An absence of facts should never get in the way of a scurrilous allegation

Once again, one of  our community’s high profile Greens has sought to slur the collective character of archery enthusiasts in the Bega Valley, by submitting a highly emotive letter - "Picture tells a thousand words" - to the Bega District News (Friday, February 8th, 2013). 

The Green in question is Ms Harriett Swift, whose letter to the editor castigates the paper for dedicating too much space to an archery club’s response to controversial statements made in Council session, by Councillor Keith Hughes (The Greens), whom, as it happens, Ms Swift fails to identify as her partner.

Ms Swift has provided a photograph to punctuate her letter – a wallaby pierced by an arrow – and she outlines in some detail, the victim's painful and ultimately fatal ordeal.

No-one in Bega Valley Traditional Archers advocates the hunting of native wildlife. Nor is there any evidence that anyone from Bega Valley Traditional Archers was involved in the incident. In fact the incident took place 150klms north of Bega, near Batemans Bay, yet the letter claims that the photo is proof positive that “an archer” is the culprit, that archery is bad and that therefore her partner’s opposition to Bega Archers' applications for National Youth Week and Seniors Week event funding was entirely justified. See Hughes takes aim at archery for details.

And now for the facts:

A quick call to Bateman’s Bay police reveals that no charges have been laid, and no persons of interest have been identified in relation to the incident. The sum total of available evidence exists in the form of a photo of a macropod with an arrow protruding from its body. End of story.

So, allow me to do what Ms Swift clearly did, and make up a story based on a whole lot of presumptions. Presumptions that are, nonetheless, every bit as credible in the absence of detail/evidence/charges, as Ms Swift’s contention that “an archer” is responsible.

My alternative scenario will be deeply offensive to Greens, who will claim that one of their number would never do what I am about to suggest. However, they think nothing of attributing the most heinous crimes and intent to archers that would never dream of targeting a native animal; people the likes of whom Ms Swift and her ilk do not know, have never met, yet have absolutely no problem portraying as irresponsible, coldblooded killers. 

The alternative explanation:

There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue of hunting on public lands – Forests, National Parks etc. The Greens have been very vocal in their criticism of hunting on public lands, and they have deployed every weapon at their disposal in opposition to it. There can be no doubt – they hate it and they are out to put a stop to it!

A particularly hard-line member of the party-faithful (we’ll call him Iva Green-Bias) is tired of the relative lack of broad community support for The Greens’ opposition to hunting. Iva decides that it’s time to play hardball, and what better way to do it than by contriving an incident that will graphically demonstrate “hunter cruelty”, thereby promoting a negative image of hunters while also creating a highly emotive icon for the cause. 

Iva pops onto the net and in 20 minutes he has bought a light bow and some basic target arrows for $150. It’s little enough to pay, he thinks, for a photograph that will keep paying for itself well into the future, and off he pops to a very high profile park near Bateman’s Bay.

Iva reckons that shooting a wallaby in a touristy area will maximise the chances of the wallaby being found, either dead or alive, but either way, with an arrow protruding from its body.

Because a bow makes little sound, Iva is able to take many shots without drawing attention to himself before actually hitting his target. Iva’s target is not killed outright and he is unable to retrieve it.

Not to worry, he thinks, it was shot in a very high profile area, so with any luck someone will find it for me. This act weighs heavy on Iva’s conscience, but he figures the sacrifice is warranted, given the magnitude of the cause.

The Wallaby is later found and rushed off to animal welfare workers, who immediately attribute the act to cruel hunters. Mission accomplished and all suffering thus justified for the greater good.

The End

Is this what actually happened to the wallaby in Ms Swift’s photo?  I haven’t got a clue, and nor do you in the absence of any witnesses or evidence, other than the presence of the arrow.

It could have been a hunter. It could have been a Green extremist. It could have been an alien from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. One does not need to be an “archer” to discharge a bow. One merely needs hands, inclination and opportunity.

In short, Ms Swift’s accusations and assertions about the photograph are simply speculation born of her desire to punctuate the point she is intent on making. This is the emerging nature of the intolerance fostered by the zealots within The Greens. Facts and evidence are unimportant, as is the principle of innocence until guilt is proven.

What's important is misleading the public in order to achieve your ends, which always justify the means.

