Welcome to PetForumz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

SHAME ON AUSTRALIA.

 
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights RSS
Related Topics:
Human Nature - Shame, Fear, And Guilt - HOWEDY jonathan, wrote in message > > > > Thalador Du'Fosnee wrote: > > > > > I will not quote I will ask this.. What > > > is all the HOWE stuff? Can you point me..
Next:  Animals Rights: GregGeorg...WankHar's moral incoherence  
Author Message
Ray

External


Since: Jun 27, 2003
Posts: 131



(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:40 am
Post subject: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA.
Archived from groups: alt>animals>ethics>vegetarian, others (more info?)

More than 1,000 Australian sheep stranded in the Middle East aboard a ship
had died, Agriculture Minister Warren Truss said.

A shipment of 57,000 Australian sheep has been stranded for five weeks after
the Corvo Express was denied permission to unload in Saudi Arabia.

A Saudi vet had reported a high incidence of the disease scabby mouth, but
an Australian vet aboard disputed the finding and declared the sheep to be
healthy.

**Of course they are, any vet will tell you that cramming animals like
sardines for days on end in temperature of 40f is excellent animal care!**

Mr Truss said the death of more than two per cent of sheep aboard the
shipment automatically sparked an investigation into the export.

Asked the number of sheep which had died, Mr Truss replied: "I don't have
the exact number.

"But certainly the number of deaths will be above the two per cent which
triggers an investigation into the shipment and that investigation will be
conducted and all of those sorts of issues will be dealt with."

Two per cent of 57,000 was 1,140 dead head, but Labor claimed more than
4,000 sheep had died and the number was rising.

After being rejected by Saudi Arabia last month, the sheep have since been
refused by a second country.

With animal welfare organisations demanding the sheep be put down, their
owner has now offered to give them away to an unnamed country.

Mr Truss refused to confirm reports a Pakistani importer had offered to buy
them, saying speculation had been damaging in the past.

"Our chief priority is to ensure the welfare of the sheep and to get them
unloaded as quickly as possible," he said.

But Mr Truss said the sheep were the responsibility of their owner, a Saudi
importer.

"They are on a foreign vessel on the other side of the globe, but Australia
is seeking to use whatever commercial and diplomatic channels we can to find
a satisfactory resolution to the issues," he said.

"We're concerned about the welfare of the sheep and naturally are trying to
do what we can to facilitate a successful outcome."

Opposition primary industries spokesman Kerry O'Brien accused Mr Truss of
ignoring his responsibilities and said the government had failed to find a
diplomatic solution to allow the sheep to be offloaded at an alternative
port.



**Footnote:

Strange how the 'Australian Government' have only become involved in this
issue *after* all the adverse publicity.

They were sending them to Saudi Arabia for Christs Sake.
Did they spare a thought of the welcome they would receive in that third
rate piss hole of a country?

All live animal exports should be banned -NOW.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Radical Moderate

External


Since: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 60



(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 3:03 am
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Ray wrote:

>

> **Footnote:
>
> Strange how the 'Australian Government' have only become involved in this
> issue *after* all the adverse publicity.
>

Governments do not generally involve themselves in private business
transactions. The sheep are the responsibility of whoever owns them,
which would be the shipper of origin. And, lest this escaped you Ray,
the ship is registered under a foreign flag and sitting in a foreign
port; there's about bugger all the Australian government *can* do about it.

Have your friendly local barrister explain the concept of 'jurisdiction'
to you.

> They were sending them to Saudi Arabia for Christs Sake.
> Did they spare a thought of the welcome they would receive in that third
> rate piss hole of a country?
>

Presumably nobody would have shipped them at all unless there were a
buyer who had agreed to pay for them. Unless, that is, you honestly
believe that people load up ships with random cargo and send them around
the globe on a whim?

It's called trade; try looking it up, since they obviously didn't cover
the topic at whatever third rate piss hole of a school you went to...

 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Ray

External


Since: Jun 27, 2003
Posts: 131



(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:51 am
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

~~"Radical Moderate"~~ <nobody DeleteThis @home.com> wrote in message
news:3F77A0C2.6050406@home.com...
> Ray wrote:
>
> >
>
> > **Footnote:
> >
> > Strange how the 'Australian Government' have only become involved in
this
> > issue *after* all the adverse publicity.
> >
>
> Governments do not generally involve themselves in private business
> transactions. The sheep are the responsibility of whoever owns them,
> which would be the shipper of origin. And, lest this escaped you Ray,
> the ship is registered under a foreign flag and sitting in a foreign
> port; there's about bugger all the Australian government *can* do about
it.

