Examine the logic:
He says,
"We believe that your terrorist actions are torturing and offering undue acts of cruelty to non-targeted species ... you have poisoned our children's future and as such we wish you to cease and desist,"
Cop says,
"You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,"
When you step in one and it smells like one, you're dealing with a genuine non sequitur. It genuinely terrorises me when someone in power use arbitrary logic like this and I hope the courts will agree. I can only wonder what pressure Mel Aitken is under to screw about with reason in that way - if that is so, it will not be pressure from any true friend of hers.
Bottom line is, animal cruelty is animal cruelty - but people do not like being told to their face that they're cruel and wrong and find this very threatening. After all, who does he think he is to challenge our groupthink morals??? We are 'only following orders' and so deserve that police will go and construct allegations against someone who dares to confront us about our willing compliance.
Bookmarks