The Stupidity of the Ban Mentality

Overnight we again saw distressing scenes of animal cruelty on our television. This time it was truly horrific scenes of barbarity towards sheep which ended up in Pakistan after being diverted from Bahrain which  There is nothing pleasant about the way the animals were treated. Nobody could in any way excuse or justify the treatment of the Australian livestock by Pakistani officials. Of course the sheep were bound to be killed either way, but the reasons given and methods deployed were at the same time dubious, ugly, abhorrent and disgusting.

Predictably of course, the live export ban lobby have again found fuel for the fire that they want to build in order to see the entire industry destroyed. The extra oxygen is again fanning the flames and the advocacy groups involved will not stop until the industry has been reduced to smouldering ashes.

But is this a reasonable move? Is this something that should logically occur as a response to this incident? To any given incident which makes people question the trade?

The reality is that the reaction, as far as continued calls for a complete and permanent cessation of live exports, is a woeful overreaction with little or no understanding of the real world of policy-making. The repeated calls also lack reason.

Thankfully, this time, Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig and the Labor Government actually made a rational and reasonable decision. This time there was not and there will not be a knee-jerk reaction from an out-of-touch government pandering to the chosen few because they feel slightly uncomfortable about the headlines live exports have generated.

That seems to be the new test. The ‘discomfort test’, it would appear, is the new threshold for banning a whole industry in response to what are undoubtedly horrific scenes.

Back in the real world, we realise that isolated incidents do not make a bad industry. We realise that while there have now been a few documented incidents and disturbing ones at that, that those occasions do not represent the industry as a whole.

Let’s think about the proposition for a minute. The proposition that says banning a whole industry is a smart and justified response to limited wrongdoing across a specific industry.

Imagine if we followed this suggestion through to its logical conclusion. Any industry where there is any hint of wrongdoing, no matter how limited, where there are examples of events of an illegal, abhorrent or unpopular nature should be cut down and eliminated.

Not quite so sensible an idea now is it? How many industries would be left if this was the case? Probably none.

We would be stupid, indeed naive to believe that any amount of regulation, any number of checks and balances could eliminate all inappropriate behaviour in any industry. However, banning something in response to reprehensible actions is not the answer.

Some in the ban live exports camp will say we could replace the live expert trade with the slaughter and preparation of livestock in Australian abattoirs and some of course do not want us to be eating meat at all. Those advocating the latter should be ignored. They are well and truly in the minority and should not be trying to push their beliefs on the vast majority of people.

Those protesters pushing for the killing and preparation of livestock in Australia for export in place of sending live animals to overseas nations have a point, at least in theory.

We could create an extensive slaughter industry in the north of Australia. Jobs would be created and more money would be rolling in domestically from the livestock trade. Sounds good right?

The trouble is that in reality,  if we were to travel down that avenue, slaughtering and preparing all meat for export onshore, we would almost certainly strike a problem.

If we were pursue a policy like this we would almost undoubtedly experience a drop in demand for our product. Some countries would surely be more cautious about accepting our meat trade if we were responsible for the whole slaughter and preparation process.

Then there is the small matter of local slaughterhouses occasionally slipping up and making mistakes. Yes, there would be better oversight if meat-processing was located here but it would be a mistake to believe we could eradicate all issues.

All this seems like an unnecessary price to pay. Animal rights lobbyists should be advocating punishment for wrongdoing but not calling for a complete ban of the trade.

About Tom Bridge

A perennial student of politics, providing commentary for money and for free. Email me at tbridgey@gmail.com or contact me on 0435 035 095 for engagements.

Posted on November 6, 2012, in Federal Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. This appears to be an exception rather than the rule, and ‘anthrax’ as an excuse for the slaughter is preposterous given that this disease in non-existent in Australia. The Animal Rights/Green yoyo’s woud get more credibility from a measured response rather than the usual ‘hyperventilating of the indignant’ behaviour.
    I would however, suggest that Labor replace Ludwig as the Minister. The guy is obviously inept and solely propped up by his antecedents in the position. Get someone with a bit of gravitas for God’s sake!

  2. A suspect a quiet word would be an understatement. More like a demand — or else!

  3. Certain countries want to import live animals. Australia is satisfying that demand. If we ban live exports, the countries importing it will seek alternatives. Animal welfare is not changed and Australia’s economy suffers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: