#681671 - 04/15/08 10:52 AM
The ARA want to stifle our rights but not theirs.
|
Mira Trapper
trapper
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 689
Loc: Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
|
Strange how these hypocrites set out to destroy animal use people and will stifle our ability to live life without their interference. However, when the shoe turns they whine like babies trying to ignore their own illicit actions created the environment where laws must be past to allow people to exist without being harassed by ARA and earth liberation fanatics.
Green is the New Red Breaking News: New "Green Scare" Legislation Pending in California by Will Potter Apr 14th, 2008 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2008/04/14/california/
NOTE: There is a hearing on this legislation on Tuesday, April 15,2008 in the Judiciary Committee, Room 4202, at 8 a.m. or perhaps later(you can view what else is on the schedule here).
California has been a hotbed of both legal and illegal activity in the name of animal rights lately.The largest beef recall in history began here, after an undercover investigation by an animal welfare group. Meanwhile, California universities have been the site of a protracted battle between animal experimenters and underground activists using threats and property destruction. And last week, the secretary of state announced that aproposal to eliminate some of the cruelest confinements in animalagriculture will go before voters in November.
These are disparate tactics, yet they all threaten animal businesses.
Enter Gene Mullin, a member of the California State Assembly and a Democrat, who has introduced AB 2296, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, to stifle the First Amendment rights of animal advocates. The law would prohibit the posting of publicly available information on activist websites, restrict access to public meetings, and require heavy-handed penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.
All in the name of fighting "terrorism."
Background
In November, 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping, overly broad law that was, ostensibly, introduced to target underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front. It was pushed through Congress, with little discussion or debate, by a coalition of corporations and industry groups including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Pfizer and the Fur Commission. It wraps up a range of activity—from non-violent civil disobedience to property destruction—as "terrorism" if it targets an "animal enterprise," and,most dangerous of all, it has made many activists fearful of continuing their work because they could be labeled a "terrorist."
The government has used the passage of the AETA to cozy up with these"animal enterprises" even more. In March, 2007, Ricardo Solano Jr., a lead attorney in the "animal enterprise terrorism" case of the SHAC 7,gave a keynote speech at the Animal Agriculture Alliance's Stakeholders Summit. According to Dairy Herd Management Magazine, he told the executives present: "The fact of the matter is that there are extremist individuals and groups that will go through great lengths to put you out of business. The recent passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act sends a clear signal to animal-rights extremists that if their activities cross the line, the federal government will not stand idly by."
Nevertheless, the new law hasn't been used. You might remember that,after the passage of the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act in1992, corporations immediately began pushing for more legislation, and more power.
They got what they wanted with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But now that victory is simply being used as a political springboard for even more legislation, providing even more power.
Key provisions in the California bill:
Prohibits the publication of publicly-available information
The most significant section of the bill says that "no person,business, or association shall knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise" if the posting is intended to do one of a few things.
It must either be intended to:
"Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a co resident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm."
Or
"Threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a co resident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the co resident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her personal safety."
Here, lawmakers are trying to push the limits of what a long history of First Amendment law has established. They're singling out a group of people solely based on their political beliefs, and restricting their speech because of those beliefs. If someone posted information about an executive at Wal-Mart, because of a labor dispute, that wouldn't be prohibited. Or, perhaps a better comparison would be someone who posts information about an abortion doctor (a situation which, unlike animal rights campaigns, has led to murder).
Beyond that, though, these clauses are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Or, in the hands of an ambitious prosecutor, so ambiguous as to be quite dangerous.
The biggest problem here is the use of amorphous term "reasonable fear." The word "eco-terrorism" is batted around recklessly by industry groups, in a scare-mongering campaign that has included full-page ads in major newspapers and even stooping so low as to call a children's movie "soft-core eco-terrorism for kids." They are doing everything they can to create this fear through scare mongering:that's the point. In light of this political climate, it's impossible to discuss "reasonable fear," because industry groups are throwing all their weight into making the unreasonable seem reasonable—into making the public afraid of non-violent activists, so they can push a political agenda.
Furthermore, lawmakers are twisting and redefining the idea of"incitement." Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established that incitement is more than mere advocacy, and it is more than simply providing information: it must tend to cause "imminent lawless action." That's a bit of a stretch with the Internet, unless someone were to post the information and then send a fiery email to someone saying, "Go do something illegal!" The reality, though, is that this hasn't happened.Lawmakers are targeted websites for merely posting publicly available formation in a political context.
Restricts access to public meetings
The bill "imposes a limitation on the public's right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies" on the grounds that, among other points, some researchers have been the targets of property destruction and threats.
The bill also notes, as a justification for this restriction, that"The information used to target the victims of these crimes often is obtained by making a request for public records from a government agency." It's quite curious that lawmakers can make such a bold statement about the methods of underground activists responsible for the illegal actions in California, considering they have not been caught.
Catching the underground activists, though, is only part of the intention . More importantly, researchers and corporations could use this fear mongering to restrict publicly available information that is used by a wide variety of legal, mainstream groups in their campaigns.
Creates new crimes and disproportionate penalties
The bill spells out civil remedies for individuals whose public information is posted publicly, including suing for "damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000)."
Lawmakers also went to great lengths to spin standard court procedures into fear-mongering tactics. For instance, the bill spells out that courts "shall take all action reasonably required" to protect animal enterprise employees, including restraining orders and bans on photography. And in court, employees may use a pseudonym out of fear of animal rights advocates.
These are all tools available to the court in extreme situations, but lawmakers have gone out of their way to emphasize them here seemingly to enforce the "terrorist threat" posed by activists.
Perhaps most disturbing, though, are the disproportionate penalties.
One of the slaughterhouse workers in Chino, Calif., whose abuse of cows led to the beef recall, pleaded guilty recently to three misdemeanors. Undercover video showed Rafael Sanchez Herrera and others trying to force sick cows into the kill chutes by stabbing a cow in the eye with a stick, dragging sick cows with forklifts and shooting high-pressure hoses into their mouths. He was sentenced to180 days in jail and a $100 fine.
Under this legislation, someone who uses non-violent civil disobedience outside of a slaughterhouse in protest of these abusive practices could receive the same amount of jail time, and a $5,000fine.
Tags: Animal Enterprise Protection Act, Legislation Posted in Legislation, Opposition, State
_________________________
I now use blue,to define my posts.
Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#682841 - 04/16/08 04:12 AM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not theirs.
[Re: Mira Trapper]
|
Snuffy
trapper
Registered: 10/13/07
Posts: 164
Loc: Western Pa
|
I gotta say this- I respect anyone's right to live the way they want, as long as they respect mine These guys know nothing of respect. Or rights, for that matter
_________________________
"You can keep that Skoal, baby." -Joe Dirt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#682864 - 04/16/08 06:17 AM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not thei
[Re: Snuffy]
|
Mira Trapper
trapper
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 689
Loc: Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
|
To solidify your point Snuffy. The law is very namby pamby when it is given such clear issues about the rights of people to carry out such actions as Animal Research unmolested by creeps that put animal life above human life. Someday these same legislators and court advocates will have their own health issues and they will be asking for help that isn't there because ARA fanatics chased researchers out of bio labs through hate mongering and terrorism that the legislators & courts allowed. They watered down the Bill and in so doing jacked up the courage of these Anti research ski mask wearing hypocrites that will someday be looking for medical procedures to save their lives. I will be adding some personal insights in italics as to why the legislators & the courts are a screwup. Those insights will be in BOLD lettering and even the most stupid of thinking folk could see this article is not about protection of rights ,it is about rights being unprotected and ARA bragging about their ability to terrorize people into giving up their rights, and the ALF/ELF creeps can get away with it because the legislators didn't offer rights protection but loop holes to allow terrorism to continue.
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Bill aimed at protecting animal researchers scaled back
J.M. BROWN - SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
04/15/2008
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8929217
Legislation aimed at curtailing violence against scientists who
conduct experiments on animals is being retooled to address concerns that it would cloak research laboratories at UC Santa Cruz and elsewhere in secrecy.
Assemblyman Gene Mullin, who chairs the Select Committee on
Biotechnology, acknowledged Monday that the bill's major obstacle will be satisfying fears about the effect on public access to information about research activities at academic and nonprofit labs. The bill would also cover commercial research labs, but not farms, meat packing plants or similar businesses.
At UC's request, the San Mateo Democrat proposed the measure Feb. 21 after physical attacks by animal rights advocates on university researchers in Los Angeles and Berkeley, which were followed by what police call a home invasion attempt by six masked demonstrators against a UCSC researcher. UC officials laud the bill as much-needed protection for employees who are conducting medical studies designed to treat and cure illnesses, but animal rights groups and First Amendment advocates complain the measure would have a chilling effect on public access, as well as demonstrators who protest legally.
