Slaughter of ewes

Press, 2 November 1985, Page 18

Slaughter of ewes

Sir,—Any farmer who confuses the realities of farming today with those of the last six or seven years would have the consolation of knowing, as he rapidly goes bankrupt, that at least he may get a job in the future writing the occasional leading article for “The Press." Whilst sympathy for and appreciation of fanners’ problems are welcome they do not pay the bills. Nor unfortunately do ewes worth 51. The unpalatable fact is that under the present circumstances, more farmers will go bankrupt or work all year to make a loss than at any other time since the depression. To suggest that farmers should tolerate a disaster of this scale, and at the same time accept a price of ?1 a head for cull ewes as a measure of the freezing industries’ ability to move with the times, is to grossly underestimate farmers’ expectations and resolve.—Yours, etc., DEREK WILSON, Mid-Canterbury Farmers Action Committee. October 31, 1985.

Sir,—After viewing the disgusting protest slaughter exhibition on television I ask the townspeople to protest against this gruesome act by not going to the Canterbury A. and P. Show. Stay home and leave the show to the farmers.—Yours, etc., J. WILLETTS. October 31, 1985.

Sir,—The slaughter, of cull ewes at Mayfield on October 30 was perceived by many of the public as an unnecessarily distasteful show of petulance by fanners. However, what the public finds offends their

COLIN BURROWS. October 30, 1985.

tender sensibilities in a public display of throat cutting is excused as more palatable when locked away out of view in abattoirs. Instead of lying in trenches the animals are neatly packaged into pieces and given “acceptable” names. Both the public and private slaughter of animals is morally wrong and unacceptable, whether in the guise of a farmer’s grievance or in the name of the New Zealand public’s appe-tite.-Yours, etc., SHARON E. HUNTER. October 31, 1985.

Sir,—lt was with disgust that I read my morning paper today — disgust at the farmers for the cruel way in which they made their socalled protest, and disgust at “The Press” for publishing the photo that went with the story. Hardly breakfast table viewing. Why not go all the way and put a photo of the latest murder victim on the front page too? - Yours, etc., D. A. FLEMING. October 31, 1985.

N.Z. trade with U.S. Sir,—lt would be interesting to know what the real motives of the United States Government are for putting pressure on New Zealand to accept nuclear weapons in our ports; the ship visits themselves cannot be very important for maintaining the nuclear net against the Soviet Union. Clearly we are touching a tender spot. Do the Americans feel guilty about their reliance on these death and destruc-tion-laden weapons? Do they want us to share their guilt? It is a strange attitude towards morality that moves a great Power to threaten a small nation because we want to live in peace. We need not agonise about A.N.Z.U.S. and trade links. America thrives on business. American businessmen trade with China and the Soviet Union. It is extremely unlikely that they will slop trading with us if A.N.Z.U.S. fails. — Yours, etc.,

Sir,—The trade figures released yesterday show that trade with the United States has increased by 40 per cent during the anti-nuclear debate, which leads one to the conclusion that the group of businessmen could be playing politics, as most of them would be ardent National Party supporters. The United States is now a debtor nation herself and the fact that New Zealand is one of the few

countries with which she has a favourable balance of trade should not have gone unnoticed in your editorial if you were at all interested in presenting your readers a balanced view. Even Malcolm Fraser has drawn attention to the lack of financial support to Pacific Island nations and also the disastrous United States fishing policy is of more concern to the well-being of the Pacific than nuclear ships and could be more easily resolved than building more and more nuclear bombs. — Yours, etc., E. L. BARCLAY. October 31, 1985.