Bob Burton is right to call Sue Neales, a journalist who I admire, on this issue.
At the very least the term “anti-forestry” is lazy.
It is also divisive.
It has legal connotations when claims (generally without evidence) are made about trespass and damage to logging equipment for example. The term then has defamatory imputation.
During the period in which I was being sued by Gunns Limited (nearly 5 years) I had to contact editors of a number of media outlets to inform them that the label “anti-forestry” was not appropriate to my case and was, in fact, prejudicial. I often found that those editors were surprisingly blase I when I expressed my displeasure about be referred to in this way (the editorial version of “whatever”).
I have made my views on forestry well known. I deplore broad acre clearfelling of native forests but I am certainly not opposed to all native forestry.
But I was not sued for my views on forestry. Rather, I raised, in the media, very serious health concerns I had, and still have, about the woodchip piles on Burnie wharf. Gunns took offense at the way I expressed my concern and sued me for defamation.
It seems to me to be a very obvious defensive strategy to dismiss sincerely expressed concern as the predictable and unfounded spoiling and scare mongering tactics of “anti-forestry protesters”.
Of course this is ultimately of great detriment as responsible dissent and whistle blowing is a healthy thing.
It has lead to social progress in the past and will do so again.
This comment appears on this article, HERE. Comment HERE
Image: HERE
