Gail Shea spokesperson responds to Morrissey's statement about Canadian seal hunt

A spokesperson for Gail Shea has responded to Morrissey's comments :

Morrissey attacks Fisheries Minister Gail Shea in blog post claiming ‘Canada’s sorry image is due entirely to its seal slaughter’ - National Post

Excerpt:

A spokesperson for Shea has responded to Morrissey’s statement, saying his comments “reveal a total ignorance of the Canadian seal hunt.”

Anyone who takes a careful look at the seal hunt will see that it is humane, sustainable, and well-regulated,” minister spokesperson Sophie Doucet said in an email to the Post. “In fact, the process used in the seal hunt was designed by international veterinary experts, and is the most stringent of any wild animal hunt in the world.

This is clearly just another case of a millionaire celebrity, desperate for a hobby, shamelessly regurgitating misinformation and myths that fringe animal-rights groups have been pushing for years. In the future, I would urge Mr. Morrissey to consider the impact that his ignorant and inflammatory statements have on the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working men and women in rural communities."

gail-shea.jpg


Related item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When does the Julia hunt start...I heard she has a great pelt
 
"Anyone who takes a careful look at the seal hunt will see that it is humane, sustainable, and well-regulated.”

Ms. Shea is right! I cannot wait until Canada's National Obese Elderly Hunt! I plan on hunting Ms. Shea in the most humane and sustainable way! There looks like there is some good blubber on those pudgy bones! She'd make a fine stew, and when her head is being clubbed open, I know she'll be defending my right to deliver those blows!
Brilliant!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

Aww - thanks Robby, that's very kind.

I still check into Solo from time to time (particularly when there's the promise of an album, tour, etc.). Still, it seems like many here have drunk the crazy juice of late, and I don't feel the need to comment on any of it. As long as everyone's having fun. ;) :rolleyes: :squiffy:

I am a lady you know - always have been. :D
you are? sorry :o I must have forgotten :confused: anyways, Hello milady, how are you?
sign0201_zpsea7f6d22.gif


as to the issue in question, had dinner with 3 Canadians and they all think the seal hunt thing should be stopped
leading me to question whether it really does have "the will of the people" behind it*
33_zps309c1b2e.gif


so I'd like someone else to look up polling information on this stuff, preferably where the polled are Canadian :cool:
I'd do it myself, but its almost 2 am here and really must be off to
1_zpsf51501af.gif




*=see, for some of us concepts like democracy being upheld matter far more than our own highly subjective, idiosyncratic, emotion driven notions of what should and should not be done by others
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

To be honest I have only briefly looked at fracking but my own view is it's not a good idea full stop. To drill down and take a ninety degree turn and than fracture the rock with water to release gas ! It's all very quick fix 'who cares about tmrw' yet our prime minister can't wait to start poking our little island and frak us up and down dale.
My neighbour lives in Australia part of the year and he has seen it first hand, he's due back in May and the last time we discussed it one of things he wasn't impressed with was the ponds of polluted water involved, I shall pick his brains some more but I won't change my mind, fracking is not future friendly for my children.

Oh Camera-man your gonna have so much to answer for !


Benny-the-British-Butcher
Well look at that, Brummie, Benny and myself all agree that fracking sucks rather a large one.
Maybe I should start a thread,
'Things we can all agree on'.
(and maybe I shouldn't).
 
Last edited:
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

Well look at that, Brummie, Benny and myself all agree that fracking sucks rather a large one.
Maybe I should a thread,
'Things we can all agree on'.
(and maybe I shouldn't).

Fracking sucks!
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

I have a very terrible chest infection which is being treated with Amoxicillin at the present and posts like this are far from helpful, I'm all out of puff ! Please hold back a tad B B I'm dying.


Benny-the-Poorly-British-Butcher

Laughter is the best medicine, that's why I can't wait for Morrissey's new album. But until then his 'political' views will keep me going.
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

Well look at that, Brummie, Benny and myself all agree that fracking sucks rather a large one.
Maybe I should a thread,
'Things we can all agree on'.
(and maybe I shouldn't).

Let's hope and pray that the Tosser doesn't give fracking a big thumbs up statement via the puppet-zine then or we really are gonna be in the shit with the Toss-frack-army.


Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

Well look at that, Brummie, Benny and myself all agree that fracking sucks rather a large one.
Maybe I should start a thread,
'Things we can all agree on'.
(and maybe I shouldn't).

We'll look at that, Benny the bitch whining about something he admits to knowing nothing.
Earth shattering, quite literally.
Don't worry bummie will doubtless be a wiki expert, let's face it he's got little else to do til the albums out.
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

We'll look at that, Benny the bitch whining about something he admits to knowing nothing.
Earth shattering, quite literally.
Don't worry bummie will doubtless be a wiki expert, let's face it he's got little else to do til the albums out.
If you wish to comment should you not register so we have a name?
Come on. Don't be scared. It's easy.
 
Unless you are a Norwegian teenager in which case it "is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald's and Kentucky Fried shit every day."

Once again: you're being irrational. Saying that other animals are morally as important as humans does not mean that humans are as UNimportant as we consider other animals to be. It simply means that other animals are as important as we already consider humans to be. Try to be rational. It's difficult, but possible.
 
Once again: you're being irrational. Saying that other animals are morally as important as humans does not mean that humans are as UNimportant as we consider other animals to be. It simply means that other animals are as important as we already consider humans to be. Try to be rational. It's difficult, but possible.

Actually, I find it bizarre that Johnny Barleycorn keeps bringing this Norway argument up over and over again. Then people say this ^ over and over again. -> No reaction. -> The same thing happens again.

