Hunting Compared To Apartheid & The Holocaust

[Sable123]

I find this absolutely disgusting and an insult to not only all of those that died during these horrific times, but against those heroes who fought against it and every hunter out there that strives towards conservation.

If only Dereck Joubert's real intentions in Botswana would be exposed, people would be shocked!

I am sorry Tata Madiba for all that you fought for and ensuring the freedom of millions of South Africans can so easily be compared to something simple as hunting.

It takes a lot to get my hair raised, but this one hit the ticket!


"ANIMAL ACTIVIST COMPARES HUNTING TO APARTHEID AND THE HOLOCAUST

Pretoria, 14 October 2014 – The Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa (PHASA) has condemned in the strongest possible terms a statement by Botswanan animal rights activist Dereck Joubert likening hunting to the Holocaust and Apartheid.

In an interview with National Geographic on Uganda’s apparent decision to re-impose a ban on hunting in that country, Joubert says: “I believe that hunting will one day be regulated to the category of awful things we did as humans, alongside Apartheid and the Holocaust”.

“We’re used to emotional and unfounded criticism from animal rights activists but to compare hunting to two of the biggest atrocities in modern history is grossly insensitive to Jewish and South African communities,” said Hermann Meyeridricks, PHASA president.

He said that hunting is recognised globally by leading conservation organisations – including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) – as a significant contributor to wildlife conservation and provides poor rural communities with a valuable source of income, social services, infrastructure and food security.

“The comparison is therefore ludicrous and we are dumbfounded at the depths these activists will descend to impose their viewpoint on the rest of the world. We call on Dereck Joubert and by extension National Geographic to clarify this statement or, if they can’t, to publicly apologise to those who suffered under the policies of Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany,” he said



Published in PHASA Press Release"

 

[brushmore]

The only way someone can have this kind of logic is to be in contempt of other human beings.

I don't know what's worse, this guy's statement or National Geographic taking this guy seriously and publishing his comments.

 

[PeteG]

It takes a lot to get my hair raised, but this one hit the ticket!

+1... you sum that up perfectly!
I am pretty sure he will wake up one morning in the near future and realise what a stupid comment he made.

 

[Velo Dog]

Evan Sayet is a USA born person of Jewish ancestry who was formerly a so called "Liberal" Democrat until those jets hit downtown New York, also the Pentagon and, thanks to incredibly brave passengers fighting back - a Farmer's field in Pennsylvania, instead of the intended target.
Sayet wrote a book about the not-reality-based "Liberal" way of thinking.

"The KinderGarden of Eden"

It is worth every penny of the 9 or 10 bucks it costs on the internet.

 

[IdaRam]

I doubt it Pete. This douche nozzle is too out of touch and bloated with self importance to even consider the possibility that he could say or do something stupid. Any response from him will be solely motivated by self interest, not genuine remorse for his assinine and offensive comments.
Thanks Velo Dog, I just downloaded that book to my Kindle. I am sure it will be an interesting read

 

[Velo Dog]

I doubt it Pete. This douche nozzle is too out of touch and bloated with self importance to even consider the possibility that he could say or do something stupid. Any response from him will be solely motivated by self interest, not genuine remorse for his assinine and offensive comments.
Thanks Velo Dog, I just downloaded that book to my Kindle. I am sure it will be an interesting read

IdaRam,

Excellent point and well put.

Also, I hope you enjoy the book.

For the past 20 or 30 years I have been saying that so called "Liberals" are anything but liberal.

To the contrary, they are the most unaccepting, critical of others, socially elitist, rude, self absorbed, narcissistic, closed minded, control fiends on earth.

Suddenly, this Evan Sayet guy defects from the Democrat Party and writes this book, totally vindicating my rants on that very subject, not to mention many other myths about how and why those nuts reject fact and cling to some juvenile/arrested development, emotional fantasies instead.

Stay on that front sight,
Velo Dog.

 

[Scott Slough]

I would suggest that any person who compares conservation (he labels it hunting, but we all know it is conservation) to the holocaust or apartheid is less than well informed ... but to assume that person speaks for a whole class of people is no more informed.

 

[IdaRam]

Well, he certainly seems to speak for a whole class of people who share his views on hunting, and they look like liberals to me. In this country at least (USA) it's the liberals who overwhelmingly make up that group. So is your point that a person can be a liberal and not be a rabid anti-hunter? Or that the so called "Liberals" are fine folk indeed?
Hi Scott! I hope you are well It appears there may be a "debate" about liberals looming on the horizon Sorry to butt in front. Pardon me Velo Dog.

 

[Saul]

Well, he certainly seems to speak for a whole class of people who share his views on hunting, and they look like liberals to me. In this country at least (USA) it's the liberals who overwhelmingly make up that group. So is your point that a person can be a liberal and not be a rabid anti-hunter? Or that the so called "Liberals" are fine folk indeed?
Hi Scott! I hope you are well It appears there may be a "debate" about liberals looming on the horizon Sorry to butt in front. Pardon me Velo Dog.

I find comments from wack-jobs like this to be incredibly offensive to both hunters and the Jewish people (there is a reason why the Reichman family has such small reunions). On the other hand, I don't really see the point in getting all worked up, other than to correct an obviously ignorant remark. I guess I have just become numb to such close-minded comments.
Also, being a hunter has nothing to do with being a liberal. As many of you know, my political ideology leans to the far left (solely because of my social views).

 

[Scott Slough]

I have been labeled as many things … including a liberal ... and I am MOST DEFINITELY pro-hunting ... so my point is that a person can be a liberal and be rabid pro-hunting!

From a historical perspective a significant portion of the Southern US were politically liberal, personally conservative, and generally "fine folk". In fact, the term yellow dog democrat probably came from the ubiquitous yellow labs they used as hunting dogs and "I would as soon vote for a yellow dog as a republican." While I am do not self-identify as a yellow dog democrat those are my roots and most of the hunters that I know come from that same demographic.

Further, I do think that most people that are “fine folk” … conservative and liberal alike. Some individuals from any group find a way to offend such as our “friend” Mr. Joubert from the original post.

 

[K-man]

This kind of cr*p comes from the same type of person that values animal life on the same level as human life. I have deep feelings every time I take an animals life and I do not do it lightly or callously, but IT IS NOT THE SAME AS TAKING A HUMAN LIFE.

 

[IdaRam]

I have been labeled as many things … including a liberal ... and I am MOST DEFINITELY pro-hunting ... so my point is that a person can be a liberal and be rabid pro-hunting!

OK, no problem. We agree. On that anyway.
Maybe a great question to ask here is what makes someone a liberal? I am genuinely interested in your opinion.
The way the term "liberal" seems to be commonly used is to describe the far left of the Democrat party. At least that's the way it comes across to me.
Scott and Saul, do you consider yourselves liberals in the sense of being far-left leaning "liberals"? If so, how do you reconcile that with more "conservative" views such as hunting and firearms ownership?
I ask those questions because I wonder if liberal means the same thing to me as it does to you?
When I think of a liberal I think of Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Hilary Clinton, Wayne Pacelle, Michael Bloomberg... Dereck Joubert...
Are these the people you identify with when you describe yourself as a liberal?
I think it is that group of people who the term "liberal" was intended to mean in the posts above.
If you are a liberal because you generally vote for democrat candidates, are pro choice, belong to a labor union and came from a family of democrats, I don't think that's who "liberal" describes. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, just attempting to provide some context. And I also think there are plenty of these fine folks.
Like it or not, the "Liberal" brand today IS those folks I referred to above and the term liberal today most certainly does not mean what it did 60 years ago. Don't like it? I don't blame you.[/QUOTE]

 

[IdaRam]

Sorry, I'm still struggling with "quotes"

 

[Scott Slough]

IdaRam,

+1 on quotes ... we will agree to drop them as they are a pain!

I don't agree with your definitions (if I used the most left-leaning elements of the democratic party then I have to define the most right-leaning elements of the republican party to define conservatism and no one outside of my home state of Texas wants to be represented by Ted Cruz [sorry, that was a cheap political joke]) ... but let's accept YOUR definition that Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Hilary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg (I removed Wayne Pacelle and Dereck Joubert because they have NOTHING to do with liberals in the US, they are simply the purveyors of the stupidity in the original article) the liberals as quoted above. If those are YOUR liberal leaders, then Harry Reid would be THE leader of the group. A quick Google search shows that Harry Reid is a lifelong gun owner and hunting advocate and has a B rating from the NRA on gun issues - http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Harry_Reid_Gun_Control.htm . Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Bloomberg are ALL noted gun-control advocates and get Fs or near Fs from the NRA for gun related issues. But interestingly for this conversation, I did a search for all three of them and Google did not identify any anti-hunting comments ... beyond Feinstein's hunting humans stupidity.

So if we accept your definition of who defines liberals and that liberals are anti-hunting, why can't I find anti-hunting statements from or even about them on the Internet? You state that the original statement represents liberals ... how?

I certainly wasn't intending to debate the definition of liberals. Rather my intent was to point out that it was this person wrong ... but an attempt to paint liberals as supporting these kinds of statements was just as wrong. This was the statement of a single individual who probably doesn't even represent the majority of his small subset of society.

 

[DOC-404]

For such an intelligent man, you sure stuck your head up your arse on this one, Dereck. Not good, don't like and seriously pissed off.

 

[IdaRam]

No problem Scott, cheap political jokes are never out of bounds
Fair enough, you disagree with who I identified as being liberal leaders. Who would you identify as examples of liberal leaders? Not my intent to debate the definition of a liberal either. It was a genuine question. I am truly interested. I will respectfully accept your definition of a liberal. I may have a different idea of who a liberal is. Doesn't mean I'm right.
I think I get what you said at the end of a post above, "an attempt to paint liberals as supporting these kind of statements was just wrong". Gotcha. I understand why you took exception to that. I know that is not how you feel. In fact, in re-reading through the posts it dawned on me what you mean. It just took me a while. You identify yourself as a liberal, but don't appreciate being lumped together with someone making comments such as Mr. Joubert's. I finally got it
OK, so I disagree with your statement that Wayne Pacelle has nothing to do with liberals in the US. Humane Society of the United States claims to be the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization in the country. I'm pretty certain that the membership of HSUS is made up largely of liberals. Put another way, I don't think HSUS is made of a "conservative" minded base.
So, is it your contention that Dianne Feinstein, Hilary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, etc are pro-hunting? Is it too much of a leap to assume that if someone is an anti-gun advocate they are also anti-hunting? To my way of thinking, if you are that aggressively anti-gun, how could you possibly be pro-hunting? Do you really believe they might be pro-hunting?
Regarding Harry Reid, if you think he has a great track record supporting gun rights, I urge you to pay more attention to what he says and does in Congress. Maybe not as bad as some, but not someone I would point to as being a stellar example of a supporter of gun rights.

 

[BRICKBURN]

For such an intelligent man, you sure stuck your head up your arse on this one, Dereck. Not good, don't like and seriously pissed off.

+1

 

[Scott Slough]

IdaRam,

Yes you are correct, my main point is that this guy does not represent liberals! And he sure as hell does not represent me! I share the opinion that he did in fact stick his head up his arse as quoted above and he and he alone should bear the full brunt of any criticism.

As for the rest of it:

I do not label myself as a liberal ... I am mostly a contrarian. My liberal friends label me as a conservative because when they attempt to use a single individual like Ted Cruz to represent all conservatives I give them grieve. My conservative friends label me as a liberal when I make arguments that people like Wayne Pacelle and Dereck Joubert do not represent liberals ... and yes, I have friends that are more and less conservative than I am. I hope you will continue to be one of them.

I do not presume to know the membership of any organization that I am not a member of, so I will decline to discuss the liberalness vs. conservativeness of said organizations or attempt to define other peoples positions (on guns, hunting, or left-handed vs right-handed widgets). They can speak for themselves ... I can assure you that if they are in Washinton, they probably don't speak for me!!!

 

[IdaRam]

Thanks Scott, I am trackin' with ya now
We may debate and disagree, hell we may debate and find out we don't disagree! But I too hope we will remain friends, regardless of any of our differences.
I've found that people with a different point of view are sometimes the ones you are most likely to learn something from

 

[Saul]

Interesting opinions voiced so far. I specifically mentioned that I side with most liberal democrats on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) but I am a strong supporter of gun rights and hunting. Economically, I am somewhere in the middle because there are no black and white answers to any economic situation. If I had to choose a politician that comes closest to my economic beliefs it is somewhere around Bill Clinton and FDR. I have always been a strong supporter of the Work-for-welfare regulations passed by Clinton and can never forgive bush for getting rid of them.
In the end, there are no political candidates on either side that support al of my beliefs (no one say Joe Biden, although he is hilarious).
I will admit that in the early 90s I was a supporter of Irv Rubin but that didn't work out