The Hobart Mercury, 9 June 2011
Sure, it’s probably “both” but I was going for more of a “sound of one hand clapping” vibe if you follow me…
A4 print $66 [wp_cart:great_moral_question_print_A4:price:66.00:end]
A3 print $88 [wp_cart:great_moral_question_print_A3:price:88.00:end]
[show_wp_shopping_cart]
This cartoon says it all. Well done. Apparently some members of the Federal Government consider it offensive to draw an analogy between the live cattle trade and the treatment of asylum seekers. Presumably they think the analogy demeans the refugees. However, those same people also believe that a policy that sees asylum seekers treated with less compassion and humanity than cattle is a jolly good idea indeed… I think we’ve found a new benchmark for the definition of “irony”. :-(
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m pretty sure we maxed out irony in the early 2000s.
True. This is probably more in the realms of “blatant self-serving hypocrisy of truly monstrous proportions”.
How many cows can you fit on Christmas Island!
The cows travelled under contract with the consent of two governments; your so-called refugees travel under a contract with an unregistered travel agency. If some one climbs over your back fence to invite themselves to a BBQ, instead of coming in the front door by invitation, how many of you Righteous Folk would let them have the run of the place? PS the Koran does specifically mention that if you get a NO, thrice, then do not attempt to go further.
Your comment certainly raises some intriguing questions. Was there a genuine meeting of minds when the cows signed the contract? Would registering people-smuggling travel agencies solve the problem overnight? Does the hypothetical person jumping over the back fence bring beer, or at the very least their own humanely slaughtered steak and how is this in any way relevant to the topic at hand?