• stifle867@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “Chicken meat poses a significant biosecurity risk to Australia, particularly the risk of highly pathogenic notifiable avian influenza (HPNAI) virus which can cause severe disease and mortality across Australia’s poultry industry, and may also affect wild bird populations.”

    We do have a reputation for taking these things very seriously, as we should. We were even going to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs at one point but settled for the “hostage video”. Despite that, it does seem excessive in this case and should have been overturned on appeal at the very least.

    Thankfully someone stepped up and ended up paying the fine on their behalf.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      We were even going to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs at one point but settled for the “hostage video”.

      Let me guess, it’s because he was rich and famous.

      • stifle867@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think it was more about sending a message. In a way yes because he is famous, but in the way that they wanted to leverage that as a deterrence. It wasn’t about “letting him off the hook”. It was about using him as a platform to say to the world “we do not fuck around when it comes to this”. If you’ve seen the hostage video you know what I mean 🤣

            • interceder270@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              Thank you!

              I can see how this might be a win-win for both parties. Yeah, JDepp gets off cause of his fame. But the AU government also gets to use that fame to send a message to everyone else.

              • stifle867@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                They were never really going to kill the dogs. The full context was along the lines of “well you can do the right thing, or we will have no choice but to…”. I’m not aware of any cases where they’ve actually euthanised a pet, famous or no. It’s an absolute last resort as they would rather just quarantine them. But yeah, pretty funny and a win for the government.

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        In Australia under a rightwing government? No, they wouldn’t have given a shit about that.

        It was because he broke biosecurity laws. Something we take seriously here after witnessing how rabbits, foxes, and canetoads fucked up the environment.

    • rainynight65@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      We were even going to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs at one point but settled for the “hostage video”.

      That was just Barnaby Joyce grandstanding and making a big deal out of ‘we apply the rules to everyone, no matter if they’re rich or famous’. No fucking way he would have ever laid hands on those dogs. The man was and still is a fucking embarrassment to politics and Australia.

      • stifle867@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Agreed and I made a similar point in a few of my other comments. If you look at the original context it was more of a “well you have to abide by the rules and the dogs should be quarantined but if you’re not willing to do that then we would have no other option”.

      • stifle867@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        And what I got from other commenters is that their countries hate pieces of gum and shrivelled blackened oranges. It’s not unique to Australia although as an island nation especially prone to biosecurity threats we do have a reputation for taking it more seriously. It’s not a difficult thing to get caught with if you’re paying any sort of attention. You can make mistakes and accidentally (or even purposefully) bring stuff in as long as you own up to it. There’s signage everywhere explaining in words and pictures what is and is not allowed. The custom agents ask you. There’s literally every chance to declare.

        It’s not as harsh as it sounds, it’s only when you get caught that it becomes a big deal. It’s like if you got pulled up by the cops. If you try and lie or simply don’t even recognise that you were speeding you’ll probably get a ticket. The analogy breaks down in the “admit fault” side of things because the cop can ticket you anyway, where under our biosecurity law you cannot be punished for declaring goods that would not be allowed in.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yep no meat no dairy. Which also applies to the UK, yet another Brexit dividend.

          The chance that any random sandwich carries something nasty is small, but there’s two other factors: a) If it does carry something nasty, the implications are huge and, certainly not least, b) you don’t need to bring a sandwich. Noone needs to bring a sandwich. Get one once you arrive. And if you just can’t stand airline food then be vegan for a couple of hours it won’t kill you. Live solely off chocolate during your flight if you want.