans on your list of animal categories? You are extremely naive – I am 22 – even I can see past the bullshit the Meat Industry throws at you to make you feel like you need meat for survival among other reasons. I am not a “fat cow” infact you would actually be very surprised if you knew what I did for a living. By the way all that stuff about me causing grain shortages – hilarious! This is how they fatten YOUR cattle – Roadkill ground up, dead or euthanized shelter animals ground up, other farm animal parts ground up and also a large ammount of “refined” feed comes from ground up fish or “by-catch” – get that into you lorikeet. DNA tests show there are between 500-1000 animals per patty in the average takeaway beef burger. Well lets just hope none of those cows have Mad Cow’s disease (incurable holes form inside your brain from eating beef infected with this). If it is true that “You are what you eat” then I would be worried if I was you.

Any yes sorry to have to say it again but yes you do suckly greedily (milk is not a need it is a want, so you are greedy to take more than you need and expoit animals in your process) at milk not intended for you – it was intended for a baby just like all milk. Only humans are so sick to actually create factories to steal milk from other creatures babies – then eat their babies as veal. Would you drink Pig’s Milk if it tasted good? Or Dog’s Milk? How disgusting. It takes 4000 glasses of water to make 1 glass of Milk in Australia.

Your choice to suckle greedily at the teats of another animal (not literally though for your convenience in plastic bottles courtesy the Dairy Industry) and no one is pouring milk down your throat.

Think about it before you write – yes I can take away peoples choices my convincing them that they are wrong. Believe me – people care and it is actually quite easy to change. Deal with it and then get used to it. We are not going away.

Apr 22nd, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

“Unbelievible….. Ditch your own…. hate your country…kill off your old and the unborn, have no borders (as they hate their culture) and then try to rob our youth of any sort of choice. … Yet they’ll still try to sell themselves as centrists.”

Wow, you really have lost it haven’t you Tony. Pity, you used to say some things worth listening to.

I’m not trying to ’sell’ anything, least of all the Democrats, given my view that they are no longer a viable party. The issue about whether or not the party ‘moved left’ is a matter of looking at the evidence, but I realise looking at the facts is not something you’re interested in doing, so I won’t waste my time pointing any more of them out to you.

You keep on with your crazy rants if you like, but please at least try to make them on-topic.

Oh, and the only Democrat who was an “ex-minister” was Don Chipp.

Apr 22nd, 2009
lorikeet

Alicia:

You are 22. I am nearly 54. I have an IQ in the genius range and I am fairly well educated in Mind Control and Manipulation, and also Social Psychology and Group Dynamics used by destructive cults.

It isn’t until we are over 40 that we come to realise how little we know, and how many times we may have been conned by all and sundry.

Yes, bullshit is thrown at us from every direction – sometimes it is the meat industry – also naturopaths, doctors, nutritionists, insurance companies, banks, and destructive cults (including greens) – in fact, anyone interested in making money.

In case you didn’t know, the CSIRO promotes the idea of man-made global warming, but their CSIRO weight-reduction diet was sponsored by the Meat and Livestock Corporation. It is absolutely loaded with red meat.

Protein & fats don’t fatten cows. Carbohydrates and vegetation do.

You said here was DNA from 500 to 1000 animals in just one beef burger. The amounts must be infinitesimal – caused by bulk production of mince in a factory – probably producing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of beef burgers from the mix.

It would take the average consumer a few years to eat JUST ONE COW!

Mad cows in Australia? I think we all know who they are.

When the people are starving and there isn’t any food left, the bible says we may eat one another.

Guess who is going to be at the top of the menu, once the people have worked out who is responsible????

Please wake up and smell the coffee!

Tony:

Thanks for the links. Gee, this Tony Abbott really seems to have his finger on the pulse.

Why can’t we get Australians to do this work? A lot of farmers won’t pay the going rate.

Why won’t the farmers pay the going rate? Maybe because they are being thoroughly ripped off themselves by multi-national companies (supermarket chains) which then rip off the consumer as well!

Apr 22nd, 2009
ken

Whats got into the water up there – some of that cortisol? Tony, Alicia…settel people the sun is going to rise tomorrow

Apr 22nd, 2009
Alpha Brain

“people the sun is going to rise tomorrow”

A comforting thought Ken……….. except for battery hens!

May 4th, 2009
ken

Yes indeed Alpha Brain – try not to tread on any ants at your next protest

May 5th, 2009
lorikeet

The only reason that cows have calves every year is to keep up their milk production, so they can provide milk for 5 to 6 years.