In other words the ARA nut jobs carried out such travesties of justice in terrorizing these researchers using info that the Bill feels they shouldn't have available to such fanatics and the ARA call that "chilling effect on public access????" H-P-o-C-R-i-t-e would pretty much cover such creeps. If creeps like the ARA advocates were not using such info no bill would be needed. Solution . When caught for carrying out such activities to terrorize people in animal use fields these ALF/ELF jerks should be given 40 years hard labor so that the laws can truly be protected and we will not need this Bill. Till then the Bill needs to protect people from such hypocrites.
As the bill moves to the Assembly's Judiciary Committee this week, Mullin said clean-up language would strike original provisions that exempted information about researchers from public disclosure laws. He said he is still hammering out how to balance between the right to privacy of researchers and their families with the public's right to know what kind of experiments are being conducted and who is funding them.
"We are not in the business of narrowing constitutional provisions," Mullin said.
However the ARA terrorists are in the business of using such info to destroy the lives of their targets which the Government is so free to give out.
But Steven V.W. Beckwith, UC's vice president for systemwide research,said free speech is a two-way street. He said the university would not tolerate violence against employees by "terrorists" who call their actions freedom of expression and said the bill was being modeled on legislation designed to protect abortion providers and other health care workers.
Thus the terrorists actually are using the rules to break the rules and watering down this Bill will assure they continue with such activities.
"As a university, we really cherish free speech, but [this] issue
isn't free speech, the issue is violence," he said during a
teleconference with Mullin and other UC officials. "The bill before us should make it much easier to preserve the rights and safety of [researchers'] families."
In fact one of the most obvious factors is these freedom of speech terrorist supporters threaten the families of researchers all the time and get very little incarceration time when caught red handed. That factor should be fixed by giving such terrorists major jail time.
A UCSC biomedical researcher whose home was targeted by animal rights activists declined Monday to discuss the legislation, which she said she was not even aware of. Police are still investigating who was responsible for banging on the front door of her Santa Cruz residence and hitting her husband on the arm with an unknown object.
Letters and calls that these researchers recieve always contain the foreboding threat, we know where you live where you work where your children live where you park your car and where you travel. We have all the info we need ,we will get you and these terrorists now cry because the info will be harder to get? Meanwhile the researcher has no way of keeping that personal file away from these terrorists.
Researchers at UC Berkeley and UCLA have also been the target of
numerous incidents, including a firebombing and other property damage at their homes. Santa Cruz police are working with authorities in both cities to determine if there are links.
Calling the incidents "the greatest threat to academic freedom that I've seen in the history of this campus," UCSC Chancellor George R. Blumenthal, said the bill, if passed, "could serve as deterrent for new cases."
AB 2296 would make it a misdemeanor to harm or intimidate a researcher who works with animals, including publicly posting the names, photographs, home addresses and home telephone numbers of researchers online or elsewhere. Anyone convicted under the legislation could face up to a year in county jail and fines up to $25,000. The bill also allows researchers or their employers to seek an injunction against animal rights advocates or Web sites publishing their photos or personal information.
Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California physician who acts as a
spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Press Office, said the bill will not deter underground activists from illegally entering private property to set lab animals free or conduct other demonstrations. Rather, he said the measure is aimed at advocates who are "trying to obey the law" by conducting legal protests and boycotts.
The Animal Liberation Front has not claimed responsibility for the UCSC attack, but Vlasak said the fact that lawmakers are getting involved in protecting researchers has served the group's purpose because it has clearly "made these people feel uncomfortable" about the experiments he said take place "in these torture chambers they call laboratories."
Actually they are trying to make new laws to protect the rights of researchers and to curtail the terrorists but Valsak is to much of a hypocrite to tell that truth.
Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said he was sympathetic to the university wanting to protect the well-being of employees, but said restrictions on speech, including requiring Web site operators to take down information posted about researchers, smacks of "prior restraint against the press." He said public access laws already contain protections that balance personal privacy rights against a compelling need for the public to know about government-funded activities.
Contact J.M. Brown at 429-2410 or jbrown@santacruzsentinel.com.
The best solution is to make sure that folks using such info to terrorize people have extra time tacked on their jail sentences to carry out threatening terrorism. 10 to 15 years added on would start thinning the forked tongue hypocrites such as Valsek and the SHAQ 7, Rodney Coronado out of circulation for a period of time that would give added protection to the animal use people as a deterrent and just because they aren't on the streets.
