The film Australia is supposed to be about our Aboriginal People and life in the bush as it was- or is it
Kidmann knows full well of the Global debate regarding the cruel Live Animal Export trade as well as Jackson.

After all it’s not like she couldn’t refuse certain parts or ask for a change.
Tonight we were stunned as *she took the part of running live animals onto a *ship for live animal exports. She also held a branding iron on a animal *herself in her part.

Clearly it never occurred to her that this might be a problem.

She probably didnt give it a second thought which tells us a lot about any person.

Apart from not being a smart career move it gives us a better insight into her.

Her performance overall was the least good part played as she looked superficial.
In contrast the aboriginal people and especially the aboriginal child certainly out shone the so called star.

Nicole you should hang your head in shame by your co operation to promote a barbaric trade.

Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are actors.
That's what they do for a living.
They play a variety of roles in a variety
of situations. And they should be judged
only by how good or bad they are in any given role.

Making personal judgements about them as people,
based on a role that they played in a film is
confusing fantasy with reality.

An actor like Anthony Hopkins who played the role
of Hannibal Lecter to perfection, did not mean that
he advocated cannibalism in his private life.

Nor were the many actors who played Adolf Hitler,
necessarily Nazis in their private lives.

Judge the film in the period in which it's set,
and judge the actors on their performances.
Any other judgements beyond that - is mere speculation.

I'm against cruelty to any animals, as I would assume
most people are, including the actors in the film.
I would not asume to judge them as people by the roles
they happen to be playing.

Foxy makes a valid point. If live exports were indicative of that time, then that is what the film would portray regardless of right or wrong.

We know the intentions surrounding the stolen generations were wrong yet we cannot ignore it happened in films like "The Rabbit Proof Fence".

If anything it does the movement a service by portraying how horrible it is.

Foxy,
Here, here. Well said. Just because an actor plays the part of a villian, rapist or murderer does not mean he/she is not an upstanding citizen with excellant values.

I thought pale would be a little more practical than her post showed. She has berated other animal welfare groups for not being realistic.

Who is Hugh Jackson?

Bugsey

Mark Jackson's (Ex VFL footballer,ex-wrestler and woeful actor)demented love child perhaps, an extra in "Australia"?
Or maybe one of the cows?

Hugh Jackman should hang his head in shame for his part in the X Men films. Making fun of wolves by pretending to partially turn into one is humiliating for wolves.

President Bartlett should put a stop to this sort of thing immediately.

PALEIF

Your hit list is expanding.

Scientists, men, and now actors.

Who next, Hair dressers?

Foxy,
Normally I would agree, however perhaps you were unaware this film has our Tourism funds invested and is to promote Tourism to this country.
To top it off, on the very day, the film was lodged, Nicole gave an interview, telling the world she wanted Sunday Rose (odd name) to be raised in US and have a nice Yankee accent.

She’s entitled to raise her child wherever she wishes, but surely given the fact, the film was produced to promote Tourism to Australia that was less than loyal, to the film or her home land Australia

Each of us must make moral and conscious judgements.

When Actors disregard something as politically wide spread as Live Animal Exports –(no matter how small the part )or that its only pretending it doesn’t say a great deal for the person’s character.

Its more likely Nicole hasn’t given this issue any thought.

Her performance was IMO superficial and disappointing.



The only thing that was tacky about the film was a blatant attempt to support the cruel live animal trade and the fact Nicole didn’t seem to care.
I don’t think it was a wise career move when you consider Pink and Pamela just to mention a few are so very active in their work to fight for Animal Welfare issues and back in the good old USA.

An incredibly sneaky attempt also by the Australian Government promoting Australia as Live animal Exporters and making it all look romantic and adventures.

Poor Judgement on both Tourism Australia and Nicole which hasn`t gone unnoticed by those with a deep moral commitment to our Australian Farm Animals.

You would love the aboriginal cast however Foxy and the little boy who played his role.

Certainly a win for our Aboriginal People. The talent of those unknown actors makes one wonder if we shouldn`t forget the big names and cast locals on all Australian film.

There is certainly some untapped talent in our Aboriginal People.

We hope to see a lot more of it

Dear PALE&IF,

Thanks for explaining your views
as to why
you're taking the stand that
you are on this film.

I admit that I haven't seen it.

PALAE
Just in Case you hadn't noticed this was a movie. Set in a certain time and context where these practices take place.

Your piece are about as relevant as as accusing Charlton Heston of supporting mass murder because of his depiction of Moses (the Ten Commandments) where he released the sea drowning all those poor Egyptian soldiers who were only following orders.

You seem to be proposing that we should censor bits from movies about reality.

But the most inappropriate part of your post is that you piggy back off the actor's fame to proffer an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack on the actors as people. I'd warn you about Libel.

Especially since it is unlikely that anyone of them will resond.
Your topic is a genuine one worthy of discussion but this post simply makes both you and your cause look silly. Take a stand against the movie if you wish (take advice from a life time cause monger) think it through first.

Examinator

I have taken your points onboard.

I can only say how ‘we’ saw it. Interestingly there were others making similar comments leaving the theatre
I am also a person and entitled to express my views.

*You seem to be proposing that we should censor bits from movies about reality.*

Plenty of actors less famous than her have refused to do certain scenes because it went against their own moral views.

Mostly they are changed or left out. It’s not normally a huge deal and it happens all the time. In fact we have made two American Movies at our property over the last few years and there has never been a problem re writing something to fit in for whatever reason.

No I am not proposing we censor bits of movies / I am however pointing out that myself and others who went to see this particular movie we were rather taken back and curious as to why she agreed to do those particular scenes.

Lets face it this is Nicole Kidmann and if she didn’t want to do the small part of holding the iron onto an animal it would have been either left on the cutting floor or somebody else would have branded the cow.

Cattle could still have been mustered and chased across the river BUT the rather pointed and unnecessary beating of cattle with sticks chasing them up a ramp onto a live export ship was IMO not tasteful.

This Movie has millions of dollars invested as our Tourism attraction. Do you know how many people utterly oppose live exports? I guess those ones won’t be coming any time soon.

As a citizen of Australia I strongly object to this country being promoted world wide as supporting live animal exports.
The reason I made the comment in the first place is=

*This Movie WAS produced as a Promotion for Australia Tourism*

PALE, as you know I support your fight against live export but quite frankly you have lost the plot on this one.

And not one mention of the roo that they shot for dinner. Dead set 'piss cutter' I thought!

rehctub
Yeh maybe I have... but can anybody tell me how that justifies spending millions to promote Australia NOW.


Maybe examinator, was right when he or she said

*Pick on the movie and take a stand against the movie if you wish. (Take advice from a life time cause monger) think it through first.*

It t was in bloody poor taste. People say don’t forget it was a story about the history back then etc... I was so dammed cranky and surprised she`d play certain Scenes.

I used to really like her. Movie or no Movie I wouldn’t take those Scenes on because it would be deeply against my principles

Right when we need it. Australia needs all the tourism they can get coming into such difficult times.

*And not one mention of the roo that they shot for dinner. Dead set 'piss cutter' I thought!*

Don’t start me on the Roo. That was disgusting. It was completely unnecessary. A couple of young ones were crying behind us after that.
All together I cant see how shooting Roo`s as Tourism Australia is going to have people rushing over here either.
Antje ran out refusing everybody’s attempts to get her to come back.

We all know how the international tourists *love Australians Kangaroos
Shooting Roos – Live Exports. That’s not the image we want to promote Australia by.
Maybe Nicole is a victim here more than anything else but we are all responsible for what we promote- surely.

PS Don’t forget to let us know when you put your hand up for PM.
A real live butcher just might out smart the old live exporter by value adding and creating employment for the aboriginal and regional area people :)
Now wouldn’t that make a good movie for Australia!

So what are you doing- Let’s make our Own Movie! Might be a tad interesting to add a few ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ ah.

It appears that Nicole has been inspired by her role in the movie since she and Keith have bought a cattle ranch in Australia - reportedly for the sum of $6.5 million.

It remains to be seen if they intend to operate in the normal fashion, deemed acceptable by our cattle barons, for rouseabouts to perform ovarectomies on cattle without the benefit of pain-relievers or anaesthetics.

Nevertheless, as the empire builders would tell us: "it's the economy stoopid" and several of our cattle barons hit Australia's rich list this year.

Yippee...........yahoo!

Warning:

About to point out bleeding obvious:

'Australia' is a film directed by Baz Luhrman

not

Ken Loach.

PALEIF you are becoming a clone of Poly/Boaz. Pick a valid topic like continual erosion of natural ecosystems due to over farming or clear felling. Not a piece of overblown fantasy!

PALEIF
Could you give it a rest, it was just a movie after all.

I suppose you and your ilk will start bullying the actors and director to see things your way, you normally do.

If you really want change, start offering up real alternatives, instead of saying, give it up or else. All that does is alienate certain parts of the community.

Believe what you will, you are entitled, but quit trying to force everyone into your way of thinking.

While I think that (although I haven't seen the movie) certain scenes would appear to have been in very poor taste, Pelican has a point. Do we accuse those who appeared in the "Rabbitproof Fence" of transgressions against Aboriginal people? Movies are movies. In some cases they show things we ought to know about, as did that one (which I did see). "Barbecue-area" (not sure of the spelling was another excellent one.

I have noticed that many television productions ("Rain Shadow" is one) also make a statement that "no animal was harmed during (its) production". Interestingly, one episode of "Rain Shadow" had the wealthy sheep owner trying to get his OJD afflicted sheep onto a live export ship.

Conversely, SBS recently showed, in a cooking program, an octopus being boiled alive over a protracted period, and a carp being beaten to death. Complaints elicited the response (after they classified them into "formal" and non-formal" complaints in their first letter) that it was in deference to "multiculturalism". Just what we need to embrace in Australia, more cruelty.

Hugh Jackman has an affiliation with at least one of the animal welfare organisations (don't know which one, but I have seen his name at the website). Gotta say that I've never thought Kidman had much between the ears though; she probably wouldn't have been anyone if she hadn't married (and got divorced by) the nutter Scientologist, that was the smartest thing she ever did. Money speaks all languages, we know that.

Nicky

Just back from seeing the movie and Nicky has a valid point.

>>Do we accuse those who appeared in the "Rabbitproof Fence" of transgressions against Aboriginal people?<< We were surprised at the emphasis on the stolen generations and race generally in the film.

The most disturbing animal scenes, and the ones that got a reaction from the audience, were the kangaroo someone's mentioned, which raised laughs in the cinema, and the end bits of the stampede scene.

Contrary to what we've been hearing from the critics, the cinema was packed and there was an audience ovation at the end, which the staff said happens every session. Concern over live exports and branding wasn't evident.

As others have said, it was clearly a period film, but the relevance for contemporary audiences is the stolen generations, not cows. I could be wrong about this, but the cows in the film were probably acting as well. I don't think they were shipped off overseas while the uncaring actors went about their being famous business.

