Sedition and The State- Part 2 of Ken Setter’s Interview

By Claudette Vaughan

Click Here to Read Part 1 of the Ken Setter Interview

Q. What effects do you foresee with these new sedition laws coming into place soon…for animal and environment activists?

A. Ask me why is it that a racist shock jock can spew out his particular form a hatred and get away with it, and you will find the answer, because he has about 200,000 people who are prepared to vote the way he tells them to. That’s the truth of the matter.

The primary purpose of the sedition laws is intimidation, beyond that they have little value. Any movement that is truly a popular movement has no need to worry about sedition laws, because, by definition, it will have the backing of vast numbers of people who can be immediately mobilised to respond to any threat by government or special interest group. Sedition laws are seldom acted upon, convictions are the exception rather than the rule, however, for the leader of a mass movement the risk of jail has never been a problem.

Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Dr Martin Luther King used jail time as a means of exposing the weakness in the establishments’ arguments, rallying forces and disrupting the system that oppressed them. It is a sad fact that whilst there is widespread opposition to battery egg production in Australia the public has not yet arrived at the position whereby they are prepared to ‘go to the barricades’ in support of animal activists. The support base enjoyed by Greenpeace and Amnesty International still remains wanting.

On a more general position we have a Prime Minister who say’s ‘We will decide who comes to this country and under what circumstances they come’. This is only a small step to saying. ‘We will decide who come to this beach and under what rules they come’.
Should the Sedition laws apply in his case? I doubt that they will; yet it is close to nurturing a racist culture in this country. The sedition laws are wide sweeping. Human rights lawyer Julian Burnside, who acted for the Tampa refugees in 2001, believes the federal Coalition government’s “anti-terror” laws will “seriously undermine basic civil freedoms that have been recognised for at least three centuries”.

Under the existing 2003 laws it is a crime for a journalist to refuse to tell ASIO the sources of his/her material, to refuse to reveal sources, to not allow ASIO to read notebooks and other materials, including computer hard drives. All of this carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. On top of the 5 years imprisonment they must not tell anyone of the ASIO contact, not even their editor (employer). What kind of ‘freedom’ is that?

Academics who have been inadvertently sent emails ASIO considers to be of interest have had their computer hard drive confiscated without explanation or redress. They too are under threat of 5 years imprisonment. The free society we love and accept as our birthright is fast becoming a nightmare.

Secret hearings are not part of our political tradition. The midnight knock on the door is something we were told only happened under Hitler and Stalin, now it’s a reminder of the Pentagons pronouncements on the Vietnam war, when they advocated ‘destroying a village in order to save it’. A simular twisted logic is alive and well today.

Q. What’s wrong with the system Ken?

A. How long have you got? The shelves of libraries are crammed full with explanations and theories, from the ancients, the Bible, the Koran and the mass of holy books from the past to the smart universities of the new world.

Some one said, I forget whom, that the only thing wrong with Christianity was that it had never been tried. Our system, Capitalism, on the other hand has been tried and found wanting on a number of areas. To my mind the biggest problem with Capitalism is greed. It is a fundamental building block. Greed feeds the worst elements of human behaviour, it corrupts the young and degrades women, greed undermines and deforms human kindness into a ‘have a happy day’ corporate distortion of humanity, it feeds avarice and promotes the values of the greedy corporations rather than those of human decency and collaboration.

Q. There is no unbridgeable gap between human and non-human animals. Like us animals respond to kindness and cry when in pain and want to get some pleasure out of life. Explain in your own words why there is no way to justify our harming of other species.

A. Exponents of ‘intelligent design’ tell us we are all created by a higher intelligence, presumable God. As a child I was always told that God was all powerful and should I sin, I would be condemned to a fiery furnace for all eternity. My Old Testament upbringing was real to the small boy of the Welsh valleys. That is a powerful argument for not harming one of Gods creatures.

The Qurãn (6-38) tells us that ‘There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but are people like unto you.’ To me this narrows the difference between animals and humans.

Scientists point to the minute genetic difference between humans and the apes. If any of the above is correct then we should do no harm the animals, but as humans we have a particular responsibility, we have a moral imperative to maintain. It is simply wrong to do so.