_________________________
I now use blue,to define my posts.
Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#684465 - 04/17/08 01:04 PM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not thei
[Re: Mira Trapper]
|
Mira Trapper
trapper
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 689
Loc: Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
|
More sneaky whining from the folks that FORCE LEGISLATORS to find more ways to PROTECT the rights of others. The sheep in the ARA need the authors of such letters to spread their message of restricting the rights of others today so they can aspire to offering hatred to researchers at a later date.
http://groups.google.com:80/group/AR-News/browse_thread/thread/4d33956b03d7bf53
Urgent: Action Needed Immediately to Stop California Bill
From: Centcom-WAR <winanimalrig...@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:41:36 -0400
Local: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:41 am
Subject: Urgent: Action Needed Immediately to Stop California Bill
****Cross Post Freely****
Note from WAR: This message was sent to WAR by an animal rights
attorney from California, who asked us to forward it on to our lists.
This is especially important if you reside in California. Please
don't let this notorious bill pass into law without a fight. Send
faxes and e-mails to the addresses listed below. At the tail end of this e-mail you will find a sample letter that you can tailor to suit your needs. Take action today or we stand to lose more of our constitutional rights!
--- Original Message-------
Subject: [baarn] Please FAX/Call/E-mail your Strong Opposition to AB 2296 ASAP! (Weds latest!)
Please send a FAX, E-Mail and/or make a call ASAP to prevent a
restrictive and unconstitutional bill from being passed which will benefit all animal exploiters (vivisectionists, factory farmers, breeders, rodeos, etc.). Below the contacts is a copy of a letter I sent to the Committee, if you would like to copy and paste it into your own letterhead and fax it off today please do! Your support is necessary now to stop this from going past the Judiciary Committee. Be polite please.
Phone Number and E-mail Contact Info:
Dave Jones - Chair Dem-9 (916) 319-2009
Assemblymember.jo...@assembly.ca.gov
Van Tran - Vice Chair Rep-68 (916) 319-2068
Assemblymember.t...@assembly.ca.gov
Anthony Adams Rep-59 (916) 319-2059
Assemblymember.Ad...@assembly.ca.gov
Noreen Evans Dem-7 (916) 319-2007
Assemblymember.Ev...@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Feuer Dem-42 (916) 319-2042
Assemblymember.Fe...@assembly.ca.gov
Rick Keene Rep-3 (916) 319-2003
Assemblymember.ke...@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Krekorian Dem-43 (916) 319-2043
Assemblymember.Krekor...@assembly.ca.gov
John Laird Dem-27 (916) 319-2027
Assemblymember.la...@assembly.ca.gov
Lloyd E. Levine Dem-40 (916) 319-2040
Assemblymember.lev...@assembly.ca.gov
Sally J. Lieber Dem-22 (916) 319-2022
Assemblywoman.lie...@assembly.ca.gov
FAX contact info:
Hon. Dave Jones, Chair
Fax: (916) 319-2109
Hon. Gene Mullin (author of AB 2296)
Drew Liebert, Chief Counsel
Fax: (916) 319-2119
VIA FACSIMILE (916) 319-2119
April 14, 2008
Assembly Judiciary Committee
Attn: Drew Liebert, Chief Counsel
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249
Re: Strong Opposition to AB 2296
Dear Chief Counsel Liebert:
I strongly oppose this new legislation and find it incredulously
controversial and offensive. This amendment to law is a content-
based restriction on speech which is unconstitutional. This bill will
have a negative impact preventing people from informing the public of
facts regarding animal cruelty. I request that you do not allow this
bill to move further.
I believe that this is an attempt by the UC Regents to stifle free
speech leaving no opportunity for the UC Regents to be accountable to
the public about their ongoing animal research. Free speech will be
handicapped beyond repair if members of the public continuously have
their Freedom of Information Act requests denied merely because the
University does not want people to know how many animals are being
killed in the name of "science." The public has a right to know what
experiments are being done and have that information posted freely and
openly for public education.
This bill would prevent facts regarding animal testing and
institutionalized animal cruelty from being allowed into the public
preventing scrutiny and debate. There are already laws adequate to
protect vivisectors such as those in the California Penal Code
addressing stalking, trespassing and harassment. This law only serves
an oppressive purpose to prevent the circulation of information: what
the public has the right to know about. Thus, AB 2296 is strongly
opposed.
