Thursday 28 April 2016 is the 20th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre. On 28 April 1996, 35 people were killed and 23 others were injured by a single gunman. Later that day, Martin Bryant, a 26 year old man was arrested at the Seascape cottage, some distance away from the site of the massacre, and charged with the murders. He was never tried before a jury for the crime. Martin Bryant initially pleaded not guilty. Allegedly, six weeks after he was arrested and interrogated intensively, isolated from friends and family, he confessed to the crime. As shown in the article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? (3/4/2010), this 'confession' flew in the face of overwhelming forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony which pointed to his innocence.
As the 20th anniversary of the massacre approaches, the same 'news' media, that fed us the 'incubator babies' story of 1990, Iraqi WMDs, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Warren Commission cover-up of the JFK assassination, claims that the Syrian government had been using chemical weapons against its own people, etc., etc., is trying desperately prevent the broader Australian public from critically examining the Port Arthur Massacre.
On 7 News (linked to from here - second embedded video - Melissa Doyle and Peter Fleck 'report':
Melissa Doyle:Chilling public interviews, with the man responsible for the worst mass shooting, have been shown for the first time by 7 Sunday Night. Martin Bryant laughed and bragged after killing 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania. For more, we're joined by Peter Fegan.
Pete, Bryant's lawyer says he's still haunted by this case.
Peter Fegan: John Avery, the man who defended Martin Bryant all those years ago, spoke last night on our Sunday Night program and says he is still haunted by Bryant 20 years on.
Now he ... recalls how Bryant pleaded not guilty to murdering 35 innocent people that day at Port Arthur.
Now, you only had to watch those chilling tapes to understand why he is still haunted. Bryant can often be seen laughing with police. Now here is some of those chilling interviews from that Sunday night program last night.
In fact, only parts of the tapes shown on the Sunday Night program were shown in the 7 news bulletin the next day. On one occasion Martin Bryant is shown smiling, but when asked why by the interviewing officer, Martin responded that he was happy to have been taken out of his prison cell.
Those tapes showed to me a young person who appeared to truly not be aware that 35 people had died and that he had been accused by the police of having killed them.
Whilst Martin demonstrated at length how he practised with his automatic weapons, at not one point in the interview did Martin Bryant admit to having used any of his weapons to harm other people.
The more 'complete' version of those interviews, which total all of 65 seconds, by my measurement, can be found in the embedded Video of Sunday Night at the bottom of the page linked to above.
On Thursday 9 May 2013, the Hobart Mercury alerted its readers to what it claimed was a "vicious international internet campaign [which accuses] two local police officers of being the real killers." Mercury reporter Zara Dawtrey, in the story Port Arthur conspiracy anger, labeled Australian expatriate Keith Noble, who now lives in Austria, a 'conspiracy theorist' :
A conspiracy theorist based in Austria, and claiming to be a former Tasmanian, is writing a book about the massacre in which he claims Bryant is the innocent victim of a killing spree planned and carried out by the government and police.
People who attempt to draw the attention of the public to glaring inconsistencies and anomalies that are often to be found official accounts of events such as the Port Arthur Massacre, have, at least since the time of President Kennedy's murder in 1963, been labelled 'conspiracy theorists'. This is use of an ad hominem attack in order to dissuade others from also considering the evidence given by the person thus labeled. Zara Dawtrey continued :
While Port Arthur conspiracies abound online, Keith Noble is making sure his views reach audiences far beyond the confines of the internet conspiracy community.
Then Prime Minister John Howard professed his abhorrence of killing and firearms after the Port Arthur massacre. He passed laws which drastically reduced the rights of Australians to own firearms. For that John Howard was proclaimed a hero by many members of the Australian Labor Party and many supposed 'bleeding hearts.' John Howard then went on to to help organise the recruitment of mercenary strikebreakers for his 1998 attempt to break the Maritime Union of Australia. In 2003 John Howard knowingly peddled the lie of Iraqi WMDs in order to justify Australia's participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. As Prime Minister he slashed and burned government services using former 'Labor' PM Paul Keating's supposed Budget Black Hole as a pretext. After John Howard was allowed to win the 2004 election with the help of corrupt 'Labor' state Premiers, he privatisatised Telstra in the face of overwhelming public opposition. He then attempted to destroy the working conditions of Australian workers with his infamous Work Choices legislation. Fortunately Work Choices was stopped by a successful public campaign in which the Trade Union movement participated and the Howard Government was turfed out in the 2007 federal elections, John Howard losing his own parliamentary seat of Bennelong.
Keith Noble complained of inaccuracies to Zara Dawtry in an e-mail, a copy of which is attached below, and asked why he had not been contacted prior to the publication of her story in the Mercury.
Keith Noble has, indeed, given away free draft PDF copies of chapters 5 and 10 of his book, including to me. The files have been appended here and here to my article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? of 3 April 2010. That article, and the material linked to from that article, convinced Keith Noble that an outrageous miscarriage of justice had occurred. Martin Bryant with an IQ of 66 could not have killed 35 people on that day and that the real killer was still at large.
Keith Noble resolved himself to write a book that would reveal the evidence of Bryant's innocence. In the course of writing he has has received encouragement from witnesses who witnessed the tragic events of that day and who knew Bryant to be innocent.
Martin Bryant, now aged 46, languishing in jail for a crime for which he was never tried for and could not have committed, may soon become the 47 victim of the port Arthur Massacre.
Below is included a letter sent to Zara Dawtrey only yesterday. Any response will be published on candobetter. We will also advise you of any further reporting of this issue in the Hobart Mercury.
Update, 10:07AM, Friday, 9 May 2013: Zara Dawtrey's article has been listed as the 3rd of the 5 "most popular" articles in the Hobart Mercury. In spite of having received Keith Noble's letter of protest and in spite of the concern expressed by Mercury readers, nothing more has been published.
Appendix: Keith Noble's letter to Zara Dawtrey of 9 May 2013
9 May 2013
This morning, I checked my emails and found many concerned Tasmanians and other Australians had emailed me a copy of your article (9 May 2013) in The Mercury related to the Port Arthur incident.
Of course I have skimmed it, but have no time today to study it. But several serious errors have jumped off the page, and I of course wonder why you did not contact me for details before you published your article. You do have all my contact details as you are on the case mailing list and you are sent regular updates. It really is not investigative journalism (perhaps you are a reporter) if you ignore the context of the story in which Michael Charles Dyson is a major player.
Currently, I am extremely busy working on Part 7 of the book which deals specifially with the Port Arthur incident witnesses. A person with a conscience who works in the office of the Tasmanian DPP has provided the Witness Statements.
The content of them is staggering. It is very easy to see why the State did everything it could to prevent those witnesses from testifying during a trial. It is one of the reasons why there was NO TRIAL. All their statements were denied and innocent Martin Bryant (with his 66 IQ and abilities of a grade 6 schoolboy) was set up then incarcerated for life. As you know, he's now being murdered at Risdon Prison - slowly.
(Have you ever thought of contacting the witnesses and writing something? Not just the ones who parrot the official narrative. The ones who saw the gunman up close and who have declared that it was not Matin Bryant. The ones who state times which puts Martin nowhere near PAHS.)
Once Part 7 is completed, I will turn my attention to a rebuttal to your article. Not being one for secrets, a copy will be sent to you, and your mate Dyson, and to everyone else on the international lists. You should have that rebuttal on Monday (13th), or Tuesday (14th).
Martin was 46 on Tuesday (7th) this week. It is doubted he knew it as his mind was probably destroyed years ago in prison. Despair and drugs do that. But no doubt his dear mother did remember that day. Unknowingly, however, you have provided Martin with the best birthday gift he could possibly get - PUBLICITY!
Dr. Keith Allan Noble, author
forthcoming book (June 2013)
Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia
most recent book (2nd edition 2012)
FIND! FALCONIO - Dead or Alive:
Concealing Crimes in Northern Territory, Australia
free pdfs & docs:
Martin Bryant has been sentenced to prison for the rest of his life because he was convicted of killing 35 people and wounding 23 others at Port Arthur in 1996. According to Vietnam Veteran, the late Brigadier Ted Serong, only the most elite of Australian troops could have performed such a feat of rapid movement and marksmanship, rarely missing, and with such a high proportion of fatal hits.
