WHAT do the federal government’s proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, and their efforts to gag animal welfare agencies have in common?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
They’re both fine examples of using hyperbole and misdirection to justify the unjustifiable.
Look closely at the scripted explanations for these proposals and you’ll find weasel words in phrases like “American-
isation of the justice system”, “Extreme Green”, “radical fringe” and so on – catchphrases intended to belittle anyone who holds an opposing view, without addressing the real issues.
It’s an approach well-practised by politicians. But don’t let the smoke and mirrors distract from asking the important question: what happens if these proposals get accepted?
In the case of changes to the EPBC Act, it seems likely that many Australian citizens will lose the right to challenge a decision made by the government under the Act – no matter if the decision is wrong, harmful to the environment, or illegal.
The proposal to gag activism by animal welfare organisations could result in more cases of animal cruelty going unreported and unpunished. In several cases, until animal welfare groups exposed animal cruelty issues on mainstream media, no action was taken. So the argument that these matters should be left to government agencies has little merit. Had agencies addressed these issues when they were reported, animal welfare organisations would not have had to take these measures.
If these two proposals get approved, the ethical message from the federal government is clear – animal cruelty, destruction of the environment, and driving animals to extinction is OK as long as it is done in the name of making a profit.
S. Amesbury,
Tapitallee.