We thoroughly enjoyed it. I would think anyone capable of getting into the spirit of the film would have enjoyed the scenes in question for their 'beating adversity' qualities. I wouldn't recommend it to stolen generation deniers though. It would be a lonely experience for them.

Well PALE funny you should mention how best to value ad our country. I have a very interesting view on this but can't fit it into 350 words.

If you can direct me how to put it into a 'blog' I think it is called I would be quite happy to throw it out there for everyones comments and views.

Cheers

rehctub,
Sounds Good. Try this. Let’s know if you have any trouble with it.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23008249&postID=114087701928025473

Don’t know if you saw these-
http://www.halakindmeats.com/
http://www.halakindmeats.com/submissions.html

Perhaps you do us the honour of signing this pls

http://consciousevolution.com/onshu/Petition.php

Take a moment to read some of these
http://consciousevolution.com/onshu/view_signatures.php

http://www.livexports.com/afic.html

chainsmoker
Glad you enjoyed it. Dickey has a valid point too.
*It appears that Nicole has been inspired by her role in the movie since she and Keith have bought a cattle ranch in Australia - reportedly for the sum of $6.5 million.

It remains to be seen if they intend to operate in the normal fashion, deemed acceptable by our cattle barons, for rouseabouts to perform ovarectomies on cattle without the benefit of pain-relievers or anaesthetics.

*Nevertheless, as the empire builders would tell us: "it's the economy stoopid" and several of our cattle barons hit Australia's rich list this year.*
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 30 November 2008 12:15:58 PM



Acanthus
Deeply touched you took the trouble to join OLO just to say Hi to us.

The Forum > User Index > Acanthus
Comment History
» 30/11/2008 4:06:04 PM PALEIF Could you give it a rest; it was just a movie after all. Believe what you will, you are entitled, but quit trying to force everyone into your way of thinking.
*If you really want change, start offering up real alternatives*,

Posted by Acanthus, Sunday, 30 November 2008 4:06:04 PM

No Acanthus; not just a Movie that’s the whole point. It’s our Australian Tourism pitch.

It seems to me 'Your' the one trying to force 'your' way or thinking. We are posting 'our' opinion.

Also we ‘are ‘offering alternatives. Based on infrastructure in Aboriginal and regional communities.

Perhaps the Government should tell give Nicole a copy of the Sub to the Senate Enquiry into Animal Welfare from The Australian Federation Of Islamic Council- to improve *prices for farmers conditions for all Aboriginal People +improved animal welfare and future jobs for this country.

Does anyone really care what an airhead, full of botox, thinks, or says?

PALE etc.

Fractelle is right.

Campaigning 101 has the following guidelines.
• Write to your audience this site has bright people and will view your piece as trivial.
• Stick to the core issue …don’t make your approach THE issue
• Don’t bite the hand that you want to feed you. The success of your campaign will depend on achieving a political mass that means public support from…the public. Nic and Hugh are the queen and king respectively of the Day time Radio/TV, Woman’s Weekly set. By attacking those two you have both advertised your differences rather than similarities (advertising 101) and alienated a vocal political majority. (YOU have become the story not your cause). you would do better getting them on side
The point about the movie advertising ‘animal cruelty’ is a matter of perspective and one most people would ignore. They are there for the HUMAN fantasy (escapism) not as moral crusaders.
• Work with your audience not against it. Look at ads the effective ones don’t offend unless they involve HUMAN issues.
Examinator ant

And I would add:

* Refrain from being totally bonkers.

And Steve Irwin is eulogised, when most of what he did was pretty exploitative of animals really (apart from a bit of good work with native wildlife rescue, but for which he made a lot of money).

If anyone has been held up as the biggest Australian "icon" since "Crocodile Dundee" (equally exploitative), he has, when in fact what he has done effectively is imprison lots of wild animals in a zoo, which also makes a lot of money. If what Graham says is correct the Irwins also exploit people - including their own children.

I agree about the airhead full of botox, but I think Jackman has demonstrated in many areas principles and character.

Is the question we should be asking "should animals (or the Aboriginal people, for that matter) be needlessly (operative word) exploited for the purposes of entertainment/ escapism? Should we extend that concept to other classes of people?"

Nicky

We could extend it to everything and limit ourselves to animated penguins. Or is that still exploiting penguins?

Examination.

Ok got you-. But you must accept I am not into PC. Just tell it the way it is.
Surprised that only Dickie picked up on the moral issue.
.
If anything people seen as role models should set good examples.
Surprised that only Dickie picked up on the moral issue.

Fractelle.
It is counter productive to attack farmer’s IMO.

Good farmers are the backbone of Australia and are ‘still this countries future.

(A few words from the farmers.) =

Keep in mind that much of the land clearing in Australia was at the direction of the government, who threatened to void farmer's leases if they did NOT clear enough land to open it up for agriculture.
Posted by: John of Qld

Maybe a farmer should give his chainsaw a run in parliament. Get rid of some dead wood
Dave of Coolum
Democritus,
Sorry for delay in replying to-
* PALEIF

Your hit list is expanding.

Scientists, men, and now actors.

