Please, Somebody Think of the Horses?!

Quite rightly, there is a strong movement within animal rights groups for the for the banning of jumps racing. While many people are employed in this industry, the apparent difference between the number of serious injuries suffered by horses in jumps racing – (particularly involving the horse being put down) – as opposed to the number suffered in non-jumps racing, should present a fairly straightforward argument against jumps racing.

The unfortunate sight of tarpaulins being held up around badly injured horses, laying on racing tracks while veterinarians undertake the sad duty of shooting the horse is disturbing to many. The tarpaulins of course only stop people from seeing the death of the horse, and the true nature of the injuries to the horse. I am sure that the veterinarians themselves, as well as the track workers are traumatised in having to go through the process.

By why do we need the tarpaulin? Does having the tarpaulin in place change what is going on behind it? Of course not – the horse is still seriously hurt, is still in pain, and still about to lose its life. People outside of the tarpaulin know exactly what is going on, and draw mental images of the scene. I’m sure in many instances, those mental images are far more serious than what the true image that would be seen without the tarpaulin.

People can be just as disturbed by the images that their minds create, as they can be by “real” images. The fact remains, however, that the horse is still dead. Even if people think we need to be protected from the imagery.

Which brings me to the badly designed plan for mandatory internet filtering in Australia. The plan would see a metaphoric “tarpaulin” thrown up around “bad things” on the internet. A common example brought up by filter advocates is child pornography.

Child pornography is a dreadful blight on society, and nobody in the active anti-filter movement would disagree with that. However, the problem is not that the child pornography is being distributed – the problem is that it is produced.

Just like the poor unfortunate jumps racing horse, throwing the “tarpaulin” up around the child pornography does not change the fact that the child pornography was produced. That a child was abused in physical, mental, and sexual ways in its production.

The problem with the internet “tarpaulin” is that it will never been taken down, and we’ll never know if the horse has been shot. The only way to stop horses being needlessly injured and subsequently destroyed, is to stop jumps racing.

So stop child pornography, because as we all know, with the ease in which the proposed filter can be circumvented, anyone who really wants to, can run onto the track, and peer through the “tarpaulin”. Why should we waste millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on a system which does nothing to stop the activity it purports to block?

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital economy has completely lost sight of the real issue. The minister recently said that he would not allow opt-in/opt-out provisions to be added to the legislation, stating "I'm not opting into child porn". He may not be opting into child porn, but he and his department are certainly opting to stick their heads in the sand.

Hiding a problem does not make a problem go away. Child pornography (and all the other creepies this legislation will claim to protect us from) is already illegal. There are already criminal justice mechanisms in place to deal with these problems. The concept of making something “even more illegal” by placing another layer of “illegalness” on top of it is absurd. As EFA campaigner Geordie Guy has said, and which was related in Mark Newton’s Joint Select Committee on Cybersafety submission, it is like "banning murder on Thursdays". Murder is already illegal – why would we need to further refine the “illegalness” of it?

So, please. Please, won’t somebody think of the horses?!