At 08:01 AM 8/1/2006 +0100, Dominic Burford wrote: ...
> http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=live_transport3&int=weekly_enews > > > > Donate to PETA to help stop these barbaric practices.
...
I watched the video in its entirety - but it didn't have my 'undivided attention' so maybe I missed some pieces.
There were some very cruel things going on there. I worked in a meat processing plant during my high school days, so I know a little about this process. Of course, here in the US we have regulations on how animals are to be slaughtered, so what happens in the video doesn't happen here (at least I've never seen it). In some ways what they were doing was dumb. There are much quicker and more efficient ways to slaughter the animals while being more humane at the same time.
But something puzzles me about what the video is trying to say/request. If I understand it correctly, PETA was trying to implicate Australia as the perpetrator of the cruelty to the animals in the video. Or at least that somehow Australia is the 'bad guy' here. But it appeared to me the slaughterhouse footage was in ME ports (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc). In other words, Australia ships the sheep and cows to ME countries. Then the last text of the video was either missing some words or just grammatically messed up. Basically the ending text is:
"Contrary to government claims, Australia has no influence over countries that lack animal welfare standards. Please, don't support the Australian wool and sheep industries until this barbaric trade stops."
So, does Australia claim it does have influence over other countries, but it doesn't? Or does the US government claim Australia has influence over other countries? Or is a word missing and they mean Australia is claiming they can't influence other countries, but they can?
In any event, I think targeting Australia is the wrong approach. For one, I doubt Australia can't really control the countries it ships too. I guess maybe they could say "We won't give you our livestock unless you kill them more humanely." But to really back up such a statement would probably be impractical (put Australia livestock inspectors in every ME slaughterhouse? Would ME countries accept such a thing?). Basically, if PETA has a problem with what they are doing in ME slaughterhouses, they should be targeting the ME slaughterhouses. And maybe if the ME countries export the wool / leather from these slaughtered animals, PETA could attempt to get people to boycott those countries. Is PETA doing that?
I saw some of the back and forth about PETA being a terrorist organization. For me, that's probably too strong an accusation at this time. But it does appear PETA has very close associations with violent groups and people. And, in general, a lot of the words and tactics of PETA certainly gives them an overtone of "terrorism" - e.g. saying things will be blown up, etc. If PETA would publicly condemn the various attacks made by the "lunatics", that would be one thing. But I don't believe they are "Al Quada" (sp?). Yet.
For me, I don't agree with their beliefs, and I don't like their tactics. So, there's no way I'll be donating anything to PETA anytime soon. But my advice is free - and I advise them to go directly to their source of grief in this video. Go to the ME countries and do their demonstrations, etc. That is probably the best way to get results and get in the news for that matter.
-Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