Who next, Hair dressers?
Posted by Democritus,

Hair dressers)=
&#1054;&#1088;&#1075;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1079;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1086;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1074;&#1086;&#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1099;
Jon Le Court for the past forty years always has enjoyed an outstanding reputation within the hairdressing industry for providing training to the highest ...

http://www.citynews.com.au/index.php/gallery/image_full/631/

Finally in October 1989 VRD was bought by Robert Holmes a' Court through his Heytesbury Pastoral Company. The Big Run has since enjoyed the most stable and profitable period in its 120-year history, entrenching its status as the king of cattle stations.

http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/vrd.htm

*Nevertheless, as the empire builders would tell us: "it's the economy stoopid" and several of our cattle barons hit Australia's rich list this year.*
Posted by dickie,


Hey Dickey you have a point. Funny they say there so is no money in farming.

Look at Packers Murdock and a few of the others.

Away a while everybody..

Enjoy

PALE

MY point (which you have completely failed to grasp) was not to attack ALL farmers, but to emphasize that there are more important issues than a movie fantasy like sustainable farming practices which don't impact on natural environment. Geddit?

Like Veronika said, refraining "from being totally bonkers" would significantly increase your credibility.

omigod PALE,once again you have proven to me that you live in a bubble so far from the real world that I'm sure you must wear an oxygen mask!

Australia is a film, a movie, a fantasy depicting life in Australia decades ago. Its nothing more and nothing less. Its purpose is to entertain you, you are supposed to enjoy it, not walk out and think everyone in the world hates animals EVEN Nicole Kidman. For the sake of yourself and others around you let it go, your ranting and raving does nothing for your cause(especially when you mis -spell names). You have successfully alienated many people because of your irrational babbling.

You say that you have had Americans on your tinpot farm filming movies - what were the movies, "the attack of the killer tomatoes". Please fill us in on the details of the movies,Id love to see your organic farming practices or whatever it is you do in your bubble.

I laughed at the fact that you mentioned Murdochs and other wealthy Australian families who were on the rich list, Ill remind you now that these families did not earn their millions from farming. Their pastoralist ventures are usually tax havens and their fortunes have been made from many other sources.

So PALE, please enjoy the movie for what it is - a MOVIE.

I better go, Ive got some branding to do - I love the smell of sizzling cattle in the morning!

Like Veronika said,
Posted by Fractelle, The only thing that is totally bonkers is your libber veggie approach that I have read time and time again
As Country person Said she likes her meat in the morning. We are NOT telling her not to eat meat like you lot.
We say to country girl we eat meat too! However we insist it has been treated humanly from paddock to plate.
If Nicole does that with her Ranch I wish her well. I just hope its not live exports.
Now I really must go!

"I better go, Ive got some branding to do - I love the smell of sizzling cattle in the morning!"

Yeah right. Each to his own. Whatever presses your button!

By the way, was it consensual?

Umm PALE, I said I like BRANDING cattle in the morning, not eating it!

Pale
I don't think you do.
PC's got nothing to do with it. It's called perspective and tilting at windmills. To call it a 'moral' problem is over the top. That would raise issues that raises like individuality, ownership, a say in their fate etc at best it’s well…idiosyncratic.
Do current practices give us reason for concern? Yes, but that is an emotional, culturally defined anthropomorphic judgement not a matter of absolutes or morals. (Calling it the latter is hyperbolic, semantically and philosophically incorrect. Others who don't share your culture aren't wrong....just from a different culture. Only arrogance assumes you're right and everyone else is wrong. Even I don't intend to do that! Unless of course you're a latter day Francis of Assisi, then you wouldn't have a computer. Your concern does you proud but to attempt to elevate this conversation as it is...to a moral outrage is well… misguided. Again that doesn’t mean we should attempt to make incremental improvements.

To all the decent hard-working people involved in advocacy for the humane treatment of animals, who wonder why people dismiss them as crazed kooks, allow me to present exhibit A: this thread.

Again, PALE, it is the methods you use, rather than your goals, I find objectionable. I genuinely am interested in practical methods for improving animal welfare, which is why I find your comments on these threads, which tend to give a very poor impression of the competence of such organisations, so objectionable. You end up hindering more than helping.

In 350 words I can't begin to scratch the surface of the myriad of ways this can be demonstrated as idiocy, but I'll have a stab at it.

It's. A. Movie.

A movie with a great deal of plot about cattle farming in a period when it was more brutal. Depicting the truth of this period is *not* advocacy in favour of it.

Many people have causes. I happen to believe that your cause is worth pursuing, though there are worthier issues. For example, I'd think preventing murders is more important.

Using this line of logic, actors in films which contain murders should refuse to do them.

I know your response - you could theoretically reasonably advocate that movies that 'advocate' murder should be banned, however one must define what advocating is.

The only example you have provided is that the film recieved support from tourism Australia. This equals advocacy by your definition, but frankly, that's inadequate. The film represents a strong opportunity for tourism, hence the support. To refute this, you'd need to dispute this is an opportunity for tourism.

All of which, is a long way from your central thesis regarding Nicole Kidman, but the dodginess of this theory means I'm having to wander a long way to find arguments logical enough to refute.

Admit it. You saw the movie, then got all worked up after you saw that scene and didn't really think this through.

Take the advice offered by other posters - focus on your core goals and don't alienate people with such weird tangents.

Hi PALE.
The film was a study of another time and another place...a different era.
A long vanished world now.
I think the herding of the cattle onto the ship was more implied than actual.
A very large amount of graphics was used in the film to simplify production; and to create atmosphere.
I didnt see the branding sequence. I shut my eyes, but I think they do it differently today with other methods than a hot iron.
Overall I thought the film quite remarkable, as have many others who saw it.

Too Funny:

I think even Gibo has a better understanding of movie as fantasy than does PALE.