If the calves are female, there’s a strong likelihood they will be kept as milkers as well. The bulls and cows are chosen for their superior traits, so it’s also likely the male calves will be kept for future breeding stock.

To my knowledge, there is very little veal on the market. What’s available costs too much for the average consumer, and has no flavour unless you put it in a casserole or sprinkle it with cajun seasoning etc.

Ken:

I think Tony knows quite a bit more about the agendas of The Greens than some. He knows what they have in mind, so I don’t think we can blame him for being more than a little upset.

I think Kevin Rudd may be beginning to wake up to the true nature of the green global agenda at last! I think that’s why he has reneged on the carbon tax.

I think lots of people have become aware of the possibility of a Chinese-style government coming to Australia.

What does this have to do with people having a cow over cruelty to animals? Plenty!

Think about it everyone, please.

May 5th, 2009
Andrew Bartlett

Given this post is (a) three months old (b) has a comment thread very similar to most other comment threads on posts I do on animal rights issues, and (c) I’ve done a new post on this book and it’s formal launch by ex-High Court Judge Michael Kirby, I’ll close off comments now.

May 6th, 2009

Mini Posts

Radio chat on the election

Every Monday morning during my radio show on community radio 4ZzZ FM, I chat with Peter Black, a constitutional lawyer, follower of social and political issues and obsessive user of social media. I don’t normally put links to those chats on this blog, but given that our talk this morning was all about the federal election, I thought it was worth putting a link to it on this occasion. You can have a listen to it by clicking on this link.

(0)

Pre-election 'Debate' Farce

Given I am now running as a Greens candidate, I suppose it is no surprise that I am indicating my agreement with a comment that Bob Brown made today. But I would also say that it isn’t any secret that I haven’t agreed with every public comment that Bob has made, and I would agree with the following comment about the schoolyard level nonsense regarding another possible leaders debate even if it had been made by Steve Fielding:

“What we’re seeing now between the two leaders is an absolute farce and people everywhere are rolling their eyes at Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard not having the maturity to get together to agree to the series of debates which would have enlightened the electorate,“

It is a joke and a sad reflection on the optic and image driven nature of political media coverage in Australia. A couple of weeks ago, there was a three way debate at the National Press Club on important ICT issues such as internet filtering, broadband and wider communications policy.

More... (6)

Mountains of Coal

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about mountaintop mining in the USA. All mining has some impact, but the sheer destructiveness of this type of mining is astonishing – and that’s before you take into account the greenhouse impact of the coal. This article in the New York Times details the potential impact of a similar project in West Virginia. The significance of this proposal is that there is the possibility it may be stopped, or seriously curtailed, by the Obama administration, which would be a signal of a positive shift on this issue.

(2)

Recent Interviews

Following are links to a couple of recent radio interviews I’ve done, plus an online one

More... (1)

Piece on The Drum about challenges ahead for the Greens

As I noted in my previous post, this week’s Newspoll saw the Greens register 16% support – the highest that party has ever achieved, comparable to the Democrats best Newspoll result of 17% back in 1990. History suggests it is unlikely that this peak will be maintained right through to election day (or even the next Newspoll) but it is part of a continuing trend of solid Greens results. I’ve written a piece expanding on this, and how the party might approach the challenges ahead, at The Drum/Unleashed on the ABC’s site – which you can read by clicking on this link.

(0)

Wild Rivers

Contention over Queensland’s Wild Rivers legislation has been bubbling along for quite a while now. Unfortunately, as with many issues which become polarised, each “side” is focused on defending their position, which has meant that some important underlying issues are not getting the attention they deserve. I’ve just had a piece on this topic published at The Drum on the ABC’s website. It’s fairly long, so they published it in two parts – the first part is at this link and the second part is at this one. I should emphasise that the article reflects my personal views, and is not a formal view of the Greens, nor of ANTaR Queensland, who I am also involved with.

(18)

Listen in to Choose Mics

Hip hop fans in Brisbane might be interested in tuning in to my radio show on 4ZZZ FM this Monday morning around 7:30am. I’ll be talking with the Gold Coast based duo Choose Mics, who are launching their debut full length album Beggars Can’t Be Choosers at the Step Inn in the Valley this coming Friday night as part of what will be a big night for fans of hip-hop/rap/urban sounds, with Brisbane’s The Optimen also launching their second album “The Out of Money Experience” as part of the same event. Even though there is a steady stream of musical offerings in Brisbane, a double album launch of this magnitude doesn’t come along every day of the week, so I’ll dedicate a half hour or so to exploring not just the words and sounds of Choose Mics, but getting a broader overview from them of the hip hop related scenes locally and nationally.

More... (2)