Article was originally published on 11 Feb 2013. The date has been changed to put this article back on the front page. Update, 29 July 2013 : Please download and freely distributeMass Murder - Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (pdf - 718 pp, 13Mb) by Keith Noble completed on 27 July 2017. Keith was inspired by the article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? of 3 April 2013 to write this book. On 9 May 2013, the article Port Arthur conspiracy anger by Zara Dawtrey in the Hobart Mercury, owned by Rupert Murdoch, again labeled Martin Bryant a "mass murderer" in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. - Ed, 19 May and 29 July, 2013.
Martin Bryant, aged 29, had an IQ of 66, equivalent to that of an 11 year old child, which put him in the lowest 1%-2% of the population.
How Martin could have trained himself to be so skilled and so deadly is impossible to conceive. Martin Bryant was found guilty after having uttered words that were taken to be a confession after many previous denials and many months in isolation under duress.
He was never tried and so the supposed evidence against him was never tested.
Update, 29 July 2013 : Please download and freely distributeMass Murder - Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (pdf - 13Mb) by Keith Noble completed on 27 July 2017. Keith was inspired by this article and embedded video broadcasts to write this book. On 9 May 2013, the Hobart Mercury, owned by Rupert Murdoch, in the article Port Arthur conspiracy anger by Zara Dawtrey, again labeled Martin Bryant a "mass murderer" in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. - Ed, 19 May and 29 July, 2013.
I was motivated to write this brief article when fellow candobetter blogger, TigerQuoll, mistakenly in my view, in his article "Animal abuse inculcates social deviance" repeated the accepted wisdom of the guilt of Martin Bryant, now imprisoned for the rest of his life for the murder of 35 people at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.
Over a year ago, I became aware that a number of credible people, some of whom had been directly affected by the terrible events of that day, disputed Martin Bryant's guilt and, instead, maintain that the real killer remains free.
Having viewed video presentations and speeches, it seems to me that the case in favour of Martin Bryant's innocence is compelling.
It is my hope that my having assembled the material here in this way will motivate people who hold Martin Bryant to be guilty to explain why they believe so.
Some factors which cause me to doubt Martin Bryant's Guilt
Many who are behind bars today for the crime of murder following hotly contested jury trials are most probably guilty. Examples which come to mind are Ivan Milat and Bradley John Murdoch, however others who have been convicted by jury trial for crimes have been found to be innocent. The most celebrated case, is of course, Lindy Chamberlain.
In August last year I came the firm view that Schapelle Corby, is innocent of the absurd crime of having attempted to smuggle marijuana worth $35,000 in Australia into a country where it would have been worth $5,000. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of Corby's innocence, almost the whole of the Australian political establishment and newsmedia is apparently resolved to uphold the fiction of her guilt and to let her rot away in the hell of Kerobokan prison for another 15 years at the grave risk of her losing her sanity, if not her life.
That they can be nearly unanimously wrong on this issue is cause to open our minds to the possibility that they might have also got it wrong in regard to Martin Bryant.
One indisputable fact is that the Australian newsmedia shamelessly inflamed public opinion against Martin Bryant, thereby destroying what little chance he stood of having a fair trial, should he have decided to maintain his initial 'not guilty' plea. Even the Wikipedia article acknowledges this:
Newspaper coverage immediately after the massacre raised serious questions about journalistic practices. Photographs of Martin Bryant had been digitally manipulated with the effect of making Bryant appear deranged. There were also questions as to how the photographs had been obtained. The Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions warned the media that the reporting compromised a fair trial and writs were issued against the Hobart Mercury (which used Bryant's picture under the headline "This is the man"), The Australian, The Age and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation over their coverage.
Image of Martin Bryant, referred to in Wikipedia article, with his eyes fraudulently highlighted by
the Sunday Telegraph to make him appear crazy.
As alluded to in the title of Andrew MacGregor's 10 minute talk "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" the Port Arthur massacre in many ways fulfilled a similar role in Australian politics that the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack fulfilled in US politics. It caused much of the Australian population to view Prime Minister John Howard as some kind of benevolent caring father figure, rather than the leader of the malevolent, socially divisive government that he was. Strikingly, most of the supposed 'bleeding heart' small 'l' liberal chattering classes almost instantly forgave Howard for his vicious spending cutbacks because of his alleged 'courage' in introducing gun control to ostensibly prevent further Port Arthur massacres.
This largely helped to derail effective political resistance to the Howard Government for much of the ensuing decade.
It would be interesting to know if, when in 1998, the Howard Government unleashed mercenaries and Rottweilers on Australia's waterfront workforce in its ultimately unsuccessful attempt to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia, or when, in 2003, John Howard sent our armed forces to participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq on the pretext of the lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction, those members of the chattering classes ever contemplated their pronouncements of John Howard's sincerity in his professed abhorrence of violence back in 1996.
I will include below, some links to resources about the Port Arthur massacre, mostly against the official account, but some for.
The Port Arthur Massacre - Was Martin Bryant Framed? parts 1, 2 & 3 (pdf 100K, 111K & 126K) by #CarlWernerhoff" id="CarlWernerhoff">Carl Wernerhoff in Nexus#main-fn1">1 magazine issue 77 of June-July 2006.)
Suddenly One Sunday of (undated) on by Patrick Bellamy on trutv.com. This is an article which accepts the official account of the Port Arthur. The article also includes three other pages: 2, 3 & 4.
Sour Dealings on ABC TV's Media Watch of 18 May 09 about complaints by Carleen Bryant against the authors of Martin Bryant, Born or Bred.
YouTube video broadcasts
Video broadacasts are, in my own experience, the fastest way to gain an initial understanding of a complex issue, although they are no replacement for a well-written and well sourced textual article. I recommend that readers begin by viewing the 10 minute video "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" of former policeman Andrew McGregor putting the case for Martin Bryant's innocence. If that sparks your interest, then please proceed to watch the subsequent videos of longer and more in-depth presentations, "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (59') and "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (98'). There is a 10' "conspiracy theory debunking" style video with the misleading title "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 3". The last two are two 10' videos of straight Channel 7 news reporting of the time, "Port Arthur massacre part 1 of 2" and "Port Arthur massacre part 2 of 2".
The misleadingly titled "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 3". This is, in fact,a suposedly "debunking" video. In its 10 minutes it focuses mostly on personally attacking Andrew McGregor and Wendy Scurr, but addresses almost none of the arguments they have put. Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCmLCQdiOXs
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1.#main-fn1-txt">↑ Although Nexus magazine has printed material that I consider unscientific, such about UFO's or the Hollow Earth Theory, so too does the mainstream media every day of the week when they uphold the fictions of free market economic theory, that population growth is beneficial or or the Official account of 9/11. Nexus does publish quality articles about issues that the mainstream media will not cover.
#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2.#main-fn2-txt">↑, #main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3.#main-fn3-txt">↑, #main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4.#main-fn4-txt">↑ Joe Viallis died in 2005. A web-site containing other articles by Joe Viallis can be found here. Whilst I have to reserve judgement on some of the other articles he has written, his treatment of the Port Arthur Massacre, from my having skimmed over the article, seems sound.
Menkit's reaction to the vicious slaughter by Chris Palmer to kangaroos is an understandable normal human reaction. The slaughter and abuse of Australia wildlife makes my blood curdle.
On 29-Mar-2010, Chris Palmer, the self-confessed serial roo shooter on CanDoBetter wrote:
"My son is an up and coming roo shooter to at the age of 4 he can skin and gut a roo nearly as quick as me and over the last 4 weekends he has shoot over 50 roos with only 8 misses they still didnt get away tho like always dad was there to clean up the mess."
Clearly, this individual values his behaviour of slaughtering kangaroos acceptable to the extent he is inculcating in his young son his same values, attitudes and practices from an early age. Shooting wildlife is a violent crime against the natural animal kingdom. We are not savages anymore. We don't have to kill wild animals. It is a choice and an immoral act. Clean kills are wrong but also occasional. The suffering death of a bullet injury by a 4 year old followed up with a knife or blunt axe to the joey reflects a vicious and depraved existence.
Alaskan native Gray Wolves killed under Sarah Palin's predator control policy [Grizzly Bay]
'According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.
The line separating an animal abuser from someone capable of committing human abuse is much finer than most people care to consider. People abuse animals for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it's worth paying attention to.
Virtually every serious violent offender has a history of animal abuse in their past, and since there's no way to know which animal abuser is going to continue on to commit violent human crimes, they should ALL be taken that seriously. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley was quoted as saying "Animal cruelty... is not a harmless venting of emotion in a healthy individual; this is a warning sign..." It should be looked at as exactly that. Its a clear indicator of psychological issues that can and often DO lead to more violent human crimes.
"So much of animal cruelty... is really about power or control," Lockwood said. Often, aggression starts with a real or perceived injustice. The person feels powerless and develops a warped sense of self-respect. Eventually they feel strong only by being able to dominate a person or animal.
Sometimes, young children and those with developmental disabilities who harm animals don't understand what they're doing, Lockwood said. And animal hoarding - the practice of keeping dozens of animals in deplorable conditions - often is a symptom of a greater mental illness, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Just as in situations of other types of abuse, a victim of abuse often becomes a perpetrator. According to Lockwood, when women abuse animals, they "almost always have a history of victimization themselves. That's where a lot of that rage comes from."
In domestic violence situations, women are often afraid to leave the home out of fear the abuser will harm the family pet, which has lead to the creation of Animal Safehouse programs, which provide foster care for the pets of victims in domestic violence situations, empowering them to leave the abusive situation and get help.
Whether a teenager shoots a cat without provocation or an elderly woman is hoarding 200 cats in her home, "both are exhibiting mental health issues... but need very different kinds of attention," Lockwood said.
Those who abuse animals for no obvious reason, Lockwood said, are "budding psychopaths." They have no empathy and only see the world as what it's going to do for them.
History is full of high-profile examples of this connection:
* Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to attack and mutilate them.
* Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-year-old boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs? rectums and strung up cats.
* Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on fire.
* Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.
* Carroll Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.
* In 1987, three Missouri high school students were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats he?d lost count. Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates that they had decapitated a cat.
* Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs? heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.
More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Ore., and Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Miss., tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees. Columbine High School students Eric
* Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12 classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their friends.
As powerful a statement as the high-profile examples above make, they don't even begin to scratch the surface of the whole truth behind the abuse connection. Learning more about the animal cruelty/interpersonal violence connection is vital for community members and law enforcement alike."
It is a fact that acts of animal cruelty lead to forms of cruelty against humans.
"A criminologist and forensic psychologist at Bond University, said the torturing, maiming and killing of animals were red flags of someone capable of future violence against people."
They go on to state specific cases: "Archibald McCafferty, Sydney's 'Kill Seven' murderer, used to strangle chickens, cats and dogs before killing people."
"In Victoria, serial killer Paul Charles Denyer disembowelled a native cat and cut the throat of its kittens."
"Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people at Port Arthur, tortured and harassed animals at age seven, which was one of the first red flags he was a person with severe conduct disorder symptoms."
Then just last January 2010, a baby Koala was shot multiple times and eventually died. It's mother too was shot though survived, as explained in the following news article from Brisbane just two month ago:
'A young koala is fighting for its life after it was wounded in a cowardly shooting at Morayfield, north of Brisbane.
Moreton Bay Koala Rescue president Annika Lehmann said the young male koala, estimated to be about eight or nine months old, had been taken to Australia Zoo for treatment.
The 940-gram koala, which had been named "Doug", was in an induced coma.
He was found at the base of a tree at J Dobson Rd in Morayfield, Ms Lehmann said.
"Our rescuers got a call this morning about a little joey sitting at the trunk of a tree and his breathing was laboured," she said.
"Mum was 30 metres up in the tree, so we needed tree climbers to get her down, but the little boy was sitting at the bottom of the tree, so he was easy to get."
Ms Lehmann said it was unclear how long Doug had been suffering as a result of the attack.
"He was very lethargic and dehydrated, so we don't think this happened this morning or yesterday, it might have happened one or two days ago," she said.
"At first we thought he had pneumonia, but when he had an x-ray they discovered the two bullets.
"One is in the left chest cavity and one is in the lower abdomen."
Ms Lehmann said Doug's mother, which could also have been wounded, was also being assessed.
"I can't really say much about her condition, but it looks like she's OK," she said.
Ms Lehmann said she had never seen a koala shot in the area before, although she was aware of several kangaroos shootings.
"Morayfield is one of those areas that we feel koalas are still relatively safe, so it was really bad that we found him there," she said.
RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the attack was disturbing, with the joey a "50/50 chance" of survival.
"At first glance, because it was a slug gun that was used, it's probably kids but we really need to catch those who are responsible," he said.
"All too often we've seen in the past the links between animal cruelty and other forms of violence down the track, so if this was kids they need to be made to be accountable for their actions now to nip something like this in the bud."
Mr Beatty said people could call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or the RSPCA Cruelty Complaints Hotline on 1300 852 188 if they had any information on the attack.'
"First, I describe the immediate determinants of animal abuse. Animal abuse is said to result from ignorance about the abusive consequences of our behavior for animals, the belief that abuse is justified, and the perception that abuse is personally beneficial.
Second, I describe an additional set of factors that have both direct effects on animal abuse and indirect effects through the above three factors. These additional factors include individual traits, like empathy; the individual's socialization; the individual's level of strain or stress; the individual's level of social control; the nature of the animal under consideration; and the individual's social position."
Animal abuse is no different to child abuse
As disgusted as nearly all Australians are with animal abuse, Australia's animal protection laws remain are inadequate both as a deterrent and as a punishment.
Wildlife killing and abuse is morally unacceptable and should be made a crime in the same way that killing or abusing humans is a crime. All that would be required is adding an animal section to the existing crimes acts around the country.
"A correlation between animal abuse, family violence and other forms of community violence has been established. Child and animal protection professionals have recognized this link, noting that abuse of both children and animals is connected in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence. When animals in a home are abused or neglected, it is a warning sign that others in the household may not be safe. In addition, children who witness animal abuse are at a greater risk of becoming abusers themselves."Read More
Our police are not required to enforce animal cruelty breaches. Instead it is relegated to an under-resourced, under-equipped RSPCA, which is at best a toothless force.
Australia should set a moral standard, establish a national squad within the Australian Federal Police to deal specifically with animal abuse. Australia needs to set up a central database on animal killers and abusers just as in the same way paedophiles are monitored as social deviants.
Since May 2009, Robert Brown MP of the Shooters Party has been pushing for the GAME AND FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2009 to be passed into NSW legislation.
The spin of this Bill is so feral animals can be controlled in National Parks. But in reality the proposed changes would mean the following main changes:
* Many of Australia's native fauna across NSW would be condemned as 'game animals' just like in colonial times, when Australian native animals were despised as 'vermin'. Other native animals can be included in the shooters hit list so long as there is consultation with the Minister for National Parks (DECC).
* It would be lawful for sporting shooters to hunt and shoot native fauna in all National Parks, State Forests, Crown Land and 'private game reserves' across NSW. Killing wildlife is to be branded as 'conservation hunting' and basically would be permissible through most natural landscapes outside built up areas.
* The Game Council of NSW, which is a government body dominated by members of shooting and hunting clubs, and it would assume authority for granting shooting licences in National Parks.
* Shooters and hunters in National Parks would be immune from protesters trying to protect native animals and birds - as it would become "an offence to approach persons (within 10 metres) who are lawfully hunting on declared public hunting land, or to interfere with persons lawfully hunting game animals".
* Any environmental protection legislation that impedes shooting and hunting of native animals is to be overriden by the new changes - such as under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
* Hunting of native game animals can be done by non-commercial shooters - i.e weekend sports shooters. Using spot lights is optional and it is ok to leave the dead, dying and injured prey where they fall.
* In the case of native waterfowl, licensed game hunters will be required to pass an official identification test of native waterfowl. The record of shooters killing protected bird species is woeful, yet the proposed legislation won't make any difference.
SOURCE:Bill's second reading in the NSW Legislative Council
Professional safari hunters, recreational hunters, sports shooters, or weekend warriors? This Bill would overturn all environmental legislation protecting our remaining wildlife in NSW. It is repugnant. This proposal is nothing to do with noble gesture of taking on the task of the government's culling feral animals in National Parks.
The Game Council in this self-interested set of demands, simply wants to give its weekend warrior member base open slather access to shoot almost anything and everything in the bush. It would be 24/7 open season on wildlife perpetually across NSW every day of the year. Every weekend would be weekend warrior party time in the ute with the spotties and the beers and the guns - just like in the good old days eh? In doing so, The Game Council and the Shooters Party have shown their true colours. The Game Council's objective is to provide for the effective management of 'introduced species' of game animals. By advocating the hunting and shooting of native animals and birds is outside its 'introduced species' charter.
According to Greens MP Ian Cohen, if feral animals are to be culled then "it should be managed by trained Livestock Health and Protection Authority officers." "Recreational hunters are not helping when it comes to feral species - the reality is that hunters, with their dogs, are often a cause of pest species dispersal, driving feral animals into national parks."
Fortunately, NSW Cabinet yesterday backed away from supporting the bill.