The anatomy of Green bigotry

Cultural intolerance, bigotry and hatred, wherever they may lie, are born of two basic elements; fear and the absence of any stake in the thing that is loathed.  This is demonstrated in the comparison between the hunting culture and the culture of Islam, yet increasingly a culture of hunter-hatred is accepted as a reasonable, even a responsible philosophical position, by our politicians and social welfare groups:

a)    “I hate hunters because they kill indiscriminately.”

b)    “I hate Muslims because they kill indiscriminately.”

a)    “I hate hunters because they’re cruel to animals.”
b)    “I hate Muslims because they’re cruel to animals.”
 

a)    “I hate hunters because they’re obsessed with weapons.”

b)    “I hate Muslims because they’re obsessed with weapons.” 

a)    “Hunting should be banned in Australia because it’s cruel to

         animals.” 

b)   “ Islam should be banned in Australia because it’s oppressive to

         women."

a)    “Guns should be banned in case they fall into the wrong

         hands."

b)    “Superphosphate should be banned in case it falls into Muslim

         hands."

a)    “Hunters are evil, low-life, redneck, weekend-cowboy scum.”
b)    “Muslims are evil, murdering scum with no respect for human

         life.”

There is ample evidence to support the proposition that in a very small minority of cases, opinions in both a) and b) categories are applicable. However, it is only opinions in category a) that are promoted daily by politicians, the media and anti-hunting groups, with no fear of repercussions for promoting cultural hatred. Why? The answer is simple…

First and foremost, those who seek to vilify hunters - The Greens for instance - do so in the mistaken and somewhat arrogant belief that they are the final arbiters of what is, and is not, a legitimate culture worthy of respect.

Further, the people and groups that promote the sort of intolerance demonstrated in a) are not hunters; they are not interested in hunting, nor do they understand why others are interested in its culture and practices. They have no stake in it at all, so it may be safely disposed of without consequence to them.

They have no stake in weapons ownership either. They fear guns and bows and they fear those who don’t share their fears. In fact the latter they believe to be abnormal, and therefore must be eliminated, not for society’s benefit, but for the benefit of all the ‘normal’ people who have no use for, and fear, weapons.

Of course the anti-gun lobbyist will challenge this proposition with something like;

"We have no evidence that Muslims present a threat to people here in Australia, but we do have examples of gun violence in Australia every day; and examples of mass-murder too in Port Arthur and Hoddle Street.” 

However, these same people are fond of quoting statistics about US gun violence, warning the public about America’s undesirable “guns culture” - which they say is promoted by organisations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) - and they express concern that similar influences exist in Australia e.g. Game Council NSW.

Based on that evidentiary criterion, could it not be said that 9/11 was an act of violence promoted by the organisation known as Islam? If it is reasonable to assert that the "guns culture" is a threat to Australia based on statistics from the United States, is it not also reasonable to assert that Islam poses a similar threat based on the appalling statements and actions of some of Islam’s high-profile representatives around the world? If not, why not?

The media confronts us almost daily with images of masked machine-gun-rattling Muslins making demands and threatening unspeakable slaughter if those demands are not met. The media brings us shocking reports of the oppressive and often extremely violent treatment of woman and girls in Muslim countries. Yet it is readily acknowledged that these atrocious acts are perpetrated and perpetuated by a relatively small group of extremists, and are therefore no reason to lobby against the spread of Australia’s emerging Islamic culture.

Some will say that my analysis is simply justification for the banning of guns wherever they may be, but would that solve the problem?

The doctrinal interpretations used to justify the violence and oppression that many associate with Islam, are not prescriptive about the weapons that should be used to enforce them. Indeed violent enforcement of the ‘fundamentalist’ doctrine can be traced back a thousand years or more before guns were invented. A zero tolerance towards Islam, however, would surely go some way to preventing its establishment on Australian soil.

Let me state for the record that I harbour no fear or objection toward Islam, but like all rational people, I object, very strongly, to unnecessary violence and oppression.

I use the examples above only to demonstrate the philosophical hypocrisy of organisations such as The Greens, who, while actively promoting a climate of intolerance and hatred against the culture of hunting and weapons-ownership of which they do not approave, move swiftly to denounce any person or group that expresses concern about the spread of Islamic culture in Australia, of which they do approve, calling it bigotry and racism. 

Their reason for doing so is clear; it is a matter of personal preference, of likes and dislikes. They like Muslims, but they hate weapons and they do not trust anyone who does not also hate weapons. They hate hunting, and loath and distrust anyone who does not share the anti-hunting philosophy. They lobby ardently for an end to both weapons-ownership and hunting because their hatred of them means they stand to lose nothing by their abolition.

Politicians and lobby groups have for too long, promoted a climate of hatred and ridicule, both in the media and in the community in general, and they have done so with pride and absolute impunity. This has been possible because to date no individual or organisation has sought to prosecute them for their promotion of hatred, their vilification and cultural bigotry. Perhaps that should change?

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now….

Dreams and schemes and circus crowds

I recently attended the anti-hunting rally in Bega and I'd like to make a few observations regarding the rally and subsequent reporting in the media.

First, much was made of Australia’s long and proud tradition of proclaiming National Parks. The first, which is now known as Royal National Park, was proclaimed in 1879. Soon after, it was stocked with deer, foxes and rabbits for ‘recreational purposes’. I understand that some of the deer may even have been a gift from Queen Victoria.

A long and distinguished tradition indeed, which included hunting. Funny how these nuances can be forgotten by public speakers.

A spokesperson claimed that bowhunting was excessively cruel and should be banned. I do not suggest that being shot with an arrow is painless, but nor have I any obligation to ensure it is so. Nature is cruel…very cruel. All wild animals, save for the few that inadvertently hop over a cliff and die quickly by the fall, will die horrible deaths, whether by old age, disease or predation.

Predators have no concern whatsoever, for animal welfare.  Once an animal is unable to evade its predators it will fall victim to them, whether that predator be ants, crows, dogs/dingos, foxes or opportunist feeders. None of the inevitable death-by-predation scenarios includes passing away peacefully in the bosom of family and friends, nor painless euthanasia followed by tributes to the strains of Auld Lang Syne. A hunter’s obligation is to ensure that the death she/he metes out is not unusually cruel. All hunters I know and associated with strive for the swiftest and most humane kill possible, using equipment often far more efficient for the purpose than tooth, claw or talon.

If anti-hunters are serious about animal welfare, I am sure they will be happy to endorse the following proposal i.e. that the speed-limit on the highway between Bega and Canberra should be halved to 50km per hour. Doing so will double the reaction times of both driver and the profusion of native animals presenting themselves each week as targets for motor vehicles. The number is more than we see on the roadside of course, as many slip off into the undergrowth to die of broken hips, concussions and internal injuries which may not take them until days after the event. Of course this suggestion, however logical, will not win the support of the anti-hunters because while they have no use for bows or guns, they certainly do have a stake in getting to Canberra in under 5 hours.

We could go the whole hog of course and, taking a leaf out of The Greens’ and Anti-Hunters’ Rules for Community Engagement, decide that any one irresponsible driver who breaks the new speed limit will be taken to be representative of all drivers. She/he will be publically humiliated and vilified in a campaign aimed at creating a climate of intolerance and hatred towards drivers, culminating in the permanent closing of the Highway.

On to HuntFest and the misinformation disseminated at the rally. HuntFest has never, does not, and will not encourage people to hunt in National Parks or in the Narooma area for that matter. It is the equivalent of a camping and outdoors expo with a hunting element included. It ‘celebrates’ a legal activity steeped in thousands of years of history, tradition and culture. Intolerance towards that culture should be decried publically, along with all other forms of cultural intolerance and bigotry. If individuals don’t like the idea of HuntFest they can choose not to attend, but running it down publically, trying to fuel community hatred against it and its organisers, is simply irresponsible.

A great deal of time effort and money has been invested in HuntFest by members of the community whom many of us know and work with. Trying to destroy an event simply because you hold a philosophical opposition to it, or what it stands for, is irresponsible and inhumane to the many humans who will be disadvantaged as a result of hate-driven, sabotage and white-anting protests.

Attendance at the rally – I really have to wonder if getting 200 largely directly invited guests to the rally was actually indicative of broad community support for no-hunting in National Parks as the organisers have claimed? I would have thought the true measure of support lay in how many of the “average men or women in the street” were willing to join your rally, on the spur of the moment, on one of Bega’s busiest shopping days. If this is the true measure, the rally was a bit of a failure from the casual observer’s perspective.

Let me put it another way, had I turned up with even 500 hunters to march down to Andrew Constance’s office with a thankyou note for the O’Farrell government, would the anti-hunters accept that this was an indication of broad community support for hunting in National Parks and satisfaction with the O’Farrell government’s sound policy decisions? I think not! What the rally proved is that there are people in the community who are strongly opposed to hunting in National Parks, but we knew that, just as we know the 200 do not necessarily speak for the Valley’s 28,850 residents who did not join the rally.

Regarding the “Perverts kill animals for fun” sign hung on my gate in the wee smalls – I wish to thank a member of the media who approached me at the rally to say, “I am sorry about that sign hung on your gate.” The journo in question was not claiming responsibility, but simply expressing neighbourly concern for the impact of a cowardly attack on my home and family. I will not mention the person’s name; for fear that they too may come under attack. They know who they are and they have my family’s sincerest gratitude for their concern. What a shame that concern was not shared by other notables present. My partner approached one such notable, asking if, as a community leader, they would take the opportunity to denounce both the person who hung the sign and the act itself. The response? “Why should I? I didn’t do it!”  This person’s associate then accused my partner of being “just an unethical hunter.” That announcement resulted in a man barrelling towards my partner with what she describes as “burning hatred in his eyes.” My partner also informs me that had it not been for the intercession of the aggressor’s wife she fears she may have been assaulted. Bravo!

For the record, my partner will not so much as empty water from a bowl in the garden for fear mosquito larvae may be harmed.

To the person who declined the invitation to behave as a community leader should, I would point out that one does not have to be responsible for an act in order to denounce it. You’re certainly not backwards in coming forwards to denounce human rights abuses overseas for which you are not responsible. But you do have to be a responsible community leader.

Finally, I say again that I am neither in favour of nor against hunting in National Parks and I will not make up my mind until the detail of the proposal is released. But I am definitely dead against misleading the Valley, hate campaigns and sabotaging local community projects simply because they are not to your philosophical liking and I will continue to speak out against such activities regardless of the intimidation and bullying that may result.

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

What drives intolerance

The objections and activities of the anti-hunting in national parks

movement, are predicated on two things: 

•  a hatred/fear of all ‘weapons’, and 
•  notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk

Little or nothing can be done to ameliorate the fear and loathing that drives people who would have weapons of all kinds banned. That which they see only as the agents of death, we hunters see as tools that enable us to engage in a legitimate cultural practice associated with thousands of years of human evolution and tradition.

Their closed minds make them deaf to discussions about partnership and compromise that they automatically engage in and accept in so many other day-to-day activities that are a thousand-fold more dangerous than hunting wherever it takes place. To everyday examples of the public’s willingness to tolerate an element of acceptable risk are driving and beach-going.

Each time I sally forth on the states highways, I accept that I am sitting in a 15,432,358 grain projectile travelling at around 91 feet per second (legally). My projectile is aimed directly at another of at least equal mass and speed, heading directly at me on a course that allows for a margin of error of about 1.5 metres, that being the distance at which my projectile will pass theirs.

Chances are I don’t know any of the thousands of people who are launching their projectiles in my direction. I simply accept that most will be skilled managers of their projectiles. I accept that they will hold the appropriate licence for its deployment, and that they will abide by the rule that forbids them to cross a 10 cm-wide white line along their projectile’s trajectory.

But along with everyone else on the State's highway system, I also know that every day thousands of projectile managers break the rules.

Many will be travelling at speeds that exceed the legal maximum. Many will be operating substandard projectiles, and many will be managing them under the influence of alcohol and elicit substances. Many will not be wearing the correct prescription spectacles as they pass me, and many-many more will be talking on mobile phones.

At times the projectiles may be travelling at night with very limited forward vision, and despite this their velocity will remain unchanged from daylight to dark.

In short, statistics and my own knowledge of the world combine to tell me that there are many things that may cause my projectile to collide with other. And this is reinforced by the fact that along with all the other projectile occupants in NSW, I know someone who was killed when a mechanical failure or a breach of the rules governing safe projectile management were broken. Yet sally forth I do, each and every day, along with a million others.

The need outweighs concern for my personal safety, though logically it should not and this acceptance is known as ‘tolerance’. The anti-hunting lobby shares this tolerance with me, because the anti-hunting lobby finds cars convenient and useful. They are intolerant of the perceived risks associated with hunting on public lands, simply because they have no use for weapons or hunting.

As Australians we have a very strong beach and surfing culture. Yet there are innumerable instances of surfer-swimmer encounters that result in serious injury or even death when an errant surfboard slams into a group of swimmers.

In my youth a good friend lost consciousness and drown after being hit in the head by a surfboard, and I carry a scar on my back from an encounter with a surfboard while snorkelling. Yet we do not ban surfing from all beaches. Instead, surfers and swimmers are encouraged to remain apart, keeping to allocated areas of the beach so that all can enjoy the environment.

There are no real laws or penalties associated with this arrangement. We simply comply (mostly) because it is in everyone’s best interests to do so, and we accept the risk when we visit the beach even though no-one there has any real power to enforce any rules about safety or separation.

There are many day-to-day activities that are high-risk, but because we all have a stake in those activities, we accept the risk and, often, we laugh at others who suggest the risk is too great. The risk to the public associated with encounters with hunters on public lands is not great and the vast majority of "the public" recognises this fact.

As a result, they have not engaged in the scaremongering of engines like the National Parks Association and The Greens, preferring to laugh them off as the silly concerns of a risk adverse generation obsessed with control and banning that which they do not approve of..

Despite what they may say, The Greens and the National Parks Association etc object to hunting primarily on philosophical grounds, because they despise weapons and hunting. They are happy, therefore, to denigrate it and demand the abolition of that which they neither understand nor respect.

This is the nature of bigotry and intolerance. 

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