Not so, they can take action against the owner and shipper, their actions
reflect on Australia.

> Have your friendly local barrister explain the concept of 'jurisdiction'
> to you.

Do you know the difference between a 'solicitor' and a 'barrister'? I'll
tell you it's about 2000%.
>
> > They were sending them to Saudi Arabia for Christs Sake.
> > Did they spare a thought of the welcome they would receive in that third
> > rate piss hole of a country?
> >
>
> Presumably nobody would have shipped them at all unless there were a
> buyer who had agreed to pay for them. Unless, that is, you honestly
> believe that people load up ships with random cargo and send them around
> the globe on a whim?
>
> It's called trade; try looking it up, since they obviously didn't cover
> the topic at whatever third rate piss hole of a school you went to...

At least I remember the names of my school friends.

So I take it you are 100% happy with this appalling situation?
>
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Radical Moderate

External


Since: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 60



(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 am
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Ray wrote:

> ~~"Radical Moderate"~~ <nobody DeleteThis @home.com> wrote in message
> news:3F77A0C2.6050406@home.com...
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>>**Footnote:
>>>Strange how the 'Australian Government' have only become involved in
>>>this issue *after* all the adverse publicity.
>>>
>>Governments do not generally involve themselves in private business
>>transactions. The sheep are the responsibility of whoever owns them,
>>which would be the shipper of origin. And, lest this escaped you Ray,
>>the ship is registered under a foreign flag and sitting in a foreign
>>port; there's about bugger all the Australian government *can* do about
>>it.
>
> Not so, they can take action against the owner and shipper,

>
Perhaps - though it remains to be seen what can be done against someone
who has engaged in legal trade activities. That, and fining a shipper
in Sydney does little for the sheep halfway around the world.

IOW legislation may discourage or prohibit future shipments, but the
government's ability to do something about *that* load of sheep *right
now* is virtually zero.

> their actions reflect on Australia.
>

Perhaps. But it intrigues me that so many people are concerned about
the well-being of sheep in places where people suffer just as much and
in far greater numbers - though perhaps you consider blowing up buses
with high explosives 'humane' since death is immediate...

Some of these people still hack themselves with swords to express guilt
over something that happened 1200 years ago; you expect them to give a
camel poo about sheep?

>>Have your friendly local barrister explain the concept of 'jurisdiction'
>>to you.
>>
> Do you know the difference between a 'solicitor' and a 'barrister'? I'll
> tell you it's about 2000%.
>

Offhand, it appears to be the same as the distinction between a trial
lawyer and a lawyer who actually does something useful. I'd be
delighted to be further enlightened by a native, though.

The point remains; Australia can do little to dictate what does or does
not happen in Saudi Arabia. And quite frankly Ray, you're on record as
opposing Western nations telling Middle Eastern dictatorships how to behave.

> So I take it you are 100% happy with this appalling situation?
>

No, I just think people are pissing up a rope about it.
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Ray

External


Since: Jun 27, 2003
Posts: 131



(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:37 pm
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Radical Moderate" <nobody RemoveThis @home.com> wrote in message
news:3F78FCAC.9020202@home.com...
> Ray wrote:
>
> > ~~"Radical Moderate"~~ <nobody RemoveThis @home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F77A0C2.6050406@home.com...
> >
> >>Ray wrote:
> >>>**Footnote:
> >>>Strange how the 'Australian Government' have only become involved in
> >>>this issue *after* all the adverse publicity.
> >>>
> >>Governments do not generally involve themselves in private business
> >>transactions. The sheep are the responsibility of whoever owns them,
> >>which would be the shipper of origin. And, lest this escaped you Ray,
> >>the ship is registered under a foreign flag and sitting in a foreign
> >>port; there's about bugger all the Australian government *can* do about
> >>it.
> >
> > Not so, they can take action against the owner and shipper,
>
> >
> Perhaps - though it remains to be seen what can be done against someone
> who has engaged in legal trade activities. That, and fining a shipper
> in Sydney does little for the sheep halfway around the world.
>
> IOW legislation may discourage or prohibit future shipments, but the
> government's ability to do something about *that* load of sheep *right
> now* is virtually zero.
>
> > their actions reflect on Australia.
> >
>
> Perhaps. But it intrigues me that so many people are concerned about
> the well-being of sheep in places where people suffer just as much and
> in far greater numbers - though perhaps you consider blowing up buses
> with high explosives 'humane' since death is immediate...
>
> Some of these people still hack themselves with swords to express guilt
> over something that happened 1200 years ago; you expect them to give a
> camel poo about sheep?
>
> >>Have your friendly local barrister explain the concept of 'jurisdiction'
> >>to you.
> >>
> > Do you know the difference between a 'solicitor' and a 'barrister'? I'll
> > tell you it's about 2000%.
> >
>
> Offhand, it appears to be the same as the distinction between a trial
> lawyer and a lawyer who actually does something useful. I'd be
> delighted to be further enlightened by a native, though.
>
> The point remains; Australia can do little to dictate what does or does
> not happen in Saudi Arabia. And quite frankly Ray, you're on record as
> opposing Western nations telling Middle Eastern dictatorships how to
behave.
>
> > So I take it you are 100% happy with this appalling situation?
> >
>
> No, I just think people are pissing up a rope about it.

The Australian Government do not share your views -read the latest news?
ROTFLMAO.
>
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
exploratory

External


Since: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 17



(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:47 pm
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Radical Moderate <nobody.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message
> >
> Yes, and they did so for a reason.

And there are VERY good reasons for making fur and meat illegal, too
-- reasons which you simply refuse to even consider, since
the MAIN reason is to benefit animals and to prevent them from being
tortured and killed.

> being a bloody-minded
> Communist, you would neither conceive of nor respect such an approach.

Nowhere did tortrix say he/she was a Communist.
And that would not make what tortrix said invalid, anyway,
since it is irrelevant.

> Certainly, anyone has the right to ask their representatives to make
> changes in law; one can also raise publicity to ask others to join in
> the effort. But the use of violence to achieve such ends is unethical
> (not to mention illegal); conspiring to do so is sedition, the highest
> federal crime after treason.

Are you saying therefore that sedition and treason are always bad things?
Then sedition and treason in Communist countries is ALSO bad.
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
piddock

External


Since: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 3



(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:55 pm
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Radical Moderate <nobody.TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote in message

> the effort. But the use of violence to achieve such ends is unethical
> (not to mention illegal); conspiring to do so is sedition, the highest
> federal crime after treason.

Good. Well this has absolutely nothing to do with anything any
animal rights or environmental groups have done.

So now you are going to call every crime "sedition" and "treason"?
Then you had better arrest all the employees at meat-packing plants
on the federal charge of sedition and treason since THEY
break EVERY federal animal-protection law with the intent of changing
it. And the violence they cause -- not bothering to stun or in any
way render animals unconscious before boiling them alive or cutting
them open -- dwarfs any of the petty nuisances to your eating habits.

And on top of all this -- you agreed with me that many of the things
like drugs or types of porn which are now illegal or were illegal
at some time in the past were made illegal by illegal methods,
such as women in the early 1900s smashing kegs of beer
or tobacco lobbyists and conservative anti-black social groups lying
to Congress and intimidating and threatening hemp growers on the
lie that if BLACK people smoke pot they will turn into crazed killers.

So, are you willing to go back in time and prosecute the alcohol
and drug prohibitionists for THEIR sedition and treason?
I don't mean build a time machine -- there are certainly anti-drug
fanatics still alive who are responsible for adding on their little
bit of sedition and treason -- will you speak out publicly about
prosecuting THEM?
Are you willing to prosecute meat-packing industries for THEIR
sedition and treason?

No -- of course not. YOUR only concern is making up ridiculous and
frivolous charges of "sedition" and "treason" just so YOU or your friends
can have your milk-fed veal or lobster!
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
rick etter

External


Since: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 280



(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:57 pm
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"exploratory" <exploratory.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e2719240.0310131747.7de39287@posting.google.com...
> Radical Moderate <nobody.DeleteThis@home.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > Yes, and they did so for a reason.
>
> And there are VERY good reasons for making fur and meat illegal, too
> -- reasons which you simply refuse to even consider, since
> the MAIN reason is to benefit animals and to prevent them from being
> tortured and killed.
=======================
Then you too will need to stop eating and wearing clothes since your chioces
also cause death and suffering.


>
> > being a bloody-minded
> > Communist, you would neither conceive of nor respect such an approach.
>
> Nowhere did tortrix say he/she was a Communist.
> And that would not make what tortrix said invalid, anyway,
> since it is irrelevant.
>
> > Certainly, anyone has the right to ask their representatives to make
> > changes in law; one can also raise publicity to ask others to join in
> > the effort. But the use of violence to achieve such ends is unethical
> > (not to mention illegal); conspiring to do so is sedition, the highest
> > federal crime after treason.
>
> Are you saying therefore that sedition and treason are always bad things?
> Then sedition and treason in Communist countries is ALSO bad.
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Radical Moderate

External


Since: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 60



(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:47 am
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

exploratory wrote:

> Radical Moderate <nobody DeleteThis @home.com> wrote in message
>
>> >
>>Yes, and they did so for a reason.
>>
> And there are VERY good reasons for making fur and meat illegal, too
>

Fur, yes - there are adequate, in fact superior, alternatives which do
not require the killing of animals (at least not directly).

There is neither a compelling need nor a practical means to replace meat
in the human diet. Make whatever choice you wish for yourself, but do
not seek to impose it on others.

>> being a bloody-minded
>>Communist, you would neither conceive of nor respect such an approach.
>>
> Nowhere did tortrix say he/she was a Communist.
>

It was not necessary; Tortrix is clearly in favor of the notion that a
self-selected elite is entitled to take power by force and impose their
ideology on everyone else, in the name of supposedly lofty goals. It
has always been the way of Communists to undermine a society from within
in order to set the stage for a 'popular' revolution (fomented and
directed from without), leading inevitably to a totalitarian state in
which the people are kept in rigid thrall to a government which rules in
their name but not with their consent.

> And that would not make what tortrix said invalid, anyway,
> since it is irrelevant.
>

Totrix believes in the imposition of ideology on others by violence.
That is entirely relevant, because when such persons are not identified
and curtailed they will inevitably seek to act on that impulse.

>>Certainly, anyone has the right to ask their representatives to make
>>changes in law; one can also raise publicity to ask others to join in
>>the effort. But the use of violence to achieve such ends is unethical
>>(not to mention illegal); conspiring to do so is sedition, the highest
>>federal crime after treason.
>>
> Are you saying therefore that sedition and treason are always bad things?

>
Almost always. I don't go in for absolutes.

> Then sedition and treason in Communist countries is ALSO bad.
>
To an extent, yes.


The downfall of the USSR and the loss of its satellite nations came
about largely through nonviolent means. Only Chechnya has sought to use
violence to achieve its independence, and look what it got them.

Not to say that one may never take up arms against an oppressive regime,
but there is a need to determine that a) a direct threat exists, b) less
extreme means have been exhausted, and c) there is at least a snowball's
chance of success. (Apologies to all the would-be martyrs out there,
but getting yourself killed just to make a point is pretty stupid.)
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Radical Moderate

External


Since: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 60



(Msg. 10) Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2003 2:30 am
Post subject: Re: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

piddock wrote:

> Radical Moderate <nobody.DeleteThis@home.com> wrote in message
>
>>the effort. But the use of violence to achieve such ends is unethical
>>(not to mention illegal); conspiring to do so is sedition, the highest
>>federal crime after treason.
>>
> Good. Well this has absolutely nothing to do with anything any
> animal rights or environmental groups have done.
>

It most certainly does. Conspiring to undermine the rule of law by
violence is sedition. Groups like PeTA and its militant arm ALF exist
solely for such purposes.

> So now you are going to call every crime "sedition" and "treason"?

>
If the shoe fits...

> And the violence they cause -- not bothering to stun or in any
> way render animals unconscious before boiling them alive or cutting
> them open -- dwarfs any of the petty nuisances to your eating habits.
>

Have you actually been to a slaughterhouse, ever?

> And on top of all this -- you agreed with me that many of the things
> like drugs or types of porn which are now illegal or were illegal
> at some time in the past were made illegal by illegal methods,

>
I agreed to no such thing. You apparently are unable, or more likely
unwilling to distinguish between isolated incidents and systemic policies.

For example (and these are just example, so don't try to hang your whole
life on them) - what Carrie Nation did was wrong, even if it was for the
'right' reason. What John Brown did was wrong, even though it was
done for noble purposes. They turned to violence and threatened the
rule of law.


> So, are you willing to go back in time and prosecute the alcohol
> and drug prohibitionists for THEIR sedition and treason?

>
Those that used violence to advance their ends *were* prosecuted, and
rightly so. Carrie Nation died in prison; John Brown was hanged.

> Are you willing to prosecute meat-packing industries for THEIR
> sedition and treason?
>

No, because they are not guilty of such crimes. If 'meatarians' start
taking up violent means to force their views on others, they should be
prosecuted - but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

> No -- of course not. YOUR only concern is making up ridiculous and
> frivolous charges of "sedition" and "treason" just so YOU or your friends
> can have your milk-fed veal or lobster!
>

Whatever, you cultist loon. I don't eat either lobster or veal, though
not for reasons you'd approve of.
 >> Stay informed about: SHAME ON AUSTRALIA. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]