In Defence of Pit Bulls … and Canberra

The Pit Bull is Innocent

SIR: In my years of reading Quadrant I have found little to disagree with, so was surprised to find something that was plain wrong in Anthony Daniels’s article in November. While the central point was correct—the spread of ugliness into most aspects of modern culture—his introductory example of pit bull dogs was woefully wrong. He has been sold a pup by thirty years of vilification of the breed by media, politicians and some animal welfare activists.

No doubt it is true that in the UK he sees many loutish, anti-social types accompanied by dogs that look threatening. He is correct to reprehend them. He says they are “pit-bullish” creatures, whatever that may mean. As in the Vietnam War body count any dead Vietnamese was a Viet Cong, so any dog that seriously attacks anyone is a pit bull. Mr Daniels repeats some of the preposterous myths that have been generated to gain general currency, like the locking jaws and intractable aggression. The ugliness of form is a matter of opinion.

The pure-bred pit bull dog is a beautiful fellow, being of medium size, well balanced, wonderfully athletic, and unexaggerated. What is most appealing is his character, which is one of self-confident stability and irrepressible affection for all people he meets. Anyone who knows the Staffordshire bull terrier, which has gained great popularity because of his affectionate character, knows the pit bull, from which Staffords emerged.

Recently a friend and I met at a footpath cafe, and under the next table were two pit bulls and a bull terrier. They vied with each other to show us love, and the owners appreciated our positive approach. They had experienced reactions similar to Mr Daniels’s. The owners were a polite, friendly and engaging young couple. I didn’t notice tattoos, but didn’t look for them. In all my dealings with pit bulls and their owners over thirty years, I have never met a dog that caused me concern, though the majority of owners were working-class.

The pit bull is so eager to please that it will become whatever its owner wants it to be. No breed has suffered more abuse, neglect and cruelty—in the US on a scale of millions of dogs. This is outlined in the excellent new book by Bronwen Dickey, Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. That so little trouble has been caused by these dogs in these appalling circumstances is testament to their mental stability and endurance.

Mr Daniels is right that the dogs appeal to the worst type of owners. This is largely because they have been heavily promoted in what is effectively a marketing campaign by media and governments, who have made wild and ridiculous claims about the dogs’ capabilities and power. Dogs that are said to be mindlessly aggressive, have locking jaws, be unstoppable in attack, impervious to pain, able to bite through chain-link wire, to be killing machines, sharks on land, time-bombs, loaded guns, all claims made by our state premiers and editors, must appeal to certain types of people. It is the poor old dogs and their honest owners who suffer from this mania, and I am sorry to see Quadrant fuelling it.

To conclude, I do not know the case, but the fatal attack in the UK mentioned was almost certainly not by a pit bull. They have been banned in the UK since 1991 and are not so easy to come by. “Pit-bullish” blends of dogs are abundant.

Stephen Collier
Point Lonsdale, Vic

Canberra is Innocent

Sir: As someone well trained in Australian history I welcome David Flint’s article “The Six Pillars of Australia” (October 2016). I deplore, however, his repeated inaccurate descriptions and naming of the federal government as “Canberra”—as in “Canberra did this”, “Canberra decreed that”.

Canberra is a beautiful town, one of the first in the world outside the UK to be planned on aesthetic principles as a “garden city”. (The planning idea originated in Britain.) And the citizens of the capital are known as Canberrans. The city which is their home is not the name of the national government elected by the entire Australian population; nor is it the name of the government’s associated public service. To use the term when deploring government decisions is to attach a slur to a populace who do not deserve it.

Suzanne Edgar
Garran, ACT

Cultural Appropriation

SIR: Barry Spurr’s article “Censoring the Imagination” (November 2016) exposes the absurdity of the “enforcers of correct thought” who oppose what they term “cultural appropriation”. As a former Professor of Poetry at Sydney University he is able to provide a number of telling examples from drama, opera, poetry and the classics of literature.

There is also an example of this nonsense from Australian art history. This is the storm of controversy that Elizabeth Durack faced when, late in her distinguished career, she created the highly imaginative persona of an Aboriginal man, Eddie Burrup, and produced a series of paintings under his name. The paintings were initially widely acclaimed, and were greeted as inspired renditions of Aboriginal myths from the Kimberley region, where Durack had lived and worked for many years. The shameful story of her treatment at the hands of the “cultural appropriation” brigade, when she herself revealed the identity of Eddie Burrup in 1997, emerges in her letters and diaries, recently published under the title Art & Life: Selected Writings edited by Perpetua Durack Clancy (Connor Court). Images of the Burrup paintings and a more detailed account of the affair can be found on the website: elizabethdurack.com.

Thanks to Lionel Shriver and Barry Spurr we can now see the opposition to “cultural appropriation” for what it is: narrow-minded bigotry from those who regard themselves as an intellectual, progressive elite.

Roger Underwood
Palmyra, WA

Family Violence

SIR: I read Professor Zimmer­mann’s article (November 2016) with interest. He makes some salient points that are worthy of consideration. However, I was also somewhat troubled by the piece.