Best Regards,
_________________________
I now use blue,to define my posts.
Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#684471 - 04/17/08 01:08 PM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not thei
[Re: Mira Trapper]
|
Mira Trapper
trapper
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 689
Loc: Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
|
Letters pointing out the real concern & reasons for the Bill is wrapped up in others in Animal Use fields being harassed even though their lifestyle is well withing the bounds of LEGAL operations sanctioned by the public and by the laws of our nations.
The Daily Bruin (UCLA)
Bill designed to protect animal researchers to undergo review
Animal Enterprise Protection Act could prevent harassment, violence
from activists
Theresa Avila (Contact)
Published: Wednesday, April 16, 2008
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/apr/16/bill-designed-protect-animal-researchers-undergo-r/
California lawmakers will begin reviewing a draft Thursday of a
proposed bill aimed at protecting researchers who conduct animal
testing from animal rights activists.
The bill, AB 2296, also titled the Animal Enterprise Protection Act,
is currently being reviewed by the state Assembly Judiciary Committee.
If passed, the law would provide criminal and civil provisions to the
current state law regarding any threats, harassment, vandalism and
other violent acts intended to interfere with and intimidate animal
enterprises and researchers.
Modeled after laws that protect reproductive health care workers and
elected officials, the bill would form a counterpart to existing
federal and state law that prohibits the harassment of individuals
dealing with animal research.
The bill, sponsored by the University of California, comes after a
string of incidents during which researchers and their families have
been repeatedly intimidated and harassed in their homes and at work.
The increase in the severity and violent nature of groups such as the
Animal Liberation Front and other animal rights extremists has
prompted the legislation of the bill, said Paul Schwartz, a spokesman
for the UC Office of the President.
At a teleconference Monday, several UC officials discussed the bill's
implications.
Assembly member Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, who was asked by
the UC to introduce the legislation, emphasized the need to balance
the right to free speech with the need to protect researchers.
He added that it is important to protect the research being conducted
because of the long-term benefits to society.
The bill cites problems with the current federal law, the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, which was introduced in 2006 and extended
the protections of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 to
provide federal law enforcement officials with broader authority to
prosecute animal rights extremists.
Under current federal law, criminals must be prosecuted by a federal
prosecutor, such as a U.S. attorney, and must involve some form of
interstate or foreign commerce. Proving the interstate commerce
jurisdiction may not be very difficult since postings on the Internet
or use of mail fulfill the requirement. The problem arises when the
crime does not cross state lines.
The bill would also make it illegal to post personal information about
researchers on the Internet and would curtail the availability of
public records information available on researchers.
The 2006 law marked the first time prosecutors were able to define the
threats as a form of terrorism because of the fear they instill in the
victims even though no physical violence occurs, according to an
official within Mullin's office.
The use of the term sparked some concerns during the teleconference.
However, Schwartz said the harassment that researchers are subject to
and the violence associated with them make the harassment a form of
terrorism rather than a form of free speech.
"It's terrorism with a small 't,'" Schwartz said of the incidents
where researchers' lives have been threatened with physical harm.
According to Daily Bruin archives, the home of a UCLA researcher was
attacked in February when an incendiary device was found in her home,
ignited and caused property damage.
Any instances where researchers' lives are placed in danger does not
constitute free speech, Schwartz said.
"From our point of view, the really important thing that we hope
people understand is this is not about curtailing free speech. It's
about curtailing violence ... and protecting people from harm,"
Schwartz said.
_________________________
I now use blue,to define my posts.
Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#684472 - 04/17/08 01:11 PM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not thei
[Re: Mira Trapper]
|
Mira Trapper
trapper
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 689
Loc: Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
|
Another article pointing out why the ARA forced legislators to consider new methods of protecting people from fanatics.
Contra Costa Times
Cracking down on animal-rights protests
By Matt Krupnick
04/14/2008 07:22:52 PM PDT
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_8924732
The University of California has gone to the Legislature seeking to
restrict public access to information about academics who do animal
research and to make it illegal to post personal information about
them online.
The prohibited online information would include the researchers'
names, home addresses and photographs.
The measure, AB2296, also would outlaw activities targeting corporate
researchers.
Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-San Mateo, agreed to submit the legislation
at UC's request after months of harassment, threats and vandalism at
the homes and offices of university researchers.
