Introducing...Greens Watch-watch!

Ever heard of Greens Watch? Try to imagine the lowest, most contemptible (and quite often just plain bizarre) smear campaign in world history. Every possible dirty tactic against the Greens is used here-jumping to comically implausible alternate futures if Greens policies were implemented (and transforming hyperbole into an art form while they're at it), selectively using news sources to paint the Greens as being Satan incarnate, highly emotional imagery with no relation to the Greens, providing their own captions to photos (and, unsurprisingly, linking said photos to the Greens) and of course, outright lying when it suits them.

Every example I've mentioned will have its own dissection, and exposure for the slimy BS it is.

Their page on Greens' animal policies is a fine example:

One of the more bizarre Greens' Policies is their Animal Policy.

The policy is so extreme, Greenswatch is very suspicious that the Terrorist Funding PETA Extremists ^{^} are involved in its formulation and will be investigating further for possible links.

The link goes to the PETA website. I entered into the search bar "Greens" and "Bob Brown". "Greens" hits were entirely about green vegetables, whilst "Bob Brown" referred to people with "Bob" or "Brown" in their names. So, predictably enough, the "Greens secretly sympathise with terrorists" smear fell apart*

Moving on:

Banning Leather and Wool

3.1.4. Ending the captivity and killing of animals for the cosmetic and fashion industries, including the use of fur and skin. ^{^}

Leather (skin) and Wool (fur) are products used by almost everyone and banning them is extreme.

I followed the link to the Greens site, and found this:

When I said that GW wasn't above lying, I, well...wasn't lying. BUT: even IF that policy statement was an official Greens policy, it still wouldn't change the fact that

• there's a difference between wool and fur (one that GW clearly doesn't understand)
• synthetic fur is available
• leather and wool isn't being 'banned'. It's simply that in Australia it can't be produced, and instead be imported.
  

And when I referred to GW's dystopian futures...

If this policy was to be implemented an underground leather and wool blackmarket would develop as people secretly buy and sell their leather and wool. A special police force would have to be developed to enforce the Greens' crazy Wool and Leather prohibition. The Greens are opposed to prohibition of Drugs, but support prohibition of Leather and Wool ?

Except, of course, for the fact that that legal imports and synthetic furs would kill off any chance of an 'underground black market.' Which would in turn negate the need for a specialised police force. Nice try, guys.

Banning Pets

3.3.2. Discouraging impulse buying, by restricting the sale of live companion animals to authorized and regulated breeders. ^{^}

So only breeders can buy animals ? What about the elderly who value the companionship of animals to cure loneliness ?
What about people whose existing pets get pregnant ? Since they can't sell them to anyone they'd have to do it secretly, or dump them. Again there would be pet smuggling rings and a pet blackmarket, with forged breeder licences being sold on the streets. The Greens are opposed to prohibition of Drugs, but support prohibition of Pets?

I checked that link, and to no surprise came with the same result: a policy that doesn't exist.
And by the way, just in case the policy did exist:

1. The elderly can still buy animals. The policy doesn't mention anything about oldies.
   
2. If people's pets did get pregnant, I'd bet my internal organs that legislation would exist that these pets could be sold to professional breeders
3. "Pet blackmarket"??!!1! What are these guys smoking?

The lunacy becomes even more hysterical in point 3 as GW drops any facade of legitimacy, literally making up a series of random policies without any links or quotes:

• Ending live animal exports - Why ? It's the same as a farm pen but on a ship

Not what from I'm reading:

Animal charities say that thousands of animals die en route from disease, heat exhaustion, thirst, suffocation, and crush injuries.^[1] The National Hog Farmer reports that 420,000 pigs are crippled and 170,000 die each year in the U.S. on the way to the slaughterhouse.^[2]

^{To quote Captain Jeremy (from another context but still accurate nonetheless): They're shameless.
Their final point is equally ludicrous:}

This one is interesting:

3.6.1 Ensuring that cruel acts and practices against animals by corporate and private offenders are treated as serious crimes. ^{^}

The Greens think crimes against animals are serious, yet crimes against humans, such as drug crimes, aren't serious at all. Good to see the Greens have their priorities in the right order.

<sup>If you thought that the link would go to a non-existent Greens policy, congratulations! What GW is doing here is using a type of logical fallacy-if no contrary information presents itself (in this context, the information that crimes against humans aren't OK), then hurting humans is definitely fine, because the quote doesn't say that hurting people isn't fine. Hope that made sense.

Almost there, and this has to be broken down almost sentence by sentence:</sup>

Humans are Animals are Humans

3.6.2. Replacing the status of non-human animals as “property” within current legislation to one of “beings” with recognizable legal rights. ^{^}

The sentence itself is self evidently bizarre. “beings” with recognizable legal rights ?

Policy like this is embarrassingly bad.

Why? At least give me an insanely stupid reason why you think it's "embarrassingly bad."

However there's more - analyse the following sentence closely:

Replacing the status of non-human animals as “property”

'non-human animals' ? Think about it. If they'd left 'non-human' out of the sentence, it would have still made sense ie "Replacing the status of animals.."

So why'd they put it in there ?

Probably because it's accurate: humans are animals.

Because the Greens believe humans are animals, equal with chickens, cockroaches, grasshoppers and sheep.

The first part is fine...the second part veers off track harder then Alan Stang.

The 'human-animals' here at Greenswatch disagree.

^{Brown, Nettle, Milne and Siewert would also disagree.}

Sentient Animals

2.7 Animal husbandry must respect animals' sentient nature, and maximise their quality of life.

We have enough trouble in maximising the quality of life for all humans, let alone making sure a cow leads a happy and fulfilling life.

Imagine a struggling farmer being jailed for not keeping his pigs content in an air-conditioned sty to the Greens specified 18.27 degrees Celsius.

From wikipedia:

Straw man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).^[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.^[2]

Bingo. You're going to have to use less obvious smear tactics, GW.

^{It took forever...but it's done. A half-decent examination to what the Greens half to put up with. Don't worry, boys and girls. There is, sadly enough, plenty more where those smears came from and I intend on blowing their digital brains out soon enough.}

*A smear that could have been done far better if GW had tried the "the Greens oppose those counter-terrorism measures that give the police to raid your home without you even knowing! Clearly, they support the terrorists" smear. Man, I could do this better then GW.