In his apparent attempt to diminish the validity of the claims of people who apply for FVROs where physical violence may not have occurred, he seems to sidestep the very requirement for evidence that forms the basis of his objections to the extension of the grounds for issuing FVROs. He quotes from an e-mail received from the subject of an AVRO in support of his contention that being able to use verbal abuse as a ground for gaining a restraining order is a dangerous development. The substance of the quote is that the subject of the AVRO believes the woman had weak or no grounds for the AVRO, and that she lied and was believed unquestioningly by the police. The subject of the AVRO asserts that the woman filed the AVRO because “a woman can simply decide she doesn’t want the guy any more (in my case she wasn’t getting to the gym enough, the GFC had affected my salary and she didn’t fancy renovating)”. This is merely the man’s point of view.

Research into emotional or verbal abuse indicates that this man’s e-mail reads like a classic abuser’s response to the abused party finally calling him to task for his behaviour. Who knows what has been occurring, or for how long? Were she asked, or were we privileged to see her application, she might tell a very different story and possibly cite many examples and provide witnesses to some episodes.

In support of the contention that non-physical abuse is used as a ploy by lawyers who tell women what to say in court to get their FVRO, Professor Zimmermann offers a quote from a participant in a comprehensive study about post-separation conflict: “The lady at the court showed me this flow chart of domestic violence and it actually made me realise that that’s what I’ve dealt with since I’ve been with him, but its been verbal and emotional rather than physical.” The existence of a flow chart indicates that there is a recognised and accepted spectrum or continuum of abuse. Rather than a convenient excuse, it is at least equally possible that the applicant genuinely recognised what the flow chart represented and was finally able to give a name to the bewildering trauma she had been experiencing.

Research into emotional and verbal abuse shows that this is a frequent trajectory of discovery for abused women. They are constantly on high alert trying to protect themselves and their children from the many forms of non-physical abuse and manipulation perpetrated by abusers, without recognising it as abuse because physical violence is not present—until they reach some sort of crisis and seek help.

Non-physical abuse is increasingly recognised as particularly pernicious precisely because it is insidious and hard to prove. Much recent research supports the idea that the damaging psychological and emotional effects of sustained non-physical abuse are often more severe and long-lasting than those of physical violence. This harm is caused principally to women and children.

It is a great pity that Professor Zimmermann weakens his presentation of valid concerns about FVROs and justice with poor evidence examples, compounded by an apparent ignorance or scepticism about current research into the various forms of non-physical abuse, and the evidence that has been gathered about the great harm non-physical abuse causes.

Yes, administering justice in the area of FVROs is very difficult and yes, adding non-physical abuse into the mix makes it more difficult still. That does not mean non-physical abuse should be ignored or devalued in its seriousness. It means the difficulties must be confronted honestly, if justice is to be done.

Catherine Parish
Leeming, WA

The Timid Groupers

Sir: The Australian shop assistants’ union, controlled for over forty years by the successors to the Cold War-era Industrial Groups, has copped a lot of criticism in recent months. The Federal Court exposed glaring holes in its flagship enterprise agreement with Coles. The humiliating rejection of the deal covering 7000 employees across Australia revealed the unhealthy relationship between the union and the company and, in particular, exposed anti-competitive arrangements that have operated for decades in the retail industry.

Less public but nevertheless just as humiliating as the Federal Court decision has been the union leadership’s insipid surrender to fashionable left-wing ideology on contentious issues such as same-sex marriage and Marxist indoctrination of school children under the guise of anti-bullying and domestic-violence education.

It has been well documented that the return in the early 1980s of the four “right-wing” unions previously aligned to the National Civic Council, enabled the Right of the ALP to regain control of the Victorian branch from the extreme leftist Bill Hartley, enabling the election of the Cain government in Victoria and Hawke federally. However, it is hard to see what social or economic dividend has been reaped for the social movement behind the group of unions (the Group) to justify the decision to rejoin the Labor Party. Abortion on demand has become common practice, a majority of Labor members and senators supported legalised euthanasia at the last vote held in the Commonwealth Parliament, and the current Victorian Labor government has passed laws disallowing religious freedom-of-association exemptions under equal-opportunity legislation. Its only visible economic policies are to limit shop trading hours, increase public holidays and maintain high Sunday award penalty rates.

Strong in political numbers, but intellectually timid, the Group’s parliamentary and union representatives have failed miserably to influence the social policy direction of the Labor Party and the country. Worse, people such as James Merlino in Victoria and Tony Burke federally have become enthusiastic advocates of the Left’s regressive programs.

Admittedly the Group’s agenda encountered several obstacles over the journey, including the loss of the clerks’ union. Nevertheless, its insular national leadership’s tendency to hide behind a veil of secrecy rather than openly advocating its more socially conservative agenda perpetuates a reactionary mindset fearful of outsiders and new ideas.

The Labor Left has cultivated and engaged Left-leaning people in the arts, media, academia and business to promote its agenda whilst Group members are still recruited from intergenerational families like some European hereditary lineage. No wonder the parliamentary representatives are incapable of dissuading their colleagues on the pitfalls of socially engineered education and family outcomes let alone capable of arguing the benefits of traditional marriage, the right to life and religious freedom.

I challenge anyone to name one of the Group’s social policies adopted by the Labor Party and implemented into law. At least Joe Bullock had the decency to resign from the Senate. Others such as Don Farrell, Chris Ketter, Jacinta Collins and Anthony Byrne just sit there year after year.

It is time for the Group to move out of the Cold War darkness and argue its views in the public square. The Left will never embrace it. Ironically, its true intellectual allies reside in the Liberal and National parties. Another split would make the political pundits stand up and listen—but I doubt the current Group have the courage.

Paul Maguire
Fitzroy North, Vic