Mike Baird (Where have all the Micks gone?) Premier of New South Wales,
a man of virtue (moral excellence, goodness, and conformity) has felt
duty bound to ban greyhound racing in his fair State. This decision has
cruel consequences for people less fortunate than Mr Baird, people who
Mr Baird believes are in need of his supervision and guidance, he being
of superior virtue, people who, just like Mike Baird, need freedom to
achieve personal aspirations without external oppression, people who
have families to maintain, people who are not part of the mythical
"working families" of the middle class, The myth makers can afford
private school education for their children, and the latest model of
pretentious foreign motor vehicle, and budget for overseas tours every
two years. No, we're not talking about the ignorant, yet all knowing,
members of the magnificent middle class, who have ample stores of time,
money and egotism, to indulge in activism which impacts cruelly on less
fortunate people. Most of the people who race greyhounds have modest
incomes, love their dogs and race them as a hobby. Some live with their
families in modest dwellings, work a full day, and in their limited
spare time train their dogs from home. These people are realists. They
have mortgages to pay, children to rear. Racing greyhounds is a hobby
they can afford. Another group within the sport, are pensioners and
retirees. Again greyhound racing is a hobby they can afford. Then
there are the professional trainers and owners, dreamers and gamblers
who are the risk-takers in a pursuit they regard as an industry rather
than a sport. Any financial success they enjoy is short-lived, whether
from winning or betting, as the government taxation vacuum cleaner suck
ups its mandatory cash imposts from the winnings.
What about the dogs? After all it's the dogs Mike Baird is worried
about. This brings us to the animal loving RSPCA. Is it more
convincingly virtuous than Mike Baird? - after all he is a politician.
It claims that in the last 12 years, between 48,000 to 68,000
greyhounds have been killed, simply because they were uncompetitive (So
do we give up eating meat because we kill cattle, sheep and chickens?).
On this basis alone, the RSPCA claims greyhound racing should be banned.
It also claims that live-baiting continues in the sport. But does the
RSPCA come with clean hands? Apparently, it kills 12,500 animals year.
In response, greyhound refugee centres and other unwanted-pet centres
have sprung up recently, to reduce this institutionalised and government
subsidised slaughter. In the light of its public campaign to shut down
greyhound racing in Australia, the RSPCA appears comfortable with the
prospect of killing thousands of greyhounds, if necessary, to finalise
the closure of greyhound racing in New South Wales. A final solution,
indeed! The RSPCA over the last decade has changed from an organisation
that once cared for abandoned and injured animals into an aggressive,
activist organisation that not only wishes to close down greyhound
racing, but also, to close down: horse racing in all states of
Australia, cane farming in North Queensland, live cattle exports and to
control: dog and cat breeders, pet owners and their pets, farming in
general and abolish pet shops.
It is obvious Mike Baird and his Liberal Party (what a misnomer!) wish
to be the virtuous. But in siding with the RSPCA, as progressive animal
liberationists, they intervene uninvited into the lives and homes of
ordinary people, simply because they believe they are superior to
ordinary people, and know what is best for them.
As for the RSPCA, it is another vile activist front for underhand social engineering, carried out under a mantle of virtue.
Foot note: In Australia, it is estimated (the Australian Government
does not keep abortion statistics) 80,000 medically supervised abortions
are carried out every year.
See Miranda Devine's scathing attack on "authoritarian elitism" Why banning greyhound racing hurts us all
No comments:
Post a Comment