Bear hunting foe attacked in city
1998-01-21
The Vancouver Sun
by Stephen Hume
BC environmentalist Anthony Marr is recovering after being beaten by a burly man who said, “Let this be a lesson to you.”
[Newspaper Photo] Caption: Beaten but unbowed – Anthony Marr says he is undeterred in his campaign despite beating.
An environmentalist known for his opposition to bear hunting and the black market for animal parts was recovering Tuesday after being attacked in Vancouver’s West End.
Anthony Marr said he was waylaid about 7:30 p.m. Monday in the 1600 block of Haro Street as he made his way to his car after a dinner with his parents at their home.
Environmental groups have been complaining about a sharp increase in threats of physical violence directed at their members…
“I was parked in the lane”, Marr said. “There was this guy waiting for me by my car. He advanced a few steps and said, ‘Are you Anthony Marr?’ I said yes and he immediately attacked me.”
Marr… said his assailant was “over six feet and around 200 pounds” and rained blows upon his head and face, fracturing facial bones and damaging his eye socket.
“Then he said, ‘Let this be a lesson to you,’ and walked off,” Marr said.
The University of British Columbia Hospital confirmed that Marr was admitted and treated in the emergency ward shortly after 7:30 p.m.. Vancouver city police confirmed receiving his report of the attack about 8:40 p.m..
Marr recently led a controversial and widely publicized Western Canada Wilderness Committee campaign to have bear hunting banned in BC.
He has also been active in successfully pressuring government for controls in the black market on endangered species parts in the Asian community…
Marr’s silver 1993 Mazda sports car and its license plate became well known during the anti-hunting campaign, he says.
Marr drove 12,000 kilometers and visited almost every significant community in BC during the summer of 1996, holding public and private meetings that laid the groundwork for a province-wide initiative petition towards driving a referendum vote on banning bear hunting.
Campaigners obtained 93,000 signatures in a 90-day blitz that mobilized 1,800 volunteers, but fell well short of the 250,000 or 10 percent of the electorate - needed to force government action under recall and initiative legislation.
The petition campaign, however, gave Marr a high media profile.
He said he was constantly harassed by pro-hunting (forces). Pickup trucks tailgated his car and he received anonymous threats of violence by phone.
“My reaction is that it merely strengthens my resolve to continue with this campaign…”
Paul George, a director of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, described the attack on Marr as “deplorable” and said it was time for police and government to take seriously the “threats of violence and all the rhetoric that our people are subjected to.”
“I think this [violent rhetoric] unleashes hate against environmentalists just as much as it does against Jews or people of a different sexual persuasion or anything like that,” George said.
* * * * *
Subject: Anthony Marr
1998-01-26
Canadian Firearms DigestFrom: 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
1998-01-29
Cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.caFrom: Rick Lowe
Re.: “I have watched this thread develop and I am a cynic. I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that this was a staged beating to garner sympathy from the public.”
Well, perhaps the doubters are right and I am wrong. Perhaps Marr did arrange to have himself beaten to the point where he suffered facial fractures which had the potential to damage his eyesight, threaten his life, or even kill him.
Maybe there is something for us to learn here - we have much in common. Marr has been fighting a losing battle to have legislation allowing bear hunting thrown out. We have been fighting a losing battle to have legislation which bans and prohibits firearms thrown out. I guess the only question that remains is if we can meet the dedication that Marr has apparently demonstrated in arranging the beating he took.
So... we need a few volunteers willing to undergo a beating severe enough to inflict some skull fractures in hopes of getting a sound byte on the news some night. Hands up please, volunteers... line forms to the right.
Come, come, surely some of us can meet the same level of dedication as that shown by a contemptible, lying anti hunter like Marr. If he can “take the bullet” to the extent he did to further his cause, then it seems that hunters and shooters as dedicated as we are would be willing to just as eagerly step forward for a similar beating. The chances are reasonably good that these injuries will heal with no permanent effects - Marr apparently lucked out, and our volunteers probably will as well...
For myself, I reluctantly admit that I'll stick to letter writing, informing others, legally monkey-wrenching the system, and bugging my MP. I don't have the courage that Marr and our volunteers have, to willingly submit to those kind of injuries in hopes of getting a one day sound byte in the news.
1 Feb 1998
From: Roger Walker
Rick Lowe writes:
Well, perhaps the doubters are right and I am wrong. Perhaps Marr did arrange to have himself beaten to the point where he suffered facial fractures which had the potential to damage his eyesight, threaten his life, or even kill him.
Maybe there is something for us to learn here
[...]
I guess the only question that remains is if we can meet the dedication that Marr has apparently demonstrated in arranging the beating he took.
[...]
For myself, I reluctantly admit that I'll stick to letter writing, informing others, legally monkeywrenching the system, and bugging my MP. I don't have the courage that Marr and our volunteers have, to willingly submit to those kind of injuries in hopes of getting a one day soundbyte in the news.
One major difference between "us" and "them" is that we are coming from a position that is both morally and (through various items such as common-law, bills of rights, constitutions, etc.) legally strong, whereas our opponents do not. Generally, those with the moral/legal high ground do not stoop to deceit, whereas with our opponents, without a logical leg to stand on, can rely on nothing but.
Unfortunately, there sometimes comes a time when we feel that we MUST stoop to the same level as our opponent, as that is all they will understand. If it were not so, there would be no reason to carry a firearm for self defence. Again, the difference is that we are more likely to keep things "civilized" for as long as possible.
Roger WalkerVoice/Fax (403) 440-2685
Director & Senior Consultant,
Pager (403) 470-1808
ROSCO Associates Technology
Staffing Ltd. (RATS!)
BLACK RAT