Ms Swift – thinking it is so, contending it is so, trying to make other people believe it is so, does not make it so. But attempting to incite hatred by incessantly seeking to portray a specific cultural group within the community as intrinsically evil, is the essence of bigotry.

This leads me to wonder about the official Greens position on a related matter about which The Greens have been very quiet indeedy. Their spokespersons have decried ‘amateur hunting’ as dangerous and inhumane. They have rejected the suggestion that for many it is a highly spiritual pursuit and they have even said it has no place in a civilised society.

I respect and even relate to the spirituality embodied in Aboriginal traditional stories of the Dreaming that so often figure around hunting, and I respect traditional indigenous hunting rights and practices. But what of The Greens…do they also believe that indigenous hunting should be limited to “the professionals”…are Aboriginal people cruel, irresponsible and uncivilised?

I trust that The Greens objections to hunting are not limited solely to people they perceive to be of white Anglo-Saxon heritage? 

Anyway, I'll get outa ya way now.... 

They just can’t help themselves

Well, as was inevitable, Greens spokesperson David Shoebridge has responded to my opinion piece, “Green the colour of intolerance” (Bega District News January 29, 2013).

His reply, entitled "Amateur hunting not achieving its target" (Bega District News February 5th, 2013) filled me with a mixture of joy and despair. Joy because it is uncharacteristically devoid of the many insulting epithets habitually applied to hunters by Greens spokespersons such as Mr Shoebridge, in media releases, parliamentary hansard and ‘Tweets’, and despair because his restraint did not extend to misleading the citizens of the Bega Valley. 

Mr Shoebridge says that I argue that “campaigning for safer gun control laws and for humane and effective feral animal control is some form of racial vilification”. This is absurd and untrue. My opinion piece very clearly acknowledges his right to lobby, based on issues.

My objections centre solely on the practice of applying offensive and abusive epithets such as ‘weekend warriors’, ‘weekend cowboys’, ‘thill-killers’, ‘Rambos’ and the like, to demonise hunters in order to achieve his goals.

The Greens have the right to lobby. They do not have the right to insult, humiliate, abuse, mislead or incite cultural hatred and intolerance.

I note also that Mr Shoebridge describes my contention that his activities in this regard may be actionable under Racial Vilification laws, as “one-eyed”.  He does not, however, claim that my contention is legally flawed, and I find this of particular interest given that Mr. Shoebridge is a Barrister.   

Mr. Shoebridge's response strives to portray me as a “shooter”. For the record, I am not. I neither own nor use guns and I have no particular views as to their place in society. 

Mr. Shoebridge then proceeds to roundly criticise Game Council NSW and the conservation hunting philosophy. Again, I respect his right to do so, sans offensive epithets and misleading statements. But he also refers to “the emerging gun and hunting culture in NSW” over the past decade being brought about by “back-room deals struck by successive NSW Governments” and this statement, clearly about political point-scoring, may well explain why he is not spokesperson for Indigenous Affairs.

The “hunting culture” in NSW has its foundations in indigenous history, culture and tradition, reaching back some 50,000 years before the colony of “NSW” was established. The only thing that has emerged in the past decade is The Greens’ demonstrated intolerance for such culture and traditions.

All that aside, perhaps what I find most interesting about Mr. Shoebridge’s response is his advocacy of the use of “professional shooters” and, “where necessary, baits” as the Greens’ preferred alternative to conservation hunting.

Both the RSPCA and Animals Australia describe the use of baits as inhumane. In fact, the Animals Australia website (control methods) advises that, “Head shooting of animals, causing instant death, is generally agreed to be the least inhumane method of killing a wild animal.”

I suspect that Mr Shoebridge would contend that “professional shooters” boast superior skill-sets and accuracy levels to those possessed by mere volunteer conservation hunters. I would dearly love to see the research demonstrating that. In fact, I would like to know what the “professional hunter” accreditation process involves.

I suspect that in this context, ‘professional’ translates as “derives primary income from” and little more.

Recent efforts by local Greens to paint the sport of archery in a dim light  for their own ends (Hughes takes aim at archery, BDN 25 January, 2013) appear even more sinister when assessed against advice contained in a letter from Mr Shoebridge dated July 22nd 2011. In the letter, Mr Shoebridge advises that:

"Traditional archery as a sport does not pose a significant threat to community safety. As you wrote in your letter its practice, in a responsible manner, can contribute to the building and maintaining healthy community releationships. The Greens do not oppose it. 

"I am sure thought you will agree that it is the irresponsible use of weaponry that is the issue."

Given the recent activities of Cr. Hughes (The Greens) one could be forgiven for suggesting that The Greens do not oppose archery, until it pleases them to do so, but yes, it is indeed the irresponsible use of weaponry that is the issue and in the same letter, Mr. Shoebridge acknowledges that:

"There are many hunters, like you, who are respectful of the life they take and responsible in the actions they engage in to protect private land".

 
…and further:

"While there are people like you who are committed conservationists, and hunt for this purpose, the establishment of the Game Council and the relaxing of firearms laws in NSW has made it easier for irresponsible individuals to engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting in the name of conservation.”

While in correspondence Mr. Shoebridge is willing to acknowledge that there are committed, responsible, humane and respectful conservation hunters in the community, I can find no similar acknowledgement in the public domain. Why he might think that hunters would abandon these principles when hunting on public lands remains a mystery.

Are parks and forests strewn with mind control devices perhaps?

If Mr. Shoebridge and the Greens are against hunting because they hate weapons, period, let that be their platform, rather than attempting to dupe the Bega Valley into believing they are motivated by utopian ideals of animal welfare, humaneness and public safety.

In January 2013, Game Council NSW advised police of a claim that two Game Council employees had been seen hunting in a place and in a manner that was in contravention of the law. Immediately NSW Primary Industries Minister, Katrina Hodgkinson, suspended both men pending the outcome of a full police investigation. One has since been reinstated after demonstrating that he was nowhere near the location of the reported incident, while the other is expected to be reinstated shortly. 

When The Greens learned of the accusations they jumped for joy! They praised the Minister for suspending the two accused, while opportunistically seizing any & every opportunity to demand the  immediate abolition of Game Council NSW. 

One wonders (one REALLY does!) if the NSW Parliament and The Greens party machine will act as quickly and as decisively as did Minister Hodgkinson, when the hunters of NSW - tired of being portrayed as irresponsible and cruel louts - band together to formally complain about the cultural vilification they suffer at the hands of Mr. Shoebridge and his increasingly intolerant and opportunistic kith.

Anyway, I'll get outa ya way now....

Referrence: 

The practice of maligning or ‘vilifying’ hunters, based on their cultural beliefs and practices is widespread among anti-hunting lobby groups. Their aim in using descriptors such as “weekend warriors” and “thrill killers” is clearly to sway community opinion against hunters, as is the Greens’ habitual practice of associating hunters with drunkenness, recklessness, dangerous irresponsible behaviour and cruelty, and it is my belief that this strategy may have legal implications for the perpetrators under, of all things, Australian racial hatred laws.

Australia is obliged under international human rights law to prohibit incitement to racial hatred (Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The Commonwealth, every state, and the ACT (but not the Northern Territory) make racial vilification at least ‘unlawful’, and at times a criminal offence. In such laws the words ‘racial’ and ‘race’ are used not for a pseudo-scientific purpose, but as shorthand for the many ways that a person’s own and perceived identity turns on personal attributes such as their physical appearance, where they were born and raised, their culture, and their traditions. As a result, ‘racial’ vilification laws protect against hateful conduct that occurs because of, for example, a person’s nationality, ethnicity and culture. [Simon Rice OAM, Director of Law Reform and Social Justice at the ANU College of Law.]

The advice above may not only have implications for Australian indigenous hunters, but also for the many people from foreign shores who now call Australia home and whose countries of origin may have longstanding or even ancient cultural hunting traditions. Bowhunting is perhaps the oldest traditional hunting practice still practiced today, and given Australia’s status as a “cultural melting-pot” I would be very surprised if a large percentage of bowhunters did not have some legitimate ‘cultural’ links to archery as a practical cultural necessity as opposed to a simple sport. For those of us who are unable to claim such a link, the definition of “ethnicity” may also be of interest. Many believe, erroneously, that ‘ethnicity’ means foreign. In fact the Oxford Dictionary defines ‘ethnicity’ as “traits, background, allegiance, or association.” Ergo, might it not be said that coming from a rural background and being allied with principles of feral animal management, in association with an Approved Hunting Organisation, hunting is in fact my ethnicity?

 

To read "Green: the colour of intolerance" click here