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