Q. To your mind the major thing the animal rights movement needs to understand and make the connections between the way animals are treated and big business.  Please expand your thoughts here.  What’s missing?

A. The mass media, itself a big business, has, over time, brought about a compliant numbness in the minds of people, as they are encouraged, coerced, and cajoled to act against others rather than to act cooperatively.

In the past it was anathema for Australians to 'dob' someone in, telling tales was never our way. Yet, each week tens of thousands of viewers feel the need to pay money to vote 'against' a person in the Big Brother house.

Reality TV, such as the Big Brother Show, Total Make Over, and others, shape and reinforce people's self-image. This in turn has changed to way they act. It has spread across the world. In Britain more people voted to exclude a resident from the Big Brother House than people voted for the British Government. Considering that the Prime Minister Blair went to war in Iraq based on that vote, I find this terrifying.

That is not all; the media have dumbed down the population by such shows. Spin doctors and corporate media have reduced the news sound bites from 42.3 sec in 1968 to 9.9 sec in the early 1990's, in 2004 much of commercial TV news has been transformed into 'infotainment'

Q. What are the implications for animals?

A. They are enormous.

Changing people's attitudes and the world outlook has never been easy. No one or no group can do it on their own, they need the help from others or at the very least no opposition from them.

Animal liberation is still in its infancy. A quick look at supermarket shelves will show the distance still to go. I don't want to convey the impression that no progress has been made, it has. A good many people have become aware and more are coming on board each year. However there is a long, long way to go.

Meat consumption in Australia has been falling for decades. People are turning away from eating meat for health, economic and environmental reasons as well as from consideration for animals. What is wrong with forming alliances with groups working on health, economic, and environmental issues, as well as consumer groups?

There appears to be a mind set that 'people are cruel' to animals because they place them in cages and feedlots, feed then inappropriate food and generally treat animals badly. The process is true, but it is due to the economic system rather than individual cruelty on the part of the farmer although it is cruel. Some farmers are grossly derelict in their duty to the animals in their care but farms today are a part of a worldwide agribusiness. They are mostly large corporations, many of which are overseas owned, and operate for one reason only, to make a profit for their shareholders.

As long as we look at the result and assign individual motives, we blind ourselves to the real enemy.

If we are to make inroads into animal rights/welfare/liberation, we should recognise that these are giant corporations operating within a very greedy system. To change the system is impossible on one's own. Alliances need to be formed with other groups who have been working for societal change. As I see it, an alliance neither threatens nor compromises anyone. I view it as fluid; something to you move in and out of, like a bus where people get on and off as their needs are met. We are all going in the same direction. Why not travel together, the more people there are, the stronger becomes the argument, the more chance of winning. Yet, there is a reluctance to work within alliances.

What is missing, and I know some animal rights people might feel offended by this, is that to my mind there is a prevailing exclusiveness among so many animal right activists. Many hold, both in belief and behaviour, that they are the soul possessors of the 'truth', an 'enlightenment' almost. These attitudes can and do lead to the formation of elites, the exclusion of others; they become as a result 'precious', 'prickly', and 'difficult to get on with'. This in turn makes the building of alliances most difficult.

Working within a broad movement to achieve common ends, people soon learn to modify attitudes and behaviour patterns change, they become less 'prickly' and more is achieved. The result is the animals are better served by working co-operatively

Q. What did you mean when you recently said there are lots of fragmented movements and groups in society, having a lot in common, yet animal people seem happy to close their eyes to that fact and work against the things that unite them.

A. It should be obvious to all that our world is in a mess. Global warming, the ozone layer, over population, the use of animals as laboratory tools, feed lots, poverty and decades of environmental vandalism by the most developed nations are only a few of the many problems that cry out for urgent attention. An examination of any and all of the above will find they are the product of the market economy (although the Soviets were expert at environmental damage) and cannot be solved by the inherent greed that makes up the market place.

Let me pose some questions. Why would animal rights people vote for a party that supports and promotes farmers, vivisectors, and sheep exporters? How many hard working and genuine animal rights activists voted Liberal or Labor at the last election? Why did they avoid the Greens, who had policies on animals, that whilst not perfect were far superior to those of the major parties? If that is not working against the interests of animals, I don't know what is.

Q. How has socialism influenced your views about animal rights and liberation?

A. My idea of socialism stems from my early childhood. It might sound simplistic but people used to say that socialism would alleviate the fathers berating their children out of economic frustration. That still seems like a good idea to me. Unfortunately, even today there are many who have that need unsatisfied; despite our so-called affluent society.

Basically, socialism is about co-operation, equality, and helping others. These still have intrinsic worth and we should be courageous enough to extend them to take in animals.

Q. Is animal liberation a utopia Ken?

A. Distant yes, one must be realistic, however the notion of equal consideration is a worthy objective whose time is overdue. No, I don't think it utopian, it is a necessary prerequisite, not only for the betterment of animals, but also to our becoming truly and fully human.

Q. Does the western rhetoric of free markets plus democracy ring true?  I mean, how does one maintain the struggle for animals against the discrepancy in the market place of economic ‘health’ over-riding ideological constraints?

A. Markets by definition, imply inequality. No market is free. Markets thrive on inequality. Adam Smith recognised this in the 18th century. The idea that democracy is bound up with the idea of the free interplay of ideas as they believe exist within the 'free market' is false

The struggle to bring about a just society for people and animals challenges capitalism at its core principle, property rights. When we say animals should not be placed in cages, feedlots, and laboratories, we are restricting the property owners of the right to use their property, i.e. animals, as they deem the most profitable.

Political parties and the media speak of 'economists health' as if our economic system is the only system. Let us disregard 'socialism' for the moment. The Islamic economic system is well developed and requires that no interest be charged on loans, yet they manage to thrive, expand and make a profit. The Japanese banking system has done well on a negative interest rate that is the banks pay people to take out loans.

Yet our economic gurus maintain ours is the only system.

This is despite the fact that America is the world largest debtor nation and has an economy that requires a constant flow of government funds to armament manufactures producing weapons of mass destruction, its debts are propped up by Communist China who as one of the largest holders of US Treasury bonds, helps maintain world tension.

Now don't tell me that is a superior system

Q.  Have Australians been lying to themselves since Vietnam about America?

A. Deceived is the more the word I would use, since America lost the war in Vietnam there has been a relentless campaign of denial and deception aimed at convincing the world that American is the repository of truth, justice and the American way, as they say in the Superman Comics, a super nation just like Superman.

The end of the cold war delivered no peace dividend. American corporations seek higher profits in Asia, the Government hands out billions of dollars to the armaments industry while millions of Americans cannot afford basic heath care.

This is the reality the spin-doctors wish to hide; of course there are many good Americans who, like the rest of the world, do not trust the Bush administration. It is to them we look for a better world, not the George W's and the puppet masters who would drive us all to Armageddon in a gas-guzzler.

Q.  Class struggle and animal liberation.  A strange cocktail mix Ken?

A. I'm more a beer man myself. No, I don't find it strange. When we look at the long struggle to emancipate the slaves we find many parallels with the animal liberation movement. The suffragettes found themselves against the full force of the state when they demanded Votes For Women. When the English capitalist farmers closed off the commons by enforcing the Enclosures Acts they intensified animal exploitation and set the stage for modern agribusiness.

History has many examples. That is why the John Howard's of this world try so hard to white wash history. They would rather forget the 'stolen children', they close their ears when the 'disappeared' of Chile are mentioned, they say that thousands of sheep dead and dieing on ships bound for the Middle East are an aberration.

They don't recognise the truth because the truth is not in them.

Q. What campaigns have we got that are winnable do you think?

A. The live animal export trade comes to mind. Some states have not yet banned duck shooting, this too. On the duck shooting issue, I return to your earlier question, there need to be a fuller understanding of the politics of gun control. Why for instance would we hesitate to form alliances with the people working on gun control? Also some parts of the animal testing can be won in the not too distant future.

Q. Since the advent of globalisation we have seen large multinational companies expanding their profit-driven economies to every far-flung corner of the earth.  Does globalism help or hinder animals?  At very least,  it must be unsettling to remould whole cultures and reshape lives in a foreign western manner to fit western ‘standards’.

A. Globalisation has been called capitalism on speed. Old and worn out ideas reworked, intensified and dressed in new clothes cannot wipe away the fact that world trade benefits those who are big to start with they can only get bigger, whereas those who are small and weak get weaker and smaller.

The nature of industrialisation is that industrial nations have the capacity to reduce costs at each and every stage of the production process, of which there are many. Agricultural nations are reliant on weather and the seasons, they have little room to improve production process and reduce costs. Hence, were both sides to start from an equal point the industrial nation makes strides economically and the agricultural nation moves backwards. Industrial nations are able to sell more for less cost whereas those reliant on agriculture are embedded with fixed and imponderable costs structures.

What this does for animals is they become one more item in the production line, more and more chickens placed in cages, more animals exported along with the jobs of locals.

However all is not black. Globalisation has a number of positives; the Internet has brought communications to all who can afford them. Many new alliances, NGO's have proven to be a powerful force for change. Mobile phones allow animal activists to extend their activities and are bringing information via the media in ways undreamed of only a few years ago. Photocopying and cheap printing offer opportunities for spreading the message the mass media, itself a big business, are reluctant to print.

Speed in communications means activists can alert campaigners across the world to act on issues and hopefully achieve favourable results.

I am particularly concerned however; with global alliances of the so-called 'free trade' variety. The United States, being the dominant economic power is able to exert cultural dominance over other cultures. Remember Alice (in Wonderland) as she said 'we like what we get' rather than 'we get what we like'; well people across the world are choosing American movies as opposed to the local ones. Hollywood no longer makes musicals, violence sells better, this is deliberate; it is aimed at the younger audience, many of whom are hooked on America's biggest export, violence, in fantasy and in reality. Iraq is merely the latest example.

Q. Women’s work fuels the economies of every country and yet no value is placed upon this labour in a definitive system of accounts.  Would you care to comment about women in the movement who by far make up the majority doing the hard yakka for no monetary gain.

A. Here again I must refer to the market. Over the years the market has devised a system of measurement that reflects its interests. What counts is what is useful to make a profit, little else counts for anything. Hence, a woman who walks five kilometres each day to gather wood for the fire to heat her family's dinner counts for nothing in economic terms, yet a drug dealer who stands on a the corner selling drugs to teenagers generates huge economic benefits to the economy, as measured in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Consider this a moment. There is the cost of the drugs to, the provision of police, the court system, the jails, the hospitals, the security industry, the replacements costs of stolen domestic appliances, rehabilitation costs, rising insurance costs and more, as well as the media also benefits and so the economy grows. Yet, the woman who walks five K's each day becomes a net loss, she contributes nothing to the economy, in terms of GDP. Where is the justice in that?

Women make up a sizeable majority in the animal rights movement, yet even here we find a division of labour. There are scores of women working away in offices, doing the day to day, boring, mundane yet necessary work that keeps the organisation going without any recognition. Then there are the countless women, who belong to no organisation, receive no assistance, who daily feed free but hungry animals, their only reward comes from knowing they are helping them along the way.

Q. What do you think about the constant whining by farmers in this country, and the same is true of agribusiness, yet they are heavily subsidised by the government and bailed out when they kick up enough noise.

A. Corporate welfare has been alive and well in Australia for many years. The old Country Party now the Nationals have wielded a punch way out of their weight. They have consistently been able to win more seats than their population would merit. One vote one value means nothing to the conservative parties who rely on gerrymanders to continue in government.

Q. How did you get into animal liberation work and what have you learnt along the way? Who in the movement has impressed you the most and why?

A. When Sally Wilson placed adds in the media-seeking people to help stop duck shooting both Margaret and myself volunteered. We were both members of Paddlers for Peace and regularly paddled our kayaks in front of nuclear ship on Sydney harbour so the idea of placing ourselves between duck shooters and the ducks seemed a natural extension of our activism. I guess that was the beginning. As to who impresses me most, that a difficult one, I think the forgotten and unnoticed ones I mentioned previously.