Category Archives: Australia

And the gold logie goes to …


Do what you have to do

It’s happened again: an invocation to eat meat for the ‘national interest’. Only this time it’s Lee Lin Chin who is the face of the promotion. What a coup for Meat and Livestock Australia! No one else could say ‘vegans’ in such a deliciously despising tone. The tone is so despising that ‘vegans’ have made the news by lodging a record number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau about this year’s Australia Day lamb promotion. Perhaps the MLA hoped nobody would mess with Lee Lin Chin, not even hard-core, militant, extremist vegans, and let’s be frank: the only other kind of vegan is the bearded hipster variety. MLA, you got us in a corner. But you have also named us, and by naming us you empower us. Mwah-ha-ha.

The ad brings in all the usual tropes of MLA’s annual lamb promotion: getting together with your mates, having a barbecue, playing backyard cricket and drinking cold beer. What could be more Australian than that! The message is that if you don’t eat lamb on Australia Day, then Australia doesn’t want you. If you needed any other illustration of how exclusionary Australian nationalism is, look no further than ‘lambassador’ Sam Kekovich’s response to the vegan complainants. It’s in the same vein as male politicians responding to allegations of sexual harassment from female staffers (that is, ‘it’s all a bit of fun’). Lee Lin Chin commands Operation Boomerang from special ops headquarters. The boomerang on the campaign logo is made of two lamb chops. The big guns have been called out to recall all Australians who are overseas to rescue them from the sad fate of having to ‘lamb alone’ on Australia Day. Isn’t it precisely this parochialism that gives Australians a reason to emigrate?

How funny that this special operation takes as its moniker an Aboriginal word for an Aboriginal object that returns. But where are the Aboriginal people in MLA’s ad? Ah, they don’t need to be recalled because they haven’t even left. Indigenous people in colonised countries somehow missed out on the international mobility that their compatriots take for granted. Let alone this fact, perhaps the inclusion of Aboriginal people in an ad timed with Australia Day would raise the unsettling fact that the day in question is often called Invasion Day by Aboriginal groups and others of settler ancestry who choose not to whitewash our country’s bloody history. Australia as a ‘nation’ still has a lot of reconciling to do.

Exactly what form of nationalist pride are we meant to feel when we eat lamb? How exactly does eating lamb fit into the imaginary of ‘Australia’? The illogic of how eating meat could possibly turn you into a good citizen becomes clearer when you look at Australia’s colonial past, a history that can be seen everywhere we look today. There were 29 sheep aboard the First Fleet when it arrived at the so-called Botany Bay (some 15 evidently dying on the journey from the Cape of Good Hope, among the first victims of live export). By 1800, there were 6,124 sheep in the colony. Two hundred and a bit years later, Australia has approximately 80 million sheep and lambs. All those animals need a hell of a lot of land.

Land was the main reason that Europeans killed Aboriginal people: the land was needed for animals to graze on. Taking over this land meant taking over Aboriginal food sources. Death, whether by massacre or by starvation, was the result. Australia’s agricultural industry was founded on unpaid indigenous labour, also known as slavery. Land clearing also meant loss of biodiversity (half of woodland birds are extinct, for example) and exacerbation of the impact of drought and erosion. Kangaroos and wild dogs are known as pests today not because they are overpopulated but because their habitats and food sources have been taken over by farming, which uses about two-thirds of Australia’s land mass. The sheepmeat industry accounts for a third of all farms with agricultural activity. Given these disastrous impacts and shameful history, is it really in the national interest to support a handful of powerful farming companies?

This year’s ad is a slight change of tack for MLA, with a dose more humour than bullying tactics. The slogan ‘you’ll never lamb alone’ is far more palatable than the aggressive ‘unAustralianism’ – a springboard for racist violence – of campaigns past. But let’s not forget the invisible violence at the heart of the promotion and its victims: sheep’s young. Another example of how the fact of animal farming and animal killing is made invisible, even in a campaign that is so explicit about eating animals. The MLA is happy to tell you how many kilograms of lamb meat the average Australian eats (no doubt the vegans are bringing these numbers down) but if you’re looking for actual numbers of lambs killed, you have to go to animal advocacy groups. According to Animals Australia, about 20 million lambs are killed in Australia each year.