TRTL - exactly what you said, I can't even work out what PALE's last reference to me was even supposed to mean - except I suspect it wasn't complimentary. As you said PALE alienates those who actually support many of her goals - I know because I am one of those people who find the lack of logic demonstrated by PALE very concerning as it supports the 'loony tunes' stereotype of animal welfare activists.

examinator,

Over a period of time I have gained some respect for your thinking pluss your polite manner of trying to get your message across. In a way that is true of TurnRightThenLeft, also despite getting off on the wrong footing over media control.

Had this film was just done as another film you wouldn`t have heard a word from us. However the person who said ever it was just another film is incorrect.
It was done to promote Australian Tourism for 'this' day and age.

Now whether or not the Tourism funds could have been spent better to encourage tourists to Australia is a matter for everybody.

Does it help that Nicole purchased a Ranch on top of it?

I said what I meant and that was= I wonder if these people support Live exports?

Perhaps considering the film wasn`t put out as just another film we should examine what motives lie behind it 'If any'

Ask yourselves as a promotion to Australia tourism do we want only cattle ranches promoted.

Wouldnt it have been nice to see Nicole Travel each state and promote our beautiful Sydney and WA outback as well.
Why not something in each State.

We have many tourist attractions so why narrow it.

As for the AL members on this thread I will say it again.

Telling people not to eat meat and that farming destroys the land is over the top.
Creating work for aboriginal people and regional areas is both sensible and kinder to the Animals. Lets hope that`s what Nicole is interested in also.

We hope she isn`t going to involve herself with Live Animal Exports.

However it does look to me that she supports it TBO.

Hope I am wrong.

Ports opening in Bowen- Live Exports.
Nicole buying ranches with Keith

http://annemcdonald.harcourts.com.au/27,Community+Information.aspx

There you go guys!.

That’s where the tourism promotion money was spent. As we said Australia WAS a promotion for live exports. Why is it that we always have to point out the bleeding obvious?

Attention Glenys. You should be all over this

Just like the AWB enquiry.

If we want to stop live exports we need people on the ball!

No its not funny. Its very sad Fractelle that once again your lot saw nothing in this film.
I think I have proved my point. Australia was a warmer to the huge ports going in and live animal exports will increase AGAIN.
Nicole has purchased a cattle ranch along with Keith.

Tourism in Australiais very important yet they chose ONLY to spend it doing a story on the history of live exports.

Once again we were on the ball
The tread is titled Does Nicole and Keith support live exports?

From all accounts IMO YES! Had she NOT supported it I can assure you there were several parts in that film she as a person would have REFUSED to do.

The Bowen ports are only part of it.

Possibly she knew that. Her friend Russle Crow and The Lercourts as well as several others should e highlighted by your lot Fractelle.

Once again I am SURE you havent a clue what I am talking about.
Just like AWB and many other issues.

Your leaders SHOULD and tHATS the concern here

I had decided not to buy into this one again, but here goes.

If we condemn this film over what appears to be a veiled inference of cattle being exported live (background media stories suggest that they were being provided to be meat for soldiers, but who knows?), do we then condemn "The Rabbit Proof Fence", Bar-b-q-Area" and some other very fine films, and those who appeared in them, which clearly demonstrated the exploitation of the Aboriginal people? Are those involved in those films immediately racist, or (shock, horror), even the reverse)?

"Crocodile Dundee" was extremely exploitative of crocodiles, as is much of what you see of Steve Irwin on television. The ABC TV series "Rain Shadow" "exploited sheep"; the wealthy land-owner of the district making moves to put his OJD affected sheep onto live export ships rather than face other financial consequences. PALE, you might have been better advised to research that rather than a big-budget Hollywood "spectacular".

I doubt if the question of live exports would have entered the heads of Hugh Jackman, (or Russell Crowe), or least of all Nicole Kidman.

As for Anne MacDonald, I totally fail to see any connection with this real estate agent and AQIS from the links provided, AWB was forever ago and bugger-all happened over it (as is always the case where there are cover-ups mixed with public apathy).

I'm saddened that all animal advocates are being tarred with the "loony tunes" brush, but this thread really does seem ill-considered and, if I may say so, irrational.

Nicky

PALEIF: "Wouldnt it have been nice to see Nicole Travel each state and promote our beautiful Sydney and WA outback as well.
Why not something in each State."

Oo, how interesting! PALE, you must give us your precise of this alternative film. How would the plot go? Would would take Nicole's character to all these other sights? How would the Drover and Nullah fit in? Let your imagination go wild!

Nicky




The thread was opended to ask a question=

Does Nicole and her co star support live exports.
It would very much appear that Nicole at least does.


Pls remember this wasnt just any old film. It was to promote tourism to Australia.



AWB was a missed oportunity.

Anybody could see Australia and possibly even Nicole was being used to beef up the Live Animal Trade Industry.;

Well maybe not totally used as she also purchased a ranch.

As Bowen goes full steam ahead with opening new ports to export live animals (with a shot in the arm from this film) you dont seem to be unable to make the connection.


You all sat back over AWB and now this.

Tell me the truth. Did you even know your great leaders hadnt a clue about AWB being involved with live exports?

Thats right Nicky - Not a clue.

You wonder why so many are concerned by the missed oportunitys to expose this evil trade.

Veronica.

At least Nicky cares about the animals but you clearly only care about you. I have read your comments on lab tests on animals and from our view it doesnt make for a pretty picture imo

Try findiong an interest other than yourself and then we may be interested in some of your comments.

