Devine Right to Eat Animals

It's hard to express how confounded I became reading this article by Miranda Devine. I know it's from last week - I only stumbled across it today. I only read Devine when I feel like being irritated - and today I really got my wish. There are so many confusing aspects, things to be surprised at, shocked even. But the most unsurprising aspect of course, is that Miranda Devine is a dullard. There's no other conclusion to draw. 

Of course, I'm sure you all had concluded this some time ago, probably when she insinuated lesbian parents caused the London riots. It's just that sometimes, a person's level of idiocy defies even your low expectations of them as a functioning human being.

It's air. You need it to breathe Miranda. Suck it in and blow it out. There's a clever dear. 

If I were a meat eater, and passionate about my right to eat meat, I might choose to use less idiotic justifications than "well plants have feelings too!" (sticks out tongue and puts hands on hips). I mean, really. That's what you're going with?

The point of the article (if there is one) seems to be to rebut High Court Judge Michael Kirby's statements about animals as sentient beings. She seems a little put out by his suggestion that humans can empathise; "In other words, those of us who eat meat do not have sufficient empathy. Thanks, your worship."

Jumping on the defensive, jumping to conclusions, and being patronising - she really has earned her stripes as a News Limited columnist.

She goes on to say that most people feel sadness in relation to animal deaths. Quite true. - If that death is happening in front of you. But if it happened in a remote factory with high fences, and the delicious suckling pig on the plate in front of you bore no resemblance to the sweet little thing who had its throat slit so you could pay $120 to have it served to you in three different ways ... Probably not.

The idea that farmers "more than most" empathise with their animals is laughable. I grew up on a farm. Farmers are made of hard stuff - I suppose because they have to be. It would be a rare farmer who shed a tear at every head of cattle sent to slaughter - and one that would likely need to be institutionalised at suffering so very much empathy - considering the amount of animals killed in modern-day factory farming. But of course as a self-proclaimed product of the uber-urban lifestyle, Devine would probably know best about such matters. 

Let's see, what else does she have to say? Oh yes, she mentions Jonathan Safran Foer's "new" book, Eating Animals. That would be the book he released in 2009 - which she should have known seeing as she clearly checked the Wikipedia page (having nabbed a Natalie Portman quote from it). 

Then there's the old poor-people-don't-have-the-luxury-of-choosing-not-to-eat-meat argument. Some poor people don't have the luxury of choosing to use a toilet, or to change their clothes - so we fat, rich, elites in the developed world probably shouldn't do those things either. Devine seems a little jealous of their 'get out of jail free' inability to source sustainable food that is not meat. Perhaps she should move to a Sudanese village where she can enjoy all the goat stew her heart desires without that nagging 'empathy' she feels so very deeply. 

"Moral vanity"! "sentimental meat phobia"! Strong made-up language there, but hold on to your hats people - us dirty hippy vegos are trying to destroy the ready availability of protein!!! Is nothing SACRED? Will no one think of the CHILDREN? We have a tax on carbon and now THIS?! 

Devine uses professor of agriculture, Dr Greg Hertzler, to bang out the everything-you-eat-harms-a-living-creature argument. Okay, so instead of endeavouring to be aware of where our food comes from and to not harm living creatures in sustaining ourselves, we should just kill all of them because some of them are going to die anyway! I mean, if the mice are being killed in the bread factory - we might as well kill ALL mice! And if we're going to kill all mice, we might as well kill ALL animals! And if we're going to go that far, we might as well kill ALL LIVING THINGS!! Including EACH OTHER!! Mwahahahahah!

Wow, sorry, I got carried away there - but as Good Christians love to say; it's a slippery slope. 

Then there's the poem. The poem that Devine seems to be using to prove her point, but that actually disproves at least one of them; That farmers feel empathy and acknowledge the suffering of their animals. In fact, the premise of the poem is that after a while, when animals are murdered on the farm, the narrator 'just shrugs' - such has he become desensitised to the act.

Proof that Devine hasn't understood the poem, or the topic, or anything really, is in her final line; "The point is, we all feel bad about killing animals. But in the end we have to eat." Well, no actually, that is not the point at all. In fact, that statement is completely wrong, (a) because no, not all people feel bad about killing animals, and (b) the need to eat does not relate to animals being killed. At least, not for us privileged folk in the first world - in fact, it is our privilege that should make us want to at least try to eat sustainably and to avoid inflicting pain on other creatures as much as we can.

Indeed Miranda, "living replaces false sentiments". - If we're only talking about your living, and the false sentiments are those that you feign in relation to having your food die for you. The fact is, I don't eat animals, or use animal products, or even eat factory-made bread for that matter - because I figure if I can live without having another animal feel pain because of me, why wouldn't I do that? Why wouldn't anyone do that?

The whole article is just a selfish, spoiled columnist justifying her selfish, spoiled food choices. And it bothers me. Can you tell?

You eat meat because you can, because you like the taste of it, because it's easy. Just say so. Don't write a whole fucking column of crap to make yourself feel better about it. You answer to no one but yourself ... oh yeah ... and me ... because of this interwebs thingy. Cool, ain't it? 

Negus Fail on Animal Cruelty

During Monday night's channel 10 news, George Negus told us what stories were coming up on his 6.30 program. He said he had a horrifying story of animal cruelty - perhaps worse than the recent Four Corners investigation into live cattle exports. You know the one? That amazing and detailed piece of long-form journalism from Sarah Ferguson that resulted in a massive outcry from the public and temporary live export ban.

I don't usually watch 6.30 with George Negus, but I stayed tuned to see the promised story as it's a topic close to my heart. In the intro to the program George mentioned the animal cruelty story and called it a 'special investigation'. He then mentioned at least two other stories that would be on the program that evening. 

The half hour program. 

At least two other stories. 

So, this 'expose', 'special investigation', 'bigger than Four Corners' story was so very important that it was sharing a half hour with commercial breaks, Bear Grylls, and David Beckham. 

The story was actually around four and a half minutes. Viewers were warned at the beginning that what they were about to see was very disturbing and may upset some people. 

Over the next few minutes was an 'investigation' into dog pelts from China being used in fur clothes exported to Australia. Verna Simpson from the Humane Society featured heavily. In fact, she was really the only person in the story besides the reporter, Natasha Exelbey. There was a very short section of video footage of dogs in dirty, cramped conditions, one being held by a man with a knife. What the man did with that knife we do not know because the screen went black and remained so for a moment while the dog yelped in pain. It wasn't actually clear that the dog was being skinned alive - something a simple voice over could have explained. Skinning animals alive is not uncommon - though strongly denied by fur farmers. The rest of the story was Simpson and Exelbey examining items of clothing and declaring that shock! horror! gasp! - some of the fur products right here in Australia are DOG fur, when they are clearly labelled otherwise. 

I have several issues with this story. First of all, if the producers really thought the story was so important they would have given it more than a few minutes. If they really wanted it to have an effect on viewers, they would have actually shown some of the confronting footage. 

Secondly, the footage used was from as far back as 2009, the investigations referred to as old as 2003. Third, even comparing a pissy little few minutes of badly cut footage to the amazing research journalism of Sarah Ferguson and the bravery of animal activist Lyn White is insulting, to say the least. 

And here's the thing that really annoyed me; It's only shocking because they are dogs. No mention of the fact that millions of foxes, raccoons, rabbits, wolves and other beautiful animals are tortured every day to produce products that are readily available in Australia. Oh hang on, there was mention of foxes and rabbits - when the women were discussing what the dog fur was mixed with in the 'dodgy' clothes; "rabbit or fox - which is perfectly legal". Because it's okay to torture and kill those animals. We don't usually have them as pets. We can't relate. They're foreign like those nasty foreigners killing the pretty doggies. 

There's a scene in the documentary film Earthlings that stuck with me for days after watching it. It was the image of two beautiful little raccoons in a very small cage, huddled, shivering, wide-eyed, frightened. Holding onto each other, they stared, almost mesmerised, at their third companion lying dead in the cage next to them - whom they had been forced to cannibalise.

Animals in fur farms are starved you see - because loose skin is easier to remove. Delightful isn't it?

Tuesday's story on 6.30 with George Negus might as well have been on Today Tonight it was so lacking in any journalistic credibility. It boiled down to "Look at this! Look at this! Your shoes are made from DOG! Not some lesser animal that we don't give a shit about!" It reeked of desperation to ride on the coat-tails of the amazing response from the public in the wake of the Four Corners story. 

And the thing is, the horrors of the fur trade are enough. Show any fur farm. I mean, if you're going to use two year old footage, why not show Australia that terrified little raccoon? Why not show Australia where their expensive jackets and shawls come from? Why not give some statistics on just how many animals are killed so that some bourgeois woman's skinny shoulders can be draped in an expensive corpse as she waltzes down Chapel Street like the ignorant moron she is? 

I never watch 6.30 with George Negus, and I won't do it again.

EDIT 06.10.11

Well that was a blatant lie because I watched the 'follow up' story last night. I just can't help myself can I?

It was the same crap - a few minutes of 'expert' opinion on whether or not the fur was dog. Negus said in the intro that they had received a 'huge' response from viewers after Monday's story. Might have dedicated some more time to it and reported the broader issues then.

Double fail. 

There's an online petition over here. By the look of the comments and tweets on the topic - people overseas seem to think the dogs are being tortured in Australia, by an Australian company, under the approval of the Australian government.

Triple fail.


Don't get me wrong - it's great that the issue is gaining a wider audience. It would be even better if a reputable reporter/program did a story on the fur trade in general and wasn't afraid to show it for what it is.