I thought that I had heard every argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry but leave it up to the Abbott Administration in Australia to come up with an especially whacked out rationale. Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce has announced that the country must preserve traditional marriage . . . for the cattle. Do it for the cattle.
Joyce warned that same-sex marriage would mark the nation as immoral and “decadent” in the eyes of its buyers: “Where we live economically is south east Asia, that’s where our cattle go . . . When we go there, there are judgments whether you like it or not that are made about us. They see us as decadent.”
It is not clear if the fear is gay cattle or cattle raised on a gay ranch. I am just thankful that this rationale did not make it into the dissents to Obergefell.
Source: Standard
SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF BULL TO ME
And when they came for the cattle. I did not speak out because I’m not cattle…
Or am I?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
“Googling what his personal beliefs may be on the topic will not explain why he has decided to make this claim about those that purchase his country’s beef.”
Finally an accurate statement!!! That is exactly right. Google all you want to. But there is not the slightest indication of any kind that would support the ministers prejudices, or any of his statements regarding SSM and beef exports.
Check the ministry web site. Do you see any economic analysis or economic forecasts that in any way suggest declines in beef exports due to concerns about SSM? No you do not.
You might see reports that suggest declines in beef exports because herds are depleted due to heavy export demand. But concerns about SSM – no not at all. Nobody except the minister is talking about that.
“He has already, in all his great wisdom, decided that there is no substance to this warning. ”
Wisdoms got nothing to do with it. There is no indication, no evidence no substance of any kind. If there were some substance we would be interested in exploring it.
Show us the substance and we will be thrilled, thrilled to see it and learn from it.
Karen S
Even if the Minister of Agriculture were to specifically state that his Southeast Asian customers actually told him that they would seek alternate sources of beef based upon a ruling regarding SSM in Australia, this guy has already been declared by the judge and jury, bugfatmike, to be a nutjob and worthy of derision. He has already, in all his great wisdom, decided that there is no substance to this warning. Googling what his personal beliefs may be on the topic will not explain why he has decided to make this claim about those that purchase his country’s beef.
A three minute effort summarize Australian beef trade include the following observations:
Of Australia’s top 10 trade partners the US is number 3 and the largest importer of beef primarily lower value cuts as hamburger. Other top trade partners for Australian beef include Japan, Korea, China Indonesia, European Union, the Middle East, Russian and former soviet union states.
Trade with US, Japan and Korea is reported to be booming. Shipments to China, and European Union are relatively stable.
Shipments to Indonesia, the middle East and Russia are slightly down.
Indonesia’s decline is attributed to restrictions intended to boost self sufficiency – they want to build their own beef industry.
Declines in shipments to Russian are attributed to bans responding to sanctions over Russia’s invasion of the eastern Ukraine.
Shipments to the Middle East are reported down 15% on the previous year. Declines in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, seem largely due to increased competition from Brazil and the US.
If the Australian trade position in beef is particularly vulnerable to national view on SSM, it is not apparent here.
In addition, there is no indication by trade groups or market analysts of any concerns at all related to SSM by importing nations.
If the minister has any inside information, he and those who have voiced those concerns are being very careful not to let anyone else know about it.
If international trade partners are concerned about SSM it seems strange they would not say a word publicly about it – after all one way to affect behavior is to let people know about the concerns, particularly when those concerns affect dollars. It seems strange that seasoned reporters and trade groups would not have heard a word about the concerns of trade partners – after all they put in a full days work trying to figure out what affects the market.
In summary, trading partners have not voiced concerns about SSM. Those most in touch with markets and trading partners report no concerns of SSM. Changes in imports and consumption seem clearly related to market conditions such as price or industry need and not at all to concerns about SSM.
Maybe there is concern over SSM. But if there that concern, where is the evidence?
Remember, a loose cannon politician, told by his own party to shut up, spouting off his personal prejudices is not evidence of anything but his own out and out bigotry.
“Even if the Minister of Agriculture were to specifically state that his Southeast Asian customers actually told him that they would seek alternate sources of beef based upon a ruling regarding SSM in Australia, this guy has already been declared by the judge and jury, bugfatmike, to be a nutjob and worthy of derision. He has already, in all his great wisdom, decided that there is no substance to this warning. Googling what his personal beliefs may be on the topic will not explain why he has decided to make this claim about those that purchase his country’s beef.”
The ministers spouting off of his personal opinion is not evidence of anything except his prejudice.
The question is whether there is any evidence at all of any kind of concerns regarding SSM.
At this point it is clear no evidence, absolutely no evidence of any kind related to SSM has been produce by anyone, not the minister, not bam bam, not news reports, not trade groups, not spokespersons for the importing countries.
If there is some evidence please let us know. Refer to it. Tell us who is concerned. Tell us where we can read a statement of their concerns. Tell us of a broadcast where they express their concerns. Show us some indication that their concerns have a real effect.
What I call the minister is irrelevant to the fact that he has shown us no evidence. My ungentlemanly name calling cannot determine whether the minister has any evidence. My name calling cannot prevent the minister from presenting any evidence that he chooses – if he has some.
Instead of being concerned about my name calling, our real concern ought to be directed toward the bigot who will make up any cockamamie story to further his own hatred and damage those who only want to live their lives according to their won inner direction.
Who are you going to defend. Are you going to defend a bigot of rare privileged from some accurate name calling by me? Or will you defend those in the sacred bond of marriage who only want to get on with their lives from a high government official who will tell lies to further his own hatred?
“Even if the Minister of Agriculture were to specifically state that his Southeast Asian customers actually told him that they would seek alternate sources of beef based upon a ruling regarding SSM in Australia, this guy has already been declared by the judge and jury, bugfatmike, to be a nutjob and worthy of derision”
If the minister had specifically stated evidence of his concerns we would not have called him a nut job. We would have left that to his political associates who just wish he would shut up.