I mean: yeah, the conversation contains Dead Children, but is it somehow anatomically impossible for humans to behave rationally when the conversation has something to do with dead children? Is it impossible to adopt new information or use logic when the conversation has something to do with dead children? If so, then why?
 
Re: is Gail Shea an idiot? yes, but Morrissey seems to be too

If you wish to comment should you not register so we have a name?
Come on. Don't be scared. It's easy.

Easy, but not necessary.
 
Actually, I find it bizarre that Johnny Barleycorn keeps bringing this Norway argument up over and over again. Then people say this ^ over and over again. -> No reaction. -> The same thing happens again.

I mean: yeah, the conversation contains Dead Children, but is it somehow anatomically impossible for humans to behave rationally when the conversation has something to do with dead children? Is it impossible to adopt new information or use logic when the conversation has something to do with dead children? If so, then why?
JamesDn, you are a strange cove.
First you respond to your own post and then I don't understand what on earth you are talking about.
Help me. Be specific. Where has logic been suspended in this business?
 
JamesDn, you are a strange cove.
First you respond to your own post and then I don't understand what on earth you are talking about.
Help me. Be specific. Where has logic been suspended in this business?

I am a strange cove, but I'm not responding, I'm continuing on the subject.

If I didn't continue on the subject, I'd never get a response. This has happened for multiple times before.

I think my post was rather clear, but I can try to be more spesific:

Johnny Barleycorn keeps bringing up the Norway argument. What he's trying to say is that Morrissey's comment indicates that Morrissey doesn't care about humans, or that Morrissey is belittling the moral value of humans. This is an irrational conclusion.

So then I (or somebody else) respond with this: "Saying that other animals are morally as important as humans does not mean that humans are as UNimportant as we consider other animals to be. It simply means that other animals are as important as we already consider humans to be." (Giving moral value to non-human animals makes sense, by the way: from a scientific point of view, it is becoming increasingly justifiable to see animals like pigs or chickens as mentally comparable to human children. If they're mentally comparable, they should be morally comparable.)

Then: the debate has ended. Completely. The end. As if Johnny B hadn't read the response at all. And then, 2 months later, the exact same thing happens again.

And it sucks.

Was this spesific?
 
I am a strange cove, but I'm not responding, I'm continuing on the subject.

If I didn't continue on the subject, I'd never get a response. This has happened for multiple times before.

I think my post was rather clear, but I can try to be more spesific:

Johnny Barleycorn keeps bringing up the Norway argument. What he's trying to say is that Morrissey's comment indicates that Morrissey doesn't care about humans, or that Morrissey is belittling the moral value of humans. This is an irrational conclusion.

So then I (or somebody else) respond with this: "Saying that other animals are morally as important as humans does not mean that humans are as UNimportant as we consider other animals to be. It simply means that other animals are as important as we already consider humans to be." (Giving moral value to non-human animals makes sense, by the way: from a scientific point of view, it is becoming increasingly justifiable to see animals like pigs or chickens as mentally comparable to human children. If they're mentally comparable, they should be morally comparable.)

Then: the debate has ended. Completely. The end. As if Johnny B hadn't read the response at all. And then, 2 months later, the exact same thing happens again.

And it sucks.

Was this spesific?
OK. That was nearly specific (note the spelling)
So Johnny is being irrational because he doesn't accept your theory about what Moz's thoughts maybe about the relative importance of human and animal life,
or because he doesn't believe in the moral equivalence of man and beast,
or both?
And he is being irrational about these things because this involves dead children?
Is this your position?
 
OK. That was nearly specific (note the spelling)

Very much apologies.

This ain't my native language (mine native languagé is Finnish; a mysteriouz langage spoken in a distant land called Finland), so I likes to think I is doing pretty good after all? Very sry!!!!!!!!

So Johnny is being irrational because he doesn't accept your theory about what Moz's thoughts maybe about the relative importance of human and animal life,
or because he doesn't believe in the moral equivalence of man and beast,
or both?
And he is being irrational about these things because this involves dead children?
Is this your position?

Johnny is being irrational because he keeps bringing up the debate, not reacting to valid arguments against his position, and then bringing up the debate again.

It does have a lot to do with dead children. Somebody has killed children. -> A rational conversation about anything is 'inappropriate', because: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Because the deaths of 77 kids are automatically the greatest crime in the history of mankind. Nothing comes close. Suggesting that huge industries torturing hundreds of billions of sentient individuals could be even comparable to this crime is Satanic.
 
Last edited:
Very much apologies.

This ain't my native language (mine native languagé is Finnish; a mysteriouz langage spoken in a distant land called Finland), so I likes to think I is doing pretty good after all? Very sry!!!!!!!!



Johnny is being irrational because he keeps bringing up the debate, not reacting to valid arguments against his position, and then bringing up the debate again.

It does have a lot to do with dead children. Somebody has killed children. -> A rational conversation about anything is 'inappropriate', because: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Because the deaths of 77 kids are automatically the greatest crime in the history of mankind. Nothing comes close. Suggesting that huge industries torturing hundreds of billions of sentient individuals could be even comparable to this crime is Satanic.
Don't apologise. Your English is excellent.
I can't accept this moral equivalence and I don't think that is irrational. No one has said that it is satanic if you do accept it.
 
Don't apologise. Your English is excellent.
I can't accept this moral equivalence and I don't think that is irrational. No one has said that it is satanic if you do accept it.

The thing about morals Peter are that they're all subjective and entirely man made meaning no person is more correct than another.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom