A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

End the live export trade

The images coming out of Egypt of Australian cattle being tortured by some* dehumanised cretins  demand that the live export of animals for food to that country  end.  Why is it Animals Australia that always uncovers these hideous outcomes? Why not the official inspection agencies? How can anyone have confidence in Minister Ludwig’s claim that 99.9% of animals are humanely slaughtered?

End the live export trade now.

* Other workers (and a veterinarian) were so appalled by the behaviour that they enabled the footage to be taken and smuggled it out of the abattoir.

3 comments to End the live export trade

  • rog

    I’ve seen similar in Australian abattoirs particularly when bush cattle are brought up into the confined spaces approaching the killing box. Some of the workers were unstable and lashed out, the cattle presented a threat.

  • Sir Henry Casingbroke

    Bit of perverse logic here: as with Indoensia and so with Egypt, by maintaining live export and then – inevitably – their appalling practices come to light in Australia, then there is some hope of remedying the situation over there because public outrage here has been undoubtedly effective in moderating the situation in abbatoirs in Indonesia. This is due to dsomestic political pressure to do something about it government to government. It works.

    This creates some measure of control and introduction of humane practice in the destination countries.

    By taking our bat and going home nothing will be achived and livestock will continue to be mistreated once it is sourced from places less squeamish or less informed than us.

    I mean it could be Canada, where they bash seals with baseball bats, or South America, where they are more desperate for export dollars.

  • hc

    Sir Henry, I have seen several groups endorse this line. I am uncomfortable with it though I see some logic. Australia is a preferred supplier in these markets – that is why it sells to them. Hence it must be costly not to get Australian “supplies”. Substituting alternatives may not cost the destination country a lot but it must cost something. Withdrawing supplies costs Australians money so, as a protest it is credible – it says we really dislike your moral standards and induces “embarrassment costs” in the countries that abuse animals.

    In fact despite a lot of noise its not the Australian authorities who have detected these barbaric practises but Animals Australia and vets-cum-workers who are appalled by what they see in their home country. I think withdrawing supply is the only reasonable response to such disclosures.

Leave a Reply