The MLA is always going to run into trouble when trying to tap into something as vague, abstract and fraught as the ‘national interest’ and what it means to be Australian. Let’s not let the MLA have the last and only word on what Australia Day is all about. But let’s thank them for naming a group that has the power to upset its agenda: ‘Vegans’.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Australian cow embassy

An investigation by Animals Australia into cattle processing in Indonesian slaughterhouses was aired on Australian television last year, with the subsequent public outcry prompting the government to ban all live cattle exports for six months. This was because the handling of cows in Indonesia (and other countries where undercover filming was carried out) offended many viewers’ ideas of humane treatment as well as Australia’s own animal welfare legislation, even though this legislation did not apply in Indonesia. Many Australians wanted to distance themselves from the footage they had seen.

The debate over good welfare standards hinged on whether or not the animals were stunned before having their throats slit. Many slaughterhouses in Indonesia slaughter according to halal requirements, and the ban was interpreted as stepping on that country’s capacity to allow its citizens the right to observe their religion (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Further, Indonesia does not have an animal welfare framework that approaches that of Australia. In order to uphold the welfare of the animals involved and to satisfy the concerns of a large portion of its public, the Australian government appeared to stipulate to another nation state what its animal welfare legislation should be.

The ban appeased some but had a negative impact on others. The people directly affected were those that work in the industry: cattle farmers and their employees took a hit to their business activity and income, affecting their right to work and to be protected against unemployment (Article 23 of the UDHR). This had a disproportionate impact on the people living in remote Australia, areas already disadvantaged by virtue of their isolation.

The ban was lifted a month later and exports resumed in August, with the industry body Meat and Livestock Australia putting forward money and a plan to ensure that Australian cattle in Indonesian slaughterhouses were handled humanely. These extra measures, such as having welfare inspectors onsite when Australian cattle were being processed, were to be enforced by the importers and exporters. Presumably, when it was the turn of non-Australian cattle to be processed, these welfare inspectors made their exits. This attempt to improve the last few minutes of selected animals’ lives comes across as a form of cultural superiority: our cows deserve better treatment than your cows do. The next step is surely a cow embassy where Australian cows can show their passports, indicating place of birth and the rights afforded to them as denizens of the Australian state. Cows that have emigrated to Indonesia on work visas can appeal to their embassy if they don’t receive the treatment they are entitled to.

I don’t wish to mock rights language or the work done by animal advocates, who know better than most that the rights which are particular to humans do not make any sense when applied to animals. But this is a good illustration of the implications of the human right to own property (Article 17 of the UDHR), which is arguably the biggest obstacle to legislation that protects an animal’s interest in its own life. Once you’ve sold your property, the buyer can do with it whatever they like. If you are unhappy with the buyer’s behaviour, you withdraw your business and find another buyer whose standards are agreeable to you.

There is now an independent animal welfare lobby in Australia, that is, not overseen by the industry, which is undoubtedly a win for animal advocates (hopefully animals too). And you could say that the Australian public in general is currently open to being shown the reality of animal farming everywhere, even at home. But once the ban was lifted, the animals were put back onto ships to meet the same fate as their predecessors. What about the animals who were not put on boats, who were detained in stockyards while the ban was in place? Were they sent to Australian slaughterhouses, shipped to other countries, or simply killed as waste stock? Mass culling was threatened if the ban were not lifted soon enough. A contingency fund had to be put in place to secure the welfare of the cattle affected by the suspension. Ultimately the ban had the same result as if there were no ban: the animals concerned were killed, humanely or not.

Attaching humane concerns to exported cattle once they are in the destination country, after the journey itself has no doubt compromised animal welfare standards, pushes a particular brand of neocolonialism, where the concept of humanity is inferred as western civilisation – that there is a proper way to be humane and, therefore, human. Kind of embarrassing for Australia when the way it treats its farmed chickens and pigs lags behind the European Union. Nevermind that slaughterhouses in Australia also hold dubious claims to high welfare standards (the latest expose only weeks ago). And nevermind the debates within Australia and around the world about what constitutes humane treatment; for some people this means not killing at all.

<a href="http://Ban Live Export – official site. Investigations, eye-witness videos – TAKE ACTION #BanLiveExport.”>BAN LIVE EXPORT

%d bloggers like this: