ANIMAL ACTIVIST RAYE REJECTS 'HATE' CHARGE BY HUNTER: WHAT THE LEADER DIDN'T PUBLISH

Oh how self-righteously they bleat their feigned agonies to the media...

On April 30 2013 a journalist from the St George and Southerland Shire’s “Leader” newspaper contacted me via email. The email invited me to respond to allegations brought against me by animal welfare activist Sylvia Raye. Her complaints pertain to statements made about her lobbying activities, which I criticise in my blog post The Doctrine of hate. The journalist invited me to respond to the following questions: 

• Ms Raye feels she was unfairly targeted in the post [The Doctrine of hate] and questions why there is so much hate directed to her - do you think she was unfairly targeted?

• She has received intimidating emails since this post went live - do you think by naming her you have incited harassment towards her?
   
• Do you think by linking terrorist attacks with someone's right to express an opinion you are vilifying Ms Raye?

Of course given the spurious nature of the allegations I was happy to respond, despite being given only a 12 hour window of opportunity in which to do so.

The Leader has published Ms Raye’s complaint today. It also published excerpts from my response. Given that my response was edited so strategically, I thought it only fair that I should publish it here, just as it was submitted to The Leader (see below).

Note that noting I have written on the topic of Ms Raye’s activities, either in my response nor in my original blog post, seeks to deny Ms Raye's right to freedom of speech or her right to lobby conscientiously for a cause she feels is just. My criticisms lay only in my concern for her use and promotion of dehumanising hate speech as a tool for achieving her goals

For the record, I do not condone retaliation with hate-mail as a response to her activities. We must be above such childish and socially irresponsible activities, which can only serve to damage our reputation as responsible citizens, and our cause as conservators of the ancient art of hunting and its associated skills and practices.

And now, for your information, my response to The Leader, uncut:

Ms Connolly,

Miss Raye has extensively promoted a poster via social media and other activities, depicting a hunter - Mr Robert Borsak - referring to him as "this sub human”. This version of the poster was not posted on the Hunters Stand because I refuse to promote culturally vilifying literature with the gay abandon demonstrated by Ms Raye. 

"Sub human" was the epithet applied to the Jews by the Nazi Party to promote their demonization and to mitigate responsibility and guilt for their slaughter. It is a term used today by the Ku Klux Klan to justify persecution and cultural hate activities perpetrated against African Americans and Jews.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to demonise or vilify a cultural group, and many hunters identify themselves as people preserving skills and practices as part of their cultural heritage.

As a man who grew up in The Shire, I am proud of the hunting heritage passed down to me by my grandfather and father, both also long term and socially responsible, contributing residents of The Shire. 

Ms Raye names herself and promotes her causes and philosophies broadly and inclusively via social media.  In the case of the poster she disseminates, she identifies herself proudly and asks that others pass on her message of intolerance and hatred by promoting the “sub human” poster. One respondent claims 10,000 shares. 

I recently contacted Ms Raye via facebook, requesting that she amend a lie that she posted on a National TV celebrity's facebook page, in which she accused Mr Robert Borsak of "giving the crowd the finger" at a recent No Hunting in National Parks rally in Sydney. At the time of the demonstration, Mr Borsak was hundreds of miles from the Parliament House balcony that Ms Raye claims he gave the crowd the finger from.

She did not respond to my request and I did not pursue the matter.

I refute that I have ever associated Ms Raye or her activities with acts of terrorism. I have, however, pointed out that when people peddle messages of hatred in a manner that dehumanises their target, such messages have the potential to insight irrational and often extremely violent acts in response, the inspiration for which they are quick to deny all responsibility for.

I note that among the many aspirations for violent reprisal registered in association with the poster Ms Raye promotes on her facebook page, the following is included: “Actually I think I'd rather shoot him [Borsak] in the spine and leave him suffer.” Ms Raye responds, "What a good idea." (see attached) and makes no attempt whatsoever to moderate other similarly violent statements.

It strikes me, after reading something of Ms Raye's activities in the animal welfare sphere, that she is very happy to vilify people whose philosophies she objects to, while claiming that she is the injured party should anyone dare to challenge her right to use social media to openly vilify.

A recent review of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 found in favour of wide interpretation of 'discrimination', such that it may be wise for Ms Raye to consider the implications of her use of dehumanising and vilifying terminology in pursuit of her goals.

Garry Mallard OAM

I'll get outa ya way now.....and as always, feel free to leave your comments below.