Page 1491 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this magnificent body that Mr Lamont keeps talking about -
relating to our client dated 21st October 1988. The release cites four examples of alleged lack of care of animals owned by our client. None of the animals mentioned in those examples suffered any injury as a result of any deliberate or negligent act or omission of our client or its employees.
In particular the second example given relating to charges against persons in Bacchus Marsh relating to lions, the release implies that our client was somehow connected with the bad treatment of those animals. No charges were brought against our client or any servants or agents of our client in relation to those animals and representatives of our client appeared as witnesses for the prosecution in charges brought against persons who had the care of those animals.
The press release contains a number of defamatory allegations including:
'Ashtons Circus has an appalling record when it comes to animal care'.
'Animals are simply not safe in this circus'.
'The management of Ashtons Circus cannot be trusted to properly care for their animals'.
The solicitors continue:
We note that the allegations made by Animal Liberation - Victoria and Mr Clunies-Ross have not received wide publication and for that reason our client is not inclined to take proceedings in this instance in defamation. We believe that Animal Liberation - Victoria and Mr Clunies-Ross should consider themselves very fortunate that the good sense of the press has prevailed.
Our client reserves its rights to bring action over this or any future defamation.
Whilst our client recognises that Animal Liberation - Victoria and Mr Clunies-Ross are quite at liberty to make generalised statements concerning their beliefs over the welfare of animals if specific defamatory statements are made of our client which are untrue and damage its reputation our client will take action for redress through the courts.
So that puts paid to the comments made by Mr Lamont.
Mr Deputy Speaker, from time to time wildlife protectionists reveal themselves to be not only sentimental fools but sometimes dangerously anti-social. By attacking the honest labour of people, whose modest livelihoods are rooted in their profound knowledge of animal behaviour, protectionists corrupt the meaning and value of wildlife and exploit animals for their own media-enhanced reputations more thoroughly than trappers, hunters, game ranchers or wildlife researchers would ever dream of doing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .