Zed appalled the Greens don't share his Parkwood outrage

Nifty said :

Will “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” become the anthem of the Greens Party and their even more extreme fellow-travellers?

After all, Hitler was a vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism) and his party put animal welfare ahead of the welfare of humans.

Hitler was a vegetarian.
Hitler was a Nazi.
Therefore, vegetarians are Nazis.

What infallible logic.

Will “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” become the anthem of the Greens Party and their even more extreme fellow-travellers?

After all, Hitler was a vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism) and his party put animal welfare ahead of the welfare of humans.

Jim Jones said :

And yes, the local government should definitely ban cage eggs in the ACT (anyone know why this hasn’t happened yet?).

Interesting to note that this ‘insane terrorist’ action will probably hasten this occurring by raising it as a public issue in the media.

Neither Labor or Liberal would support the Greens when they tried to ban caged hens.
http://act.greens.org.au/content/greens’-egg-laws-help-canberra-go-free-range

Jim Jones said :

And yes, the local government should definitely ban cage eggs in the ACT (anyone know why this hasn’t happened yet?).
.

Quoting from the post: “The Greens remain proud of multiple attempts to legislate the phasing out cage egg production in the ACT, something that Mr Seselja has voted against”

My understanding is that the Greens have tried numerous times to ban cage eggs, but both Stanhope and Zed have refused to support.

Erg0 said :

c_c said :

Of course Mr Rattenbury hasn’t spoken out about this or the Greenpeace attack on the CSIRO.

Mr Rattenbury himself is a member of Greenpeace for starters. His wife is a member of and employee of Greenpeace.

…and you don’t see a problem with this?

Pointing out that a sitting MLA is a member of an organisation that condones criminal action seems like a little more than “a pointless exercise in cheap mud slinging”.

Attacking an MLA who’s a member of that organisation is cheap mud slinging because it’s like accusing Bob Brown of being in the wrong for not speaking out against the protestors who blockaded Tassie Parliament over the Gunns Pulp Mill site. Brown blockaded the Franklin Dam and was arrested for it back in the day.

The point was it’s like asking a question you already know the answer to for the mere sake of saying the question out loud.

And as I said, I’d much prefer Rattenbury who believes in something, even if I don’t concur with that choice, to Zed who seems to believe in nothing.

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

Yeah, that Oscar Schindler had no excuse for smuggling Jews to Sweden.

Godwin?

Although it does make the point that absolute statements rarely hold up for very long

Erg0 said :

c_c said :

Of course Mr Rattenbury hasn’t spoken out about this or the Greenpeace attack on the CSIRO.

Mr Rattenbury himself is a member of Greenpeace for starters. His wife is a member of and employee of Greenpeace.

…and you don’t see a problem with this?

Pointing out that a sitting MLA is a member of an organisation that condones criminal action seems like a little more than “a pointless exercise in cheap mud slinging”.

Ooooh … excuse me while I clutch my pearls. Pass me the smelling salts before I suffer an attack of the vapours.

Come on dude – it’s Greenpeace, not Baader Meinhof.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

We may not agree on the definition of what is an excusable example of breaking the law, but there are countless historical examples that give the lie to your statement.

Note I said our society. If we lived in a society where there weren’t other outlets for change then I might think differently.

EvanJames said :

chewy14 said :

OK so if it’s not illegal, then it’s not defined as animal cruelty then is it?

And I think I’d prefer to stick with the legal definition rather than what animal activists think if that’s OK with you.

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

It scares me that people who reason in this way are allowed to breed, drive and vote.

What?
Because I believe in the rule of law?
Or because I think that what YOU believe might not be the same as what the rest of our society does?

What scares me is that people like you are willing to rationalise criminal behaviour because you agree with the criminal’s morals. And that you see no problem with your dissonance.

c_c said :

Of course Mr Rattenbury hasn’t spoken out about this or the Greenpeace attack on the CSIRO.

Mr Rattenbury himself is a member of Greenpeace for starters. His wife is a member of and employee of Greenpeace.

…and you don’t see a problem with this?

Pointing out that a sitting MLA is a member of an organisation that condones criminal action seems like a little more than “a pointless exercise in cheap mud slinging”.

Jim Jones said :

And yes, the local government should definitely ban cage eggs in the ACT (anyone know why this hasn’t happened yet?).

Interesting to note that this ‘insane terrorist’ action will probably hasten this occurring by raising it as a public issue in the media.

This government has had ten years to act. They haven’t. In fact even now they haven’t said a peep.

That’s a telling indictment on how it feels about the issue.

Aren’t the greens gonna get a motion up now or something? Thought I heard something on the wireless this morning. Be interesting to see Labor’s response (no points for guessing which way the Libs will go).

chewy14 said :

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

Yeah, that Oscar Schindler had no excuse for smuggling Jews to Sweden.

Of course Mr Rattenbury hasn’t spoken out about this or the Greenpeace attack on the CSIRO.

Mr Rattenbury himself is a member of Greenpeace for starters. His wife is a member of and employee of Greenpeace.

Zed would know this as well as I do. So it a pointless exercise in cheap mud slinging.

Mr Rattenbury and his fellow Greens aren’t going to attack organisations they support.

I think a better question to ask is why Zed seems so devoid to community involvement.

Mr Rattenbury and his colleagues are involved in numerous social, spotting, heritage and environmental organisations locally. At least on the surface it looks like they have diverse involvement in the community.

Zed on the other hand has a single footy club membership to his name and some charitable support for his former Private School.
I may not agree with Mr Rattenbury and his colleagues choices in who they support and what they do, but I’ll take that anyway over someone who seems to stand for nothing and do nothing.

chewy14 said :

OK so if it’s not illegal, then it’s not defined as animal cruelty then is it?

And I think I’d prefer to stick with the legal definition rather than what animal activists think if that’s OK with you.

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

It scares me that people who reason in this way are allowed to breed, drive and vote.

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

Zed Seselja has refused to condemn or even comment on the treatment of battery hens.

Of course, Katy and the Greens are actually in a position to stop battery hen farming.

Just a thought.

And a good one it is………if there is anything wrong, and anyone is to blame it is the coalition government of the day.

I think they are too busy finding ways to make me subsidise other peoples green agenda.

+1!

If there had been an attack of this nature on any other business then there would have been outrage from the Guvmint and the Greens. Katy aint going voice any concern when she may offend the green sensibility.

If you dont like Pace Farms and you believe what they are doing is illegal then use the law to close them down and/or run a campaign to have the general public boycott them and put them out of business that way. If a vegan/vegetarian food business was targetted in this manner there would be a huge outcry. This is terrorism and I believe we should be above that.

And dont go all bleeding heart on me about the chooks.

And yes, the local government should definitely ban cage eggs in the ACT (anyone know why this hasn’t happened yet?).

Interesting to note that this ‘insane terrorist’ action will probably hasten this occurring by raising it as a public issue in the media.

chewy14 said :

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

We may not agree on the definition of what is an excusable example of breaking the law, but there are countless historical examples that give the lie to your statement.

Jim Jones said :

Zed Seselja has refused to condemn or even comment on the treatment of battery hens.

Of course, Katy and the Greens are actually in a position to stop battery hen farming.

Just a thought.

And a good one it is………if there is anything wrong, and anyone is to blame it is the coalition government of the day.

I think they are too busy finding ways to make me subsidise other peoples green agenda.

EvanJames said :

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

I thought animal cruelty was illegal? Surely you should go to the authorities if you have evidence that they’re engaging in such practices.

You think that intensive farming, of chickens, pigs, feedlot cattle, dairy cows, doesn’t involve significant cruelty? Farming is at present exempt from a lot of the cruelty provisions. If you had a pet chicken and kept it in a cage with no solid floor where it could not turn around, in a dark shed, and clipped its beak off, you’d liable for cruelty prosecution.

Call yourself an egg farm, and it’s legal.

OK so if it’s not illegal, then it’s not defined as animal cruelty then is it?

And I think I’d prefer to stick with the legal definition rather than what animal activists think if that’s OK with you.

Breaking the law in our society because you personally don’t like something is never excusable.

Mysteryman said :

Chop71 said :

Jim Jones said :

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

Oh come on Jim Jones … that does not condone criminal behaviour

Agreed.

That’s not condoning – it’s contexualising.

And, let’s be frank here – if a ‘sensitive new age business’ had been vandalised, do you honestly think any political leaders would be approached for comment?

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

I thought animal cruelty was illegal? Surely you should go to the authorities if you have evidence that they’re engaging in such practices.

You think that intensive farming, of chickens, pigs, feedlot cattle, dairy cows, doesn’t involve significant cruelty? Farming is at present exempt from a lot of the cruelty provisions. If you had a pet chicken and kept it in a cage with no solid floor where it could not turn around, in a dark shed, and clipped its beak off, you’d liable for cruelty prosecution.

Call yourself an egg farm, and it’s legal.

Jim Jones said :

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

I thought animal cruelty was illegal? Surely you should go to the authorities if you have evidence that they’re engaging in such practices.

I don’t really need to hear a lot of po-faced politicians reading out cliche-riddled statements condemning things. Zed wants more of it? What a waste of time.

I want to hear what they really think. I like the Greens’ statement, it sounded like what someone really thought.

Chop71 said :

Jim Jones said :

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

Oh come on Jim Jones … that does not condone criminal behaviour

Agreed.

Jim Jones said :

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

Oh come on Jim Jones … that does not condone criminal behaviour

JessP said :

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Does this sensitive new age business routinely engage in animal cruelty as part of its standard operating procedure?

So if a sensitive new age business had been vandalised with thousands of dollars damage, would the Chief Minister and Greens also have remained silent?

Zed Seselja has refused to condemn or even comment on the treatment of battery hens.