Wednesday 13 January 2010

It's conspiracy theories and dubious 'facts' galore over at Agmates, as it falls under the spell of an articulate fantasist



But surely part of Mr Spencer's problem is the land he owns.
It's hilly, rocky marginal land that would be of little use for anything outside a few goats and rampant bushfires.
Bigpond News on 11 January 2010

When members of the Spencer family went public on 8 & 9 JJanuary 2010, with their concerns that the media, certain websites and fora had lost the plot when discussing Peter Spencer's hungerstrike protest, I wondered how one of the principal offenders Agmates Community Site would react.

On January 8 contributors at this site did indeed begin to react - just not to the criticism of the part they are playing in the silly little drama being played out at "Saarhanlee".

At one thread the Spencer family is attacked for going public, but the issue of the accuracy of what Agmates itself was publishing is not addressed.

For good measure one contributor also suggested that the police are monitoring Agmates - though why and what for is never fully revealed.

A call to blockade local government administrative centres across the country brought a smile to my face, as did the claim that the Peter Spencer issue will bring the Rudd Government down.

However, what I enjoyed most was watching the idea form amid the chatter that the somewhat anti-Labor newspaper, The Australian, was either slanting its coverage at the request of the Rudd Government or because it had been threatened by that same government.
I'm sure that the newspaper would be rather puzzled as to why some thought this might actually have happened in this instance and, perhaps even been a mite indignant that it was also thought to have completely ignored reporting on Peter Spencer for 47 days straight until the family spoke out.
It seems that the Agmates family never let facts get in the way of a good story, so casually brushed aside The Australian's articles published on 18 December 2009 and 5 January 2010.

Less amusing was the assertion that Kevin Rudd's "dirt squad put them [Spencer family] up to it" and the very strange X Files-style whisper that there is something extremely valuable on or under Peter Spencer's land which the government seeks to obtain by actively forcing him off it.

There was only one thread which advised caution when it came to some conspiracy theories, however this warning was from a representative of a lobby group/website which freely indulges in these theories itself at times. To its credit, as of 13 January this particular group continues (on another thread) to advise Agmates against going down the weird road.

Yet another Agmates thread has this audio statement by Peter Spencer. If you listen, particularly enjoy the fact that near the end he attempts to draw the Petrov Affair into the 1970 gun incident and, the crew on this particular discussion thread did not bat an eyelid when he implied this 1954 event actually occurred close to the time he threatened to self-harm.

On 12 January 2010 Agmates congratulated itself on the number of visitors to these discussion threads - I of course was one of these and I have to say that, although my jaw dropped on occasion and I laughed aloud at other times, little that was posted on this website was of any real value in looking at the issue of compensation for farmers who may be negatively affected by native vegetation legislation. As a lobbying effort it was going nowhere fast and, following Mr. Spencer's directions meant credibility became hopelessly lost somewhere in the back paddock many days ago.

Perhaps the final word should go to Geoff Cockfield quoted in The Australian yesterday:

SUPPORTERS of hunger-striking farmer Peter Spencer risk derailing debate on vital issues of property rights with their fringe views, a leading agri-politics expert has warned.
Heated online debate over Mr Spencer's 50-day protest atop a tower is continuing, often lurching into conspiracy theories.
Geoff Cockfield, a specialist in agri-environment policy from the University of Southern Queensland, said it was not helping the NSW farmer's cause that he should be compensated for not being allowed to clear his land near Cooma.
"You always have fringe populists in rural areas thriving around particular issues, whatever they might be," he said.
"They start plausibly enough, just picking on minor irritations people have about governments, but as you get more information we start to get into the worldwide conspiracy.
"There's quite a few mainstream agri-politicians and economists and public policy people who would be sympathetic to the argument that if we are actually preventing full use of property rights in the interests of some sort of supra-national agreement on carbon sequestration, then what's the case for everyone bearing the cost of that?
"I think it's a strong case," he said, "but it creates a problem for the various farm organisations who have been working away on the issue.
"Who do you associate with?"


UPDATE:
Peter Spencer reportedly ended his hungerstrike on 13 January 2010.

4 comments:

Ron Bahnisch said...

We are invited to ignore your own bits of hyperbole “silly little drama being played out at Saaranhlee”.

In 1970 in the Dalby RSL hall in front of 700 people I took a stand against the League of Rights infiltrating the Graingrowers Association. A few months later, Sir Robert Sparkes in the same town took a stand against infiltration of the National Party.

Both of these events marked the beginning of the end of this conspiracy theory’s influence in those organisations. Of the half a dozen current theories, the League of Rights is the worst, depending on your point of view.

My fear is that the Brigalow Corporation is just another one. I have neither the time nor the patience to personally evaluate it but it has all the hallmarks.

People have a perfect right to occupy each end of the political spectrum but catastrophe can occur when they get the whip hand. Witness the effect of extreme environmentalism in the world as we speak.

However, in agripolitics, even a whiff of conspiracy theories in organisations involved in industry advocacy is death.

When I was younger and needed an outlet for intellectual energy I studied conspiracy theories as a hobby but I don’t need that outlet now.

The Brigalow Corporation looks like one, is treated as one and the proponents need to take this into account.

The previous Property Rights Australia board had a member who believed in conspiracy theories. On one occasion he went public without permission. The chairman was outraged but the damage was done.

Cockfield is right and I expressed exactly his sentiments in the Dalby RSL hall forty years ago.

The Peter Spencer protest is not “a silly little drama”. It is representative of the trauma inflicted on thousands of farming families by governments pandering to extreme environmentalism.

Ron Bahnisch, Chairman Property Rights Australia

Anonymous said...

You must be just a sick with venom! I don't care what he or she says on Agmates or anywere else! The fact is I have live in a easternblock country on the farm, and I know what the government can do to you to ruin you! If you are Australian, you are not patriotic to this country or its people! GO and hug the tree!

clarencegirl said...

I appreciate your comment Mr. Banhisch.
Nevertheless, what is occurring at "Saarahnlee" right now has little to do with legitimate complaints about any negative consequences of native vegetation legislation.
In fact the ego-driven antics there are bound to have alienated many like myself who would, because of their background, have a deal of sympathy for the cause of genuinely affected farmers.
This hunger strike is not raising the profile of the issue, but instead making all associated with it notorious - which is an altogther different kettle of fish.

As for Anonymous. Yes, I'll "GO and hug the tree" and its understorey too if that makes you happy.
I have had cause in the past to bless remnant tree cover for; mitigating the effect of winter gales on both stock and grass cover; buffering temperature extremes so that decent feed growth did not burn away to dusty straw; sheltering newly-shorn sheep and calving cows and much more.
I also know too well what a district looks like where tree cover has been reduced to token stands on hill tops or in gullies and how that can frequently reduce overall farm productivity.
And quite frankly, it is often the case that a farmer blames government for business woes.
When in fact poor land, lack of a realisitc business plan combined with adverse seasonal conditions such as prolonged drought etc., are more likely to be behind any financial troubles.
I suggest you spend less time flag waving and more time discussing your own issues with the farming peak body of your choice.
Genuine lobbying is hard work - try it!

Dale said...

clarencegirl, Unfortunally the MSM were not providing any coverage to "legitimate complaints about any negative consequences of native vegetation legislation" & as it is often the case it took "ego-driven antics" to gain some leaverage in the press.

It has been of concern to myself that on talkback radio & in blog sites that too many have rushed in with minium information & have been only too happy to tag on their pet conspiracy theory.

A negative consequence of native vegetation legislation all Australians should be concerned about is the loss of legal rights & civil liberties & its possible transfer to other areas of law.