Gunn's are raping Tasmanian forrests for monetary gain ONLY, one could & MUST ask if the seemingly grovelling,cowering, subservient,cringing, fawning dribbling, piddling labor politicians are "making" money out of their tawdry deal with seemingly uncaring Gunns. Regards, numbat

Here is a good article on Gunns success in Tasmainia...
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/73D505E2D0D97A14CA256DE1000C74C3

A quote form the article
"Gunns’ shares were languishing at $1.40 when the Bacon government came to power in August 1998. Its subsequent growth was dizzying. Within four years, it had recorded an increase of 199% in profits, with another 39% increase in 2002-03. With the acquisition of two rival companies, Gunns took control of more than 85% of logging in Tasmania. Five years after Bacon won government, Gunns was worth more than $1bn, with shares regularly trading in excess of $12. It had become both the largest logging company in Australia and the largest hardwood woodchip exporter in the world, its product flooding in from the state’s fallen forests."

Australia has some of the best timber in the world, that is exceedingly suitable for such things as quality furniture making:- which would value-add, provide satisfying and well-paid employment, and only use a small volume of wood.

We also have some of the most beautiful and diversified forests in the world.

It is both a tragedy, and a national disgrace for such forests to be raised for cardboard.

There certainly is a fine line between protest and sabotage. But there is also a fine line between what is legal and what is totally destructive and /or inhuman. The naivety in the article by Hills is appalling. Many obscenities in history have been legal within one State's own legal definition. Does Hills have to be taken down this road once more? but is he unable to understand that eg killing of Jewish people was legal within the Nazi legal system or that the killings by Sadam in Iraq was legal within that system. Within Tasmania's legal system destruction of pristine forest is legal (at present). That does not mean it should be countenanced or accepted.Put some understanding of history into your arguments Hills instead of your facile legalistic simplifications.

Karl

Thank you for your comments, Karl.

1. If you read my article carefully, you'll notice that it is an article about the legality of various forms of protest and activism. It is not about the legality and morality of Gunns' logging activities in Tasmania. They are two discrete issues.

2. You have made a logical leap in assuming that because I have written an empirical article, arguing that the actions of some green activists constitute unlawful protest, I therefore support Gunns' logging activities in Tasmania.

3. If you read it carefully, you'll notice that my article does not express any opinion on the legality, morality or desirability of forest practices.

4. You raise some interesting issues about Nazi legality. As a jurisprudence scholar, I've spent a great deal of time considering such issues. If you believe that lawyers are so narrow as to consider anything legal also to be moral, then you are mistaken. Herbert Hart, Franz Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer are three legal philosophers whose work on the nature of law, legality, and its connection to morality was written in the context of opposition to the Shoah and to the Nazis' chief legal thinker, Carl Schmitt.

5. Your criticism relies on an analogy between genocide and cutting down trees. Trees are not people. Like many Zionists, I find your equation of the Tasmanian government's forestry policy to the extermination of six million Jews to be deeply offensive to the memories of those who perished.

Geoffrey Hills
Australian National University
Canberra, February 26 2005

I would never condone the actions of an activist who resorts to violence. In fact, those actions do a lot of damage to what is, in my opinion, a worthy cause. However, I sense a lot of frustration in Tasmania. You really have to live here to understand it. Anyone that questions this company is quickly cut down to size (excuse the pun).

Mr Hill says that if you are confident you have not broken the law, you should "welcome the opportunity to try the facts before an impartial tribunal". Regardless of the result, I doubt any of these people welcome the cost of defending themselves. I doubt anyone would welcome being sued, innocent or not.

Mr Hill states, "in a modern economy, the interests of many ordinary Tasmanians, through employment and through the institutional shareholdings of superannuation funds, are linked to Gunns' financial performance".

Many more Tasmanians, employed in the Tourism industry, rely on the preservation of these forests (and there are more Tasmanians employed in Tourism than in Forestry). They have a right to defend their livelihoods too.

Tasmanians have a right to question any act that could impact on their health and well being. One of the defendants, had been asked by a community to investigate such an act. It was his duty, as a doctor, to investigate this.

What about future generations? Isn't it our duty to ensure that we act to ensure that they have a chance to enjoy these forests? I believe that is all these people are trying to do.

Of course, Gunns have every right to sue. If these darn people had just kept their mouths shut they might have made $110 million profit last year instead of $105 million.