…And the winner for “Best Subject Heading for a Government Media Release” goes to the Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet for this contribution:
In other news I saw some great graffiti again today:
Follow closely by
Which was just down the road and written in the same paint amongst a series of mechanics.
In other news: this is my 50th post.
You see, I’m a collectivist. This is why I have a problem with the animal rights movement.
The animal rights movement puts a value on the individual rights of an animal. These rights and the reason for these rights vary but the conclusion is always the same.
This does a few things. Firstly it means that a species has no rights – this is by far the biggest problem as it respects the rights of a ferrel cat over the rights of an endangered native bird. (And no, it’s not the cat’s fault that it is there and just doing what it does but I just don’t care!)
Secondly it is just an absurd notion as the rights or livelihood of animals ignores their interconnection with the ecosystem and forgets that humans are animals too and part of this ecosystem.
Thirdly it is anthropocentric. The animals that have rights (as most animal rights people are quite species specific), have rights because of their similarities to humans. It revolves around ideas of sentience and suffering and therefore ignores the rights of “lesser animals” (zoo plankton is important too you know).
And finally surely the rights of plants are valid as well. Why is this really abstract line drawn at animals – and certain animals at that?
No, we shouldn’t be cruel to animals. However, biodiversity is what is important and what should have the greatest value attributed to it. Yes our farming methods and overuse of meat not to mention an immoral meat industry are biodiversity issues. But most of the animal rights movement are not motivated by biodiversity. This is why they are called the Animal Rights movement.
By all accounts the following email I received is true. And even if it isn’t I still reckon it is a great speech – makes me proud to be a public school boy my self:
This speech was given by Victorian crime writer (and outspoken public education activist) Shane Maloney to an assembly of boys at Scotch College. He had been invited to conduct some workshops on writing (which he did) and then to speak to the larger gathering (he was given no guidance on what to speak on).
Address to Scotch College
Shane Maloney
When I first received an enquiry about my availability to come and talk at this school, I was naturally reluctant. After all, this School has little to recommend it in the eyes of the wider community. Historically it has been simply a machine for the transmission of inherited privilege. (At the height of the Great Depression, for example, when many Australian families hardly knew where their next meal was coming from, Scotch College was the largest private school in the British Empire).
It is a place where boys from middle class backgrounds are sent to improve their material prospects and to reproduce the values of their class, or where the boys of insecure parents are sent to fulfil the distorted ambitions of their fathers.
When I think of Scotch College, what comes immediately to mind are the values and actions of its most prominent Old Boys. I think of the scene I saw on television after Scotch Old Boy Jeff Kennett used his power and his philosophy to close down the only high school in the state specifically dedicated to the education of young Aboriginal people. How students from that school came here and stood at the gates and how your Principal went out and told them to go away. I think of your old boy, David Kemp, the federal education minister, giving millions of dollars of public money to enhance the marketability of schools like this one justifying his actions with statistics and arguments that he refuses to apply to the needs of the 70% of Australian families who CHOOSE to educate their children in the democratic and equitable environment of government schools.
I think, too, of the newspaper reports of the violent behaviour of some of your students and the quick readiness with which these boys were defended and excused in the courts by their adult class allies.
For these reasons, I was initially reluctant to come here. On the other hand, I thought ‘Well, all this is hardly the fault of the current crop of students’.
It is not your fault, after all, that your families decided to institutionalise you. It is not your fault that your mothers and fathers elected to place you in the emotionally distorting and educationally deficient environment of an all boys school. It is not your fault that your parents lacked sufficient confidence in your personal maturity and ability to respond to the opportunities offered by government school education, and Australia has one of the best systems in the world, by the way, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary by the vested interest of the private school lobby. Right now, you are the victims.
Later, of course, society will be your victim, and will suffer from the attitudes with which you are indoctrinated here.
But who knows? Just as prison does not always break the spirit of all who are incarcerated there, perhaps you will not turn out to be a burden to society.
Perhaps when you leave here, some of you will even manage to contribute to the wellbeing of this country. I certainly hope so.
But just to hedge my bets, I will be donating part of my fee today to the campaign for public education.
Good luck with your studies and thanks for having me.
I was in a class last night and someone commented – with approval from the rest of the class – that majority world countries have other more pressing things to worry about than the environment and that we in Australia are quite lucky that we have the luxury to concern ourselves with such things.
This didn’t sit easily with me and I couldn’t think of how to rebut it in a manner that I was comfortable with at the time.
What issue could be more pressing!!! So what stopped me from commenting? I think it had to do with economic development. Needless to say this didn’t sit well with me either.
This issue encompasses so many interlinking issues. We need to develop these country’s industries so over looking environmental regulations helps these companies to improve productivity and profitability. But who benefits from this? It creates jobs but in most places these jobs are highly exploitative. It is also those that suffer this exploitation at work that suffer the environmental degradation as toxins certainly won’t be pumped back into upper class areas. And the emphasis on this unbridled corporate activity presumes a trickle down effect which is a crock of shit anyway and in addition my guess would be that these companies are foreign owned anyway which means that they have the economic means to prevent this pollution, provide jobs at a reasonable wage and are already exploiting the locals which probably has a lot to do with their poor living standards anyway (certainly indirectly and probably directly as well).
Was the woman who made this comment thinking that the energies of the leaders of majority world countries simply did not have time to consider these issues? This assumes that these leaders are actually concerned about the welfare of their people when, by and large, these people are only really concerned about the wellbeing of their hip pockets.
I think I was just lost for an entry point into the debate last night which is why I keep my mouth shut. I was impressed with one bright young lad who pointed to the importance of the involvement of the local communities when addressing these issues. I’ve a feeling the local communities by and large wouldn’t be overly impressed with the corporations and would like a river that they can swim in without getting sick or having deformed babies.
I recently attended a talk given by Peter Singer on his latest book ‘How Ethical Is Australia. A great talk and it was fascinating being on the other side of the picket line as I was heckled by Right-to-life protesters on my way in to the lecture.
The lecture and book were organised by The Australia Collaboration. This organisation consists of people from:
ATSIC were members and they are now on the lookout for an organisation that can fill the indigenous ‘hole’ left by the dismantling of ATSIC.
Singer was introduced by David Yencken whose speech was pretty much ‘look at all the wonderful people I know’.
As I was listening to this my thoughts went from ‘great, a collaboration of all these wonderful organisations, they’ll really be able to tackle society wide issues and acknowledge all the interconnectivity’ to ‘what a bunch of elitist tripe.’
I’m in two minds about this group. However I suppose it doesn’t really matter what I think as they are fairly inactive and are putting out what would seem to be a high quality series – The Public Interest Series – however we’ve only seen the first book so we will have to wait and see.
