If animal rights groups were first and foremost intent on preventing any cattle being treated cruelly in Indonesian abattoirs then why on earth did they film in March and sit on the film footage for several months? Why not just put it straight onto national news to ensure there was immediate action?
How many cattle were badly treated in those particular Indonesian abattoirs, in-between filming and screening on television?
Personally, if I knew this sort of cruelty was going on, I would have had to do something immediately, not hide it away in a cupboard for any length of time. I believe other livestock producers would do likewise – they would have taken action straight away.
This suggests there is a much bigger aim – a hidden agenda. It seems apparent that animal rights extremists are intent on completely obliterating all Australian livestock industries, so they must have figured that sacrificing three month’s worth of cattle being treated cruelly, justified their end aim of getting rid of cattle altogether (if there’s no livestock industry, there will be no cattle – they’re not the sort of animal you can keep as a backyard pet).
I wonder what else, in the eyes of animal rights extremists, creates a situation in which the end justifies the means? What other moral compromises have they made in the past and will they make in the future? Do they care about the welfare of people, and the welfare of all animals – or just some animals?