1998-01-26
Canadian Firearms Digest
From: H. Roy Stephens
As it
was reported here, he suffered broken facial bones including damage to the
orbit of one of his eyes. That is hardly a �bloody nose�. Furthermore, in
light of the fact he WAS the target of verbal threats regarding bodily
harm from some of the more brain dead and irresponsible alleged members of
the hunting fraternity, it becomes quite obviously newsworthy.
Emotional issue + verbal threats + serious assault = the news. Simple.
Not so
simple I'm afraid. His injuries when reported in medical terminology sound
impressive indeed. However, they weren't. Moreover he makes it his
business to command attention by whatever means to promote his cause.
Further more, regardless of who made the threats, (assuming they were in
fact made - I'm more of a skeptic each day) there is not a shred of
evidence to connect anyone or any group with his misfortune. To convict
the hunting fraternity in absentia & by implication is only newsworthy if
you don't have a critical bone in your body, and I stand by my assessment
of the CBC Afternoon Show interviewer in that regard.
Now
that he has been beaten up - whether by a hunter or by somebody involved
in the illicit animal parts trade - the yapping of the idiots will come
back to haunt hunters. A very tiny minority threatened to physically harm
him, and now he has indeed been seriously beaten. How does this make us
look as hunters to the non-committed citizen out there - most of whom get
their view of the world from the mainstream media?
Whoever is responsible did hunters a major disservice.
Just
to put it in perspective he was not seriously beaten. As he stated he was
punched in the face a couple times and was fine from the neck down. He
walked away after the incident. I agree that the yapping will come back to
haunt hunters. If you were in his shoes that is exactly what you would
want! Again, we do not know if a hunter or poacher was involved. Don't
fall into their trap. For all we know he has other enemies. He says he has
none, but are you willing to take his word for it? This is a man who
deliberately tells lies to further his agenda.
That the CBC unwittingly has been aiding Mr. Marr is very much to its
discredit. Where is the balanced coverage?
I
don't think covering a serious criminal assault after the man was publically threatened is exactly unbalanced coverage. He claims the
assailant said it was for his stand on bear hunting - should CBC feel
obligated to not report what a victim says his assailants said?
I
listened to the CBC interview and Marr clearly stated that the only thing
his assailant said was, �Are you Anthony Marr?� Serious criminal assault?
I guess it's all relative. I don't see it that way.
It is
necessary in my view to rigorously question everything people like Marr
say and do. They are masters of manipulation, and worse, believe that it
is morally acceptable to lie in order to gain their objective(s).
Also see: Bear hunting foe
attacked in city - 21 January 1998
Return to Anti Trophy Hunting
Since 