• The Psychological Consequences of Killing

    Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing

    I rise today to extend the discussion on the deleterious effects certain occupations have on our personal well-being.  Our first thoughts, naturally, turn to our emergency services such as our police, ambo’s, fire fighters, and the like. But what about the less ‘visual’ jobs, the less traditional jobs that, when we pause to think about, have very serious trauma attached to them. One such occupation that has, to my knowledge, never been considered seriously in this country, is that of the slaughterhouse worker.

    In the study In Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing Rachel MacNair gives rise to the term Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress (PITS). PITS, MacNair states is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However the distinction between the two is that PITS is caused not by being a victim or rescuer in trauma, but by being an active participant in causing trauma.

    Take the Martin Place siege for example, according to MacNair the survivors and witnesses would be sufferers of PTSD. The police, who stormed the Lindt café and killed Man Monis, on the other hand, would be sufferers of PITS.

    Sufferers of PITS, argues MacNair, is extended to slaughterhouse workers, where it is socially acceptable and in fact expected for them to cause trauma, including death. MacNair describes the symptoms of PITS as including drug and alcohol abuse, anxiety, depression, increased paranoia, a sense of disintegration, as well as dissociation or amnesia.

    This less publicly discussed or understood psychological trauma suffered by slaughterhouses workers is not accidental. In fact, one would say it iss intentional as society becomes increasingly distanced from the realities of modern day food production and the business of killing animals for food. A study conducted recently in the U.S found that 85% of the meat-eating participants stated that if they personally had to kill an animal to obtain meat, they would not be able to do it. However, they were happy to pay another person to perform the task of killing, thereby acknowledging the trauma associated with such an occupation placing the burden on the shoulders of the slaughterhouse worker.

    As Paul McCartney once said “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian”. The business of killing living, sentient beings on mass scale is a violent, bloody task. Not only do these slaughterhouse workers face serious physical health hazards daily, but they also experience large-scale violence and death that most of us will never have to, nor want to encounter.

    In our society, we have a common understanding that taking pleasure in the cruel death of a helpless animal is an antisocial and potentially psychotic characteristic. In fact, its widely know that offenders that commit acts of animal cruelty often use it as a stepping stone to cruelty inflicted upon humans. A most notorious example of this is in the case of Anita Cobby’s killers, who enjoyed committing atrocious acts of bestiality, torture and killing on sheep, goats and other animals.

    A research paper published in 2008 by Jennifer Dillard titled A Slaughterhouse Nightmare: Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees set a precedent by calling for legal redress for slaughterhouse workers due to psychological trauma. This trauma is directly caused by their daily experience of “large-scale violence and death” within an institutional culture that does little to reduce animal or human suffering.

    This is an interesting notion, if we think about the successful class action against James Hardie in relation to asbestos related suffering and deaths.  It’s not unreasonable to consider that just as soldiers fighting in wars suffer PTSD deserve acknowledgement, support and assistance, that slaughterhouse workers too should have this level of support. Will we see a class action brought forward against the wealthy corporations by those paid to commit violence on animals for PTSD, PITS, alcohol abuse or drug abuse?

    The social effects of slaughterhouses are harmful and far-reaching, and the legal regime and the general public must act to reduce those deleterious effects on society. It affects families, communities, and relationships. The strongest message we as citizens or consumers can send is that we do not want to participate in an industry that profits from suffering, pain and death. We owe it to the people and the animals caught up in the business of killing.

  • When will the Minister responsible for Animal Welfare understanding animal suffering?

    The Minister for Primary Industries clearly doesn’t have any concerns about the pain and suffering caused to introduced animals such as foxes and wild dogs when baited with 1080 poison. His ministerial responsibilities include the welfare of all animals, and that includes so called ‘pest’  animals. Instead of addressing the question about options for non-lethal and humane controls, Minister Blair decided to attack me for the hypocrisy of once eating fish and wearing leather and wool (not true).

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: During question time on 5 April the Minister stated support for the widespread use of 1080 poison to kill introduced animals such as wild dogs and foxes. Given that the welfare of all animals in New South Wales is his ministerial responsibility, irrespective of the category status imposed by humans, will the Minister advise whether his department has considered humane or non-lethal alternatives to 1080 baiting?

    If not, does the Minister accept the scientific evidence that so-called “pest” species are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and the ingestion of 1080 poison causes immense suffering to baited animals irrespective of which animals they are?

    The Hon. NIAL L BLAIR: I stand by the comments I made in relation to pest animals and 1080 poison. I know my department, along with other agencies, looks at alternatives to poisoning for some of these pest animals. For example, a good bullet in the head would be appropriate for a wild dog that attacked poor defenceless lambs or left some of the sheep they attacked with their guts hanging out and suffering. As I have said previously, 1080 is licensed for use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It is a Federal issue.

    The member should not think for one second that he can enter this Chamber and have me start feeling sorry for introduced species that inflict pain and suffering upon livestock and, importantly, to many native animals. Native animals, including birds, suffer attack by feral dogs, foxes and feral cats. I will not change my mind. The member is wasting parliamentary question time. The 1080 poison is registered for use. The producers and agencies must stay within the protocols of that registration. The agencies that make those decisions do not report to me. That is my answer.

    It is one thing to say that members should be concerned about animal welfare that is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, it is another matter to suggest that these introduced pest animals are in the same class. They inflict damage upon the economy and environment of this State. I am not going to apologise for one second for the fact that our agencies and farmers are using 1080 to eradicate those pests. The damage they do far outweighs any other consideration. My answer stands and I will not apologise for it. As long as those responsible for the control of the pest animals adhere to the requirements and protocols attached to the products I will help producers to gain access to 1080 poison that eliminates feral animals.

    I have stood with farmers while Local Land Services handed out chicken heads injected with 1080 for use on their properties to control foxes. I will accept criticism that I am not doing enough in this space and I will go back to the agencies and say, “Let’s do more”, but I will never say in this Chamber that we should do less. I do not accept the member’s hypocritical view. We joke in this place about media reports concerning the member, but he walks in here with leather on his feet, wool in his suit and fish in his belly and attempts to impose his ideology on us. The member has been caught out as a hypocrite. The question is hypocritical. The member should stand up for our native animals. If the member spent more time on that area I might take the question seriously.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate upon his answer as to what is the research that the department is doing into humane and non-lethal methods for “pest” control?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: As I have previously stated, the department looks at other methods for control of these animals, including a bullet in the head or chest of some of the feral animals.

  • MEDIA STATEMENT

    I wanted to personally apologise to all my supporters who may have read media reports about an error of judgement with my eating habits. As a long term animal rights campaigner I am fully aware of the impact of a person’s diet on the suffering of others. I remain committed to moving swiftly towards an essentially plant based diet. I am now fully committed to not eating any animal product where sourcing could have involved harm. As an MP for the Animal Justice Party I understand the spotlight that is on all my actions and that I am held accountable in the role to everyone in the animal rights movement.

    For almost 25 years I have worked on animal rights issues. I have been in the frontline for change many times. I have witnessed many atrocities and have never hesitated to take a stand for making the lives of non-human animals better. Over those years, with others but often leading the campaign, I have achieved a ban on chaining sows and phasing out sow stalls in piggeries, banning of kangaroo meat exports to Russia, phasing out of mulesing and use of analgesia in the wool industry and stopping live export ships from entering ports and been apart of many great movements which have saved the lives of thousands of animals.

    It is a privilege to represent the AJP in NSW parliament and I will continue to be the sole voice for animals in an arena that holds little regard for our animal friends. In the coming weeks alone I have my first Bill to protect confined animals from burning and suffocating in disasters as well as mandatory CCTV cameras in slaughter houses and an inquiry into the prescribed investigation agencies of the legislation protecting animals as priorities. I want to thank everyone who has backed me and please know that nothing will detract from my dedication for change.

    mark-pearson-end-live-export-rally-2015-2

    mark-digital-signature-1

  • Notice of Motion-Dolphin Swim Australia

    DOLPHIN SWIM AUSTRALIA

    Accordingly, I move:

    (1) That this House commends Dolphin Swim Australia for being the first permitted wild dolphin swim in New South Wales and the first swim system of its kind worldwide.

    (2) That this House notes that Dolphin Swim Australia:

    (a) was given a permit to operate a wild dolphin swim encounter in the offshore waters of Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park in January 2010 and is now in its seventh season;

    (b) was subject to an independently monitored and Government-approved research program initially conducted over three years by cetacean expert, Dr Carol Scarpaci, of Victoria University, New Zealand;

    (c) conducts the operation whereby dolphins lead the way and can choose to interact or not without disruption to travelling or behavioural patterns;

    (d) utilises specific “approach patterns” to dolphins, ensuring there is no separation of the pod or disruption during feeding or resting; and

    (e) ensures dolphins are not habituated to the swimming activities.

    Motion agreed to.

  • Adjournment Speech-The concept of Wild Law

    WILD LAW

    Wild law, also known as Earth jurisprudence, extends the Western understanding of governance which focuses solely on human interests to include the concept of governing for the benefit of the whole Earth and its inhabitants. Wild law is Earth-centric rather than anthropocentric. Animals, plants, waterways and ecosystems have intrinsic rights to exist and flourish.

    New Zealand, Bolivia and India are leading the way in formulating wild law that protects the right of natural systems in perpetuity.

    Wild law is based on humankind’s most primeval understanding that we share our environment with all living beings, giving and taking in balance. The ancient lore of the Aboriginal peoples ensured that more than 1,000 generations thrived on this island continent without degrading natural ecosystems. However, within 250 years of European colonisation our environment has become severely damaged. Many plants and animals are at the brink of extinction, forests and grasslands are depleted, waterways have been poisoned and our reefs and mangroves are dying. Animal agriculture has polluted our groundwater, eroded our precious soils and destroyed vast tracts of native habitat.

    The Western view of the environment sees an expendable resource for profit and pillage. For the sake of future generations, government must incorporate wild law into our regulatory framework.

    How do we go about enshrining Earth jurisprudence into our laws?

    The modern originator of wild law, academic lawyer, Cormac Cullinan, in his “A Manifesto for Earth Justice” proposed that ecosystems be given legal personhood with enforceable legal rights. There is precedence for giving non-humans legal personhood, with corporations being given legal rights to promote commerce and trade. If corporate personhood is required for healthy economies, then why not legal personhood for the protection of natural systems that ensure the very survival of the planet? Wild law is in the early stages of evolution as modern legal doctrine. The framework is little more than a philosophical basis for developing legislation, policies and environmental protection, but there are encouraging recent developments.

    Australia was once a progressive nation. We were at the forefront of the growth of international human rights and the establishment of the United Nations. In the development of wild law, we are nowhere to be seen.

    Bolivia is world leader in wild law, drawing upon their indigenous concept of Pachamama, which means Mother Earth, in the adoption of their 2009 constitution:

    Pachamama is a living dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings.

    The Bolivian Constitution gives natural systems the right to live, biodiversity, clean water and air. In a landmark agreement between the New Zealand Government and the Iwi people, the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood. The river and tributaries become a single entity—Te Awa Tupua—with legal rights and interests overseen by guardians, including an Iwi elder. Following on from the New Zealand agreement, the High Court in India granted legal personhood to the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers, appointing three State officials as guardians. The judges wrote, “Ganga and Yamuna provide spiritual and physical sustenance.”

    Wild law is the modern practice of an ancient knowledge that seeks to prevent us from wreaking our own destruction.

    Will we act in time?

    Our survival depends upon it.

Page 1 of 1912345...10...Last »