Bam Bam:
You are right. The article did not state why the Minister of Agriculture was concerned SSM would negatively impact international trade. I am curious if he will offer more of an explanation for the basis of his concerns.
Around lunch time I asked the simple question “Is there any evidence at all that this is having any effect on markets. ”
After much discussion I think we have our answer. There is no evidence of any kind of a negative effect on international trade in beef based on concern for SSM.
All we have is expression of personal opinion by a minister, who seems to have generated concern in his own political associates, and the assumption by some here that the minister must have – must have – some real data to support his opinion.
OK, fair enough. If someone wants to believe the minister that is fine with me.
But we all should recognize that assumptions that the minister knows what he is talking about when he expresses his personal opinion regarding international trade are not evidence. The minister’s opinion is not evidence. The assumption that he must know something is not evidence.
The proper answer to the question “Is there any evidence at all that this is having any effect on markets.”
is ‘no, there is no evidence of any kind’.
BFM:
“The question is whether there is any evidence, at all, of any kind, that any international buyers care in the slightest about the moral status of ranchers and cowboys who raise the beef?
I will make a bet. I will bet that those involved in international trade at the right price would buy beef from the fires of hell and market it as pre-cooked. Anybody want to bet.
Lets face it. It took laws to keep the corporations from feeding us downers and cows with mad cow disease. Do you think they give a rats behind whether beef is raised by heathens, philistines, or ranchers who cut a deal with the devil?
Well maybe they do. But if they do, there will be clear evidence in the form of declining orders.”
I agree. I haven’t heard yet about any countries threatening a boycott if a country adopts SSM.
Companies still occasionally break the law and put downer cows into the food supply. Otherwise, they are rendered to put into pet and poultry food (and then we eat the poultry, yuck!) Since bovine spongiform encephalopathy is naturally occurring, although rare occurrence, like Creutzfeldt Jacob in humans, this is really concerning. I used to follow BSE years ago. The infective agent, prions, cannot be destroyed even in an autoclave. Operating instruments used on a human patient with Creutzfeldt Jacob cannot be used on any other patients, regardless of autoclaving, or any other sterilization procedure. Occasionally, a patient is diagnosed with CJ after having brain surgery. Then the hospital gets to send letters out to every single patient that the surgical instruments were subsequently used on that they have been exposed to CJ, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it except monitor them for the next decade or so to see if they get it.
Oh, and here’s another concerning issue. Porcine spongiform encephalopathy takes longer to show up in pigs than they have time to grow before slaughter. So there is no time for them to develop symptoms and be culled from human consumption.
That’s why it’s so nice if you can find a local, grass fed, reputable ranch to get your beef. Although, you never really know what they do when you’re not looking unless you monitor slaughterhouses with undercover video such as what broke the downer cow/hideous animal abuse scandal:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/meat.safety/
What do we feed food production animals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867957/
I am happy about the current trend towards favoring local, small food producers and getting to know your local ranchers and farmers.
“The Minister of Agriculture has expressed his belief that SSM in his country would impact sales of beef to the country’s Southeast Asia customers. Period. It is a warning.”
Actually, if you read some of the news stories about the minister, and his remarks in interviews, the remarks sound less like economic predictions than expressions of personal prejudice:
“”Where we live economically is south-east Asia, that’s where our cattle go” he argued. ….”When we go there, there are judgments whether you like it or not that are made about us. They see us as decadent.” … But when asked whether those countries held the same values as Australia, he was forced to concede “no”. “I just don’t think that us going into the parliament, making a definition into something that it’s not, solves any problems,” he went on. “I think it could actually create problems.”
The minister is entitle to his opinions. But, I don’t think any reasonable person could call this kind of personal expression an economic prediction.
There is no evidence to suggest the ministers personal fears are based on any facts at all. His expression of personal opinion certainly do not rise to the level of economic projection, or economic forecast, or economic estimate.
If I were to make a wild guess, I would bet that changes in disposable real income of the populations in near by international markets would be a better estimator of future beef exports than the ministers personal opinions.
Finally, it appears the minister may be a bit of a loose cannon who has been told to shut up:
“Barnaby Joyce says he obeyed Tony Abbott’s order to withdraw from Q&A out of “deference to the prime minister” but would have liked to have been told sooner about the ban on frontbenchers appearing on the ABC program. … Joyce said while “no threat was made” during the conversation, the minister felt obliged to obey the request, likening it to following orders in the army where “an instruction is an instruction and that’s what happens … The prime minister of Australia is precisely that: the prime minister of Australia, and it is by deference to the prime minister that when an instruction comes through that it’s obeyed; otherwise the whole process of cabinet becomes chaotic,” he said. … “Do I think it would have good to know about it a bit earlier? Yes, that would have been nice. But that’s life. You take it on the chin “
“You obvious have no grasp on the concept of an economic prediction. Good luck with that.”
You keep basing your presentation on me and what I know and what I grasp.
Let me assure you that international markets do not rush and ebb according to my understanding. There are no international traders who call me for advice. I have absolutely no influence or control over international markets.
Whether I am an ignoramus or an oracle has absolutely no influence on international markets.
Unfortunately for you, it is impossible to prove your case by referring to me or my mental state. If you are going to prove your point you are going to have to go beyond my poor power to comprehend. And I dare say for you to convince rational people you are going to have to go the ‘chicken little’ ravings of that nut job minister.
I am going to be reckless and make a prediction – the vast majority of readers understand that I have absolutely no influence on international markets and further when you attack me you demonstrate that you are not making an a argument about international markets.
I am sort of flattered by the attention. But – trust me on this – I am far less interesting then the many issues related to international trade – but most readers know that.