Until then do not waste our time .

PALE, I'm sorry, but you are sure not attracting anyone to your cause with this thread. These are the reasons:-

1. Everyone has tried to point out that this was nothing more than a movie, and it probably had no hidden agenda in promoting the live export trade. You need to see if for what it was, even if some scenes were less than tasteful. Give the wider public the credit for recognising the difference between fantasy and reality.

2. Do you seriously think you would ever get a response to your questions from Nicole Kidman or Hugh Jackman? For heavens sake, you overestimate the reach of this Forum, excellent as it is.

3. People have tried to convince you of all this, and pointed out that mis-spelling names and misquoting people does not help your cause or your credibility but you continue to do so (I think you meant Holmes a Court not Lercourt, for example). Nor does insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

4. Your obscure links do not point to anything that backs up your statements. Whatever happpened with AWB and with Anne MacDonald has not registered on anyone's radar, and never will. There would be reasons for that.

5. For all species except cattle, the numbers of animals exported has decreased - you never point that out.

The best advice I can give at this point is that you admit you put this up in the heat of the moment, and that it was, at best, misguided. That will probably be it for me on this thread, because it can go nowhere in terms of rational discussion.

Nicky

Nicky


'Not on the Radar.
I know its not on your Radar n because you were not present at the meeting.

Actually TBO I think that is the real problem once again

Just like you all raved pale was crazy working with Muslim, Leaders- Only to then try to sneak in the back door and disrupt everything the lawyers had put together.

That was shameful

Now Nicky this may come as a shock to you but we are not try to get a response from Nicole for god sake.

There is nothing she could say to make things different. Actions speak louder than words. So lets juast wait and see if Her Ranch exports Live Animals- Shall we?


That really was the point of opening this thread.
I was very fair and did not disclose that. Dickey did.

Now If Nicole ISNT involved in the cruel live animal trade deown the track Nicky pale we happily apoligise.

PALE, I don't know of anyone who "raved (or even mentioned, in fact) that PALE was crazy working with Muslim leaders". It is extraordinarily difficult to determine who was at whatever meeting you refer to, because you seem to expect everyone to recognise the obscure names you come up with (for example, who on earth is Alan?), and there is no date given for any such meeting apparently having been held. One minute you claim Hugh Wirth expressed support for live exports, the next minute he doesn't.

So basically everyone is completely in the dark about your allegations. And just how do you plan to find out if Kidman is involved in the live export trade?

Nicky

*who on earth is Alan?)*

Alan RSPCA President UK

,* and there is no date given for any such meeting apparently having been held.*

Ok Nicky I will when I get time goes back and gives you the exact date. Just for you mind you.

One minute you claim Hugh Wirth expressed support for live exports, the next minute he doesn't.*

I was just telling you what Anne said.

In the beginning all we ever heard about Hugh was moans and groans.

So we decided to check out a few things for ourselves.

I am telling you what Anne said and nothing more.

That WAS= QUOTE!!

Hugh and Allan (two days prior) to 'our meeting ET with Peter and pledged their ongoing support for live exports. UNQUOTE!

Then I pointed out that was the “same week the national campaign was launched to ban live exports by RSPCA National.?

Now if that’s confusing then I can’t help it. I didn’t write the script Anne did.

I thought by sharing this with you it might make more sense to you than us TBO.

*So basically everyone is completely in the dark about your allegations.*

No Nicky that’s not correct. It was passed on to someone we both know and respect who took it very seriously. Not long after he resigned very quietly as President if you remember.
However it must have been cleared up I suppose because Hugh was put up as head of Handle with Care – wasn’t he?

*And just how do you plan to find out if Kidman is involved in the live export trade?*

Dear Nicky
You’re not going to like my reply but honestly if we can expose Wes farmers and AWB I don’t think we will have too much trouble with Nice TBO.

HOWEVER it is possibly she will want to get onboard with the aboriginal programme put to Elders New Manager.
I hope s

PALE, really, that is almost totally indecipherable and tells us absolutely nothing. But do go on making a big deal about old news if it makes you happy.

Nicky

Nicky
It appears your in one of your moods again. Thats ok you just take it out on pale.

You requested to know whom Allan was - I replied he was the President of RSPCA UK.
On the other thread you have blasted pale for not offering to take up the WA case.
Well Nicky hears some more news. A Lawyer did speak to Glenyse and offered to assist. He has the best QC available but she did not get back to him as promised.

Also I might add as well that five years ago or so ( not long after PALE was formed) we offered to run a Federal Court case to bring about changes to the Animal Welfare act.

At the time we had the X Crimes Commissioner and two heavy weight QCs prepaired to help.
The RSPCA QLD CEO was all for it and offered to assist by opening a trust account for people to donate towards the case- (if they wished.)

We didnt want to only rely on Hugh for background to brief the council and being new we didnt have ALL the records required.

So we asked Glenyse of Animals Australia would she help brief the council and assist us with old records.
We wrote to her inviting her to QLD and to accomadate herself and another at our expense so she could meet the lawyers team.

Glenyse replied in a long letter explaining that she never came to QLD etc..
Three weeks later she was in Brisbane and Animal Welfare groups had a meeting with Andrew according to Silvia (A Member)

At that meeting there was a retired barrister( again according to Silvia) and they were all discussing whether or not this could be done= A Court case could be put together against the Government regarding Animal Welfare.

We were NOT contacted

- So go figure Ah!

Well, basically, that says it all. Animals Australia does not want to be associated with PALE (nor does anyone else, it seems). Get over it and move on.

If you had really wanted to do it you would have found a way with input from Animals Australia, since you had so many self-professed "high fliers" on board. Admit it, you just don't know where to start.

Nicky

Nicky

It shows preciously what we were warned about before we started.
That certain people were paranoid about anybody else having input into animal welfare.

(Nicky you old faithful PETA AA follower despite your denials)

One moment you’re posting away very nicely and sensibly then off you go again attacking accusing turning on fellow animal lovers.

What is it with you people- are you washing your lettuce properly?

I will say this. Hugh was right about one thing. He said until everybody works together nothing will change.

He addressed a National Press conference on the 20 years plus record of into fighting between animal welfare groups well before our time.

Don’t know what to do ah, well so far but our ideas have been copied one by one.

1 We formed a working relationship with RSPCA( while the rest bagged RSPCA)
2 Introduced proposal to take Animal Welfare to court.
3 Suggested hands on investigations.

4 Uni Young lawyers groups

5 Formed the first ever MOU with Muslim Leaders to work with Aussie farmers.

6 Only ones to expose AWB =there for exposed others for NOT speaking out about AWB connections to live exports at the AWB Enquiry.

We will always be around to keep the bastards honest as they say.

If you honestly believe everybody working in animal welfare is free of political influence you’re a bigger fool than I thought.
We work 24/7 without payment so it’s pretty clear we love animals.

What are we going to do? Oh Nicky now that the BEST part.
We are going to monitor RSPCA National and HWC success with Muslim leaders of course.

We are going to make sure they follow up on our work
Funny isn’t it how things work out in the end after all.
Because Dear Nicky that’s ALL! we set out to do in the first place.

Do tell us for a change what is it you claim YOU have contributed to really make a difference for our Animals.

PALE, you cannot be serious. You have not HAD any input into animal welfare beyond those wholly irrelevant submissions to the Animal Welfare Bill. All you have done is seek to discredit those who HAVE made the real achievements (and try to ride on the back of their successes).

You formed a working relationship with the RSPCA - what happened to that?

You "introduced a proposal to take animal welfare to court"? What happened to that? In what court? With what standing? On what charges?

Suggested hands-on investigations - but you didn't DO any, you just sought to discredit those who did.

"Exposed" AWB (only in the regional Gold Coast Bulletin) - but failed to point to a clear and established link between direct profiteering from live animal exports and the Iraqi regime. All you exposed was a business transaction.

What "Uni Young Lawyers groups"? They were around before PALE was, and have continued without any input from PALE.

Formed a MoU with Muslim leaders to "work with Aussie farmers". That was forever ago. How many farmers came on board? Where did it go and what did it achieve?

"We" work "24/7 without payment" (don't we all?). Who is "we"? How many members are we talking about? How precisely do you propose to "monitor" RSPCA and HWC activities? I suspect that your "Muslim leaders" have got tired of PALE going nowhere, and that is why they are dealing with those organisations. And as I pointed out, you should be welcoming that, not whinging about it.

Finally, you have failed to answer my questions, and I will not answer yours because it would reveal some of my business activities. That said, I will support any animal advocacy organisation which has a clear record of achievement. PALE doesn't. This idiotic topic demonstrates the mentality of PALE and its inability to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Nicky

Nicky

We don’t answer to you
There must be something mentally wrong with you imo. For 3 years now we have asked you for your own achievements. You know we already know your true ID so don’t give us the rubbish.

I remind you again that when we contacted Glyense of Animals Australia year’s ago she said they did not do live exports.



That is why pale was formed in the first place.

We are still working with RSPCA QLD on live exports. Would love to be in a position to financially assist with many more of their projects.
*You "introduced a proposal to take animal welfare to court"? ...

Are you completely stupid! I told you Glenys refused to assist to brief the council on the 20 back ground to the x Crimes Commissioner. She said she never came to QLD but came three weeks later without speaking with the QC.

Suggested hands-on investigations...

Be very careful Nicky we TOTALLY support Lyn White. The investigation I spoke of involved Federal Busts offices raided and charges being laid BUT again Glenys refused to assist with something we required at the time again.

*"Exposed" AWB*

*Iraqi regime. All you exposed was a business transaction.*

Blimey don’t tell me you finally believe AWB are Live Animal Exporters
Don’t tell me you finally acknowledge AWB purchased from Wes farmers.
Just a few posts back on the other thread you were arguing that information was incorrect.!

*Formed a MoU with Muslim leaders to "work with Aussie farmers". That was forever ago. *
Nicky and live exports is a very political.

You will never helpanimals because you see all meat workers as animal killers and refuse to address live exports by reopening abattoirs in Australia.

Nicky I am not about to disclose privy information as to what Muslim leaders and our organisation are doing- Now or ever.


You do NOT work full time on Animal Welfare.
That is untrue

PALE, it is only in your deluded (what do you drink/smoke?) mind that you think you know who I am. You can speculate as much as you like.

RSPCA Queensland has not been active in its live export campaign in recent times, and neither has PALE. That's why the trade continues to expand from Queensland, and animal cruelty cases are on the rise.

The difference is that everyone else has.

Why on earth should Glenys Oojges provide information to PALE for any reason? Or meet with PALE or anyone else whom she feels would not be constructive? She has the right to choose what she believes is best for her organisation, and (quite rightly, I'd suggest) determined that that is not PALE (get over it). If you did not have standing to mount a prosecution (and you have yet to demonstrate that you might have) any such meeting would have been a waste of time.

You should be able to deal with gathering information and preparing prosecution briefs yourself, since you claim to have a background in investigation and "lawyers" at your disposal. You constantly expect others to do the work you claim to be doing and whinge bitterly when they don't.

What ON EARTH is this supposed to mean? "Glenys refused to assist to brief the council on the 20 back ground to the x Crimes Commissioner"

And this: "The investigation I spoke of involved Federal Busts offices raided and charges being laid"? Do try for a little coherent communication. None of that even makes basic sense, much less means anything.

You won't disclose anything about your "Muslim leaders" because there is nothing to disclose. Admit it. Anything you did was more than five years ago.

Nicky

To continue ...

Nicky
I think its clear to everybody you are here to beat the drum for Glenyse.
Of course you are entiled to do that but PLEASE do not tell me what RSPCA QLD PALE or Muslim leaders are doing . You really need to just get a life and do something by yourself instead of worrying what others are doing.

The fact is that your friends were told by Muslim leaders they held a MOU with our organisation and pls go through the pale office - didnt sit well with your buddies.

Too bad. They had twenty pluss years prior to us to do something similar.
They rejected invitations to meet with Muslim leaders for years.
That also includes Hugh and RSPCA National.

So I wonder whats really behind the fact Glenyse and Hugh simply refused to take up this offer to improve animal welfare.
Was it their egos or something else?

That said they at last see the light and are now heading in the right direction trying to link up with Muslim people.

A very wise choice and IMO probably driven by Lyn who seems to be the only one with common sense who doesnt have a nasty nature like you and your friend.

Like us Lyn Whites ONLY interest is to help animals.

A very refreshing change

So it continues to be all about bitching because the other groups are doing their thing without PALE, strongly suggestive of the fact that PALE is simply in it for ego reasons and it has bugger all to do with animals. The others DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH YOU, no doubt because of your abusive attitude, appalling communication style and aggression. They will succeed in doing this without you, make no mistake. After all, you have FAILED.

An "organisation" (since you still are not prepared to give an indication of membership which "works 24/7 without payment", I can only assume it is one person) which lives on past vendettas and has no plans or comprehensive strategies for the future and cannot broaden its scope belongs in the past and will remain there.

There is also the small matter of PALE sharing a directorship with a slaughtering operation, which, even if it never did get off the ground, implied that money would change hands to the benefit of PALE (speaking of corruption - no animal advocacy organisation would want to be directly profiteering from animal slaughter)

And something of a split personality emerges here. On one thread, you "do not mind the lady", on this one, you continue to discredit her. I have actually met Glenys briefly once, at the Animal Law Conference at UNSW which PALE typically did not bother to attend.

These people chose not to involve themselves with YOUR view of animal welfare, and they are certainly much better at it. They manage to cover a multiplicity of issues, not just failing at one. This is still a democratic country. For God's sake, GET OVER IT.

Nicky

Nicky
A stated on the other thread we will now respect the wishes of our lawyer members and not respond to you.
Glenys has at least tried to go back and mend her ways.IMO.
She has a fantastic partner in Lyn and we wish them all the best!
HOWEVER live exports WONT be stopped by lobbying the Government that it’s cruel.
It will be phased out ONLY by farmers and Muslims uniting and forming partnerships and reopening updating Halal Slaughter plants.
YES we know you oppose the meat industry and that’s why PALE is working to support other animal welfare organisations in a main stream view.

It’s kind of funny that you claim to have been at a law conference.
Look I am sorry if it offends BUT little in house lawyers and environmental lawyers WON’T get the job done.
What required here is a MAJOR federal court case. That’s something we already offered working with top heavy weight QCs and X Crime Commissioners.
We were stunned when informed your friend was terribly concerned someone else or another group might bring on such an action. BUT as I said the QCs required some background info which SHE Glenys declined to give.
Now if she wishes to deny the fact she was invited to meet the legal team prepared to bring about the case that is required let her come on OLO and debate ME.

I will remind her of the letter she wrote in response to that invitation and the fact she told us she NEVER cam to QLD

BUT was here 3 weeks later AND according to a AA member seeking advise as to whether or not such a case could be put to the courts.

PITY SHE DIDN’T ASK THE QCS at the time AH.

Too late now he`s a judge SO the Animals missed out again!!

Now to bring this to an end I am telling you we will NOT respond to you again
Eve

True to form, PALE's response to any challenge. Its legions of members, lawyers, Muslims and half the country emerge from PALE's little imagination, pack up their little bats and balls and run off whinging "we're not going to play ANY MORE".

If this is how you support other animal welfare organisations, then God help us all. PALE has done more to set animal welfare back in this country than any single individual or group.

I suspect that Glenys might have been trying to be considerate of your feelings in not meeting with you (can't understand why, even the most pointed advice goes nowhere with PALE). She obviously didn't want anything to do with PALE or anyone connected with it, just like everyone else, and for God's sake, you are like a broken record. GET OVER IT.

It was a pity you missed the UNSW Law Conference (July 2007); some of the best legal minds in the country were there, along with some of the best animal welfare campaigners. But you probably wouldn't have understood any of it, and would have made a fool of yourself as you do in these columns.

Now, I think it is time to end this totally fatuous thread, which proved beyond all reasonable doubt that PALE lives in a little world of its own making.

Nicky

oh for Goodness Sake. We actually support animals not clicky little groups
Considering the past comments made by you theres one thing for sure. You wouldnt know a good lawyer if he ran you over then offered to handle your case.