Yabby

Yep and those insults keep coming. :)

My only interest in how something might be said is that in my experience, when someone stoops to patronising it usually means there is not much in the substance. The arguments should speak for themselves.

You still have not answered my question about political interference in the Courts.

Do you think the separation of powers important? The good thing about the legal system is that it exists for all Australians not just one section. Do we approve of political intervention when it suits us and then disagree with it when it doesn't?

A slippery slope.

Yabby you may not think live exports cruel but others do, and I can tell you they come from all walks of life.

Pelican, what you call “insults”, I call “being blunt” What Bromwyn calls “arrogant”
I call “self assured”. If you had followed the animal welfare threads on OLO for
long enough, you would know that the language that I use is extremely mild
compared to language used by animals rights fanatics such as Dickie and others,
when attacking me. So far I am little more then bemused, for I focus on content
and fact, rather then the emotionally gulfed, who seem to have trouble separating
the two.

I do admit to becoming slightly intolerant of those who have read a few slick webpages
and then claim to know all about the live export trade debate. It is far
more complex then that. There are good reasons why both State and Federal Govts
support the trade. For they have all the facts on hand, not just the hysteria promoted
by one side of the debate.

To better understand the present Govt decision, you need to understand
the background. When the Govt drafted the new animal welfare laws, it was pointed
out to them that some of the wording was ambiguous and could be used by those
with an agenda to shut down the live trade, to do exactly that. The Govt decided to
proceed anyhow and test the legislation in the courts, to see what legal interpretations
would come out of it. That has now happened and the Govt now agrees that there
are loopholes and things which are not clear, so is proceeding with changing those
laws accordingly. It was certainly never the intention of the Govt to shut down
the live trade.

This case has little to do with the separation of the powers, more to do with changing
new animal welfare legislation, that is clearly flawed. Courts may give legal
interpretations of laws, but Govts make and change laws, as is their right and that
is what they are elected to do.

As to the slippery slope argument, the Catholic Church uses that all the time, to
defend their opposition to women’s right to an abortion

Okay Yabby I have not been on OLO long enough to know the history of the various participants I can only go by the now.

I find it equally irksome when a person makes comments like: "I do admit to becoming slightly intolerant of those who have read a few slick webpages and then claim to know all about the live export trade debate". What makes you think this is the case - there is no grey area here. Cruelty is cruelty no matter how you dress it up.

(I just had a vision of sheep on a ClubMed cruise drinking cocktails while reclining on deckchairs). :D

Likewise you don't know anything about other poster's backgrounds and cannot assume anything just because their view is at odds with yours.

I for one believe the 'evidence' to be contrary to your view. There has been enough media commentary on this issue and information provided by the RSPA (hardly radical animal activists).

As for using the term 'slippery slope' - I don't have a patent on the word and unfortunately cannot legally stop the Catholic Church from using it as they see fit. What has abortion got to do with this issue by the way other than you making a throw away comment to distract from the arguments?

*Cruelty is
cruelty no matter how you dress it up.*

Yes, but if depends on how you define as cruel and what you know about a particular
species and their behaviour. For instance I think its cruel that city people keep their
dogs on chains, or lock them up in their houses or apartments all day, so they can’t
even pee. Sheep are herd animals, ruminants etc. Their behaviour is quite different
to other species. To understand what could be called cruel to a sheep, you need to
know a bit about them.

I’ve been on OLO a fair old time now and nearly always somebody starts a live trade
debate, so there have been many, and many comments from all sorts of people.
So far a great deal of the comments about sheep have been due to pure ignorance about the species. Most of these people have never even worked in a set of yards with a few hundred sheep, apart from PF. They simply don’t understand the world
from a sheep’s perspective, which is quite different, then the world from a dog’s
perspective.

Nicky even gets upset when I call them “livestock”

*(I just had a vision of sheep on a ClubMed cruise drinking cocktails while reclining on deckchairs). *

Well its been made quite clear by the ideologues that even the Queen Mary would not
be good enough to transport sheep! They are against people farming animals period.
It seems that we are barbarians and don’t understand these things :)

*and information provided by the RSPA (hardly radical animal activists).*

Officially that is the claim. Interestingly much of the RSPCA material is from AA :)
So you are telling me that there are no vegetarians or vegans who are part of the
RSPCA hierarchy? No Peter Singer fans there?

*What has abortion got to do with
this issue by the way*

I ran of words last time. If the slippery slope argument applies in this case as you
propose, why should it not apply in the abortion debate, as proposed by the Catholics?

Hi all

Still away from home with limited access. But a few observations about Yabby's always predictable views...

Firstly, there is rarely if ever anything "humble" about any of Yabby's opinions. Secondly, have you noticed that when he has nowehere to go and the arguments are well and truly stacked against him, he resorts to gender-based, patronising insults? And one could wish that farmers (with exceptions where due) were in fact as sentient as the animals they exploit.

Furthermore, there is nothing acceptable about keeping animals in feedlots (clear denial of the "Five Freedoms" - remember them, Yabby?), particularly "floating" ones, upon which they starve, go blind, and die of trauma, septicaemia and trauma from brutal handling by third world crews. And Yabby, do us a favour and don't try to tell us otherqise, For every animal who dies, countless others noticeably sicken and suffer

Yabby, you haven't been able to provide yet any of the information I was looking for on peer-reviewed (as opposed to industry-generated and funded) studies into such elements as inanition, or the effects of ammonia; both manifestations of the stress of intensive confinement on long distance (especially sea) transport.

I keep suggesting, tedious as it gets, that you read the magistrate's judgment. Animals Australia did not "lose" the case, the cruelty charges under the WA Act were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The "acquittal", if you can call it that, occurred as a result of a constitutional inconsistency (Section 109) - that being that the Federal Government issues permits for this cruelty. In short, a cop-out by the Magistrate now compounded by the extreme impropriety of Minister Ravlich (according to a law professor with whom I discussed this). Politics supervenes the law where live exporters are concerned and one wonders who is getting "kickbacks" in this.

Dickie, that link, and the case of the goats in NT are awful. Pelican and Bronwen, thanks for your input and support (apologies if I've missed anyone!). Speaking of "blind Freddy", Yabby, take the blinkers off, and do try to be nice - there's a good lad.

Cheers
Nicky

Furthermore, Yabby - when were you actually in one of these countries to measure the cortisal levels of these animals when slaughtered? When did you see the resulting meat? Any weight gains I think can be reasonably attibuted to the bulk rubbish they are fed for just that purpose (those who can reach/eat it).

One does not need to be involved in "livestock production" (says it all, really, doesn't it?) to know gross animal abuse when they see it either. Office, hospitality and retail workers, as do all members of the wider Australian community, have the capacity to assess and make determinations about the material they have seen. It brings us back to the old argument - businesses have to survive in their environments within certain moral and ethical constraints, with reference to community expectations - unless they are involved in live exports, of course. Yabby, fix up the meat industry in WA instead of bitching about it if that's your REAL problem. I actually suspect a guilty conscience.

We also know that it goes on in Australia too - probably on a larger scale than in our worst nightmares - but there are organizations in this country who attempt to deal with it.

Cheers
Nicky