"Several campuses have experienced incidents which are just shocking,"
said Chancellor George Blumenthal of UC Santa Cruz during a telephone
news conference Monday. Protesters in February are accused of trying
to break into a UC Santa Cruz professor's home and attacking her
husband.
"It's the greatest threat to academic freedom that I've ever seen on
this campus."
At UCLA, protesters both flooded and lit a fire at a medical
professor's home. Activists have visited the homes of UC Berkeley
researchers, shouting, posting fliers and in the past few days
breaking windows.
Such a law would curtail free speech, said Jerry Vlasak, a Los
Angeles-area surgeon who acts as a spokesman for the more extreme
branch of the animal-rights movement. It would not stop vandalism and
other protests, he said.
"The people who are doing underground direct action don't care what
the law says anyway," he said. The measure "is aimed at those who are
exercising their free-speech rights."
Limits on protests walk a fine line between oppressive and protective,
said Michael Risher, a San Francisco-based attorney for the American
Civil Liberties Union. Courts have ruled that similar restrictions on
Web sites targeting abortion doctors are legal, he said, but only when
they are likely to incite violence.
"We would really want to see that there's a threat to people's
safety," he said. The bill may "sweep much too broadly."
Mullin acknowledged Monday that he is trying to balance First
Amendment rights with protection for researchers. He said he plans to
rewrite the information restriction this week to protect a select
group of them.
"We're not in the business of narrowing constitutional protections,"
he said. "Finding that balance is what we're all about."
The amended version would limit California's public-records laws,
however. Legislators will be asked to exempt information about
researchers from disclosure under the California Public Records Act,
which makes most government documents available to anyone who asks for
them.
UC leaders said they were worried that protesters had obtained
personal information on the professors from public records, but they
had no specific examples.
Protesters increasingly have targeted professors who use animals in
their research, citing examples of drilled skulls, forced dehydration
and paralyzation of cats, rats and hyenas. Activists say the research
is unnecessary and overly invasive.
University administrators said the research could not be done without
using animals and have repeatedly called the protesters terrorists.
"Free speech is not the issue," said Steven Beckwith, the UC vice
president for research. "The issue is violence. We just don't tolerate
violence."
_________________________
I now use blue,to define my posts.
Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#684617 - 04/17/08 03:25 PM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not thei
[Re: Mira Trapper]
|
minnscott
trapper
Registered: 10/10/07
Posts: 561
Loc: Itasca county,Minesota
|
Mira you do a great service to this place with your posts. I wish to say Thank You very much.
_________________________
The man, The Ledgend, but my Wife says the Myth
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#686079 - 04/18/08 05:56 PM
Re: The ARA want to stifle our rights but not thei
[Re: minnscott]
|
Mira Trapper
trapper
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 689
Loc: Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
|
I don't give a rat's putootie if my eggs come from caged hens. However I do mind that sooner or latter these ARA wing nuts are going to price Farmers out of Business and the free range crap is going to destroy our environment because larger and larger spaces will be needed to raise less and less animals.
Secondhand Smoke (Blog)
The Egg Industry Responds to HSUS Sponsored California "Prevention of
Farm Cruelty Act"
By Wesley J. Smith
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/egg-industry-responds-to-hsus-sponsored.html
I wrote about the pending voter initative in California (Prevention of
Farm Cruelty Act) that would, among other matters, outlaw "battery
cages" for the housing of hens. I posted the HSUS argument in favor of
the initiative here. Now, an egg industry representative has sent
along arguments on the other side:
Wes:
You had an excellent posting on your blog recently about HSUS' ballot
initiative aimed at driving the egg industry out of California. You
asked some specific questions, which deserve answers. Let me provide
them to you.
1. Are modern hen houses and cages humane and ethical? YES. An
independent group of the nation's top animal science experts (Michigan
State University, Perdue, University of California, American
Veterinary Medical Association, etc.) say that modern hen houses and
cage systems are humane and ethical so long as they follow the UEP
Certified standards--which 90 % of US egg farmers follow. (You can
find the seal on many egg cartons). These standards ensure that hens
have adequate space, nutritious and proper food, clean continuous
water, air, etc. Validation is done by independent inspectors.
2. Why did egg farmers put their hens in modern hen houses 50 years
ago, rather than leaving them roaming the fields? Because it improved
food safety, helped ensure the proper diet for all hens, helped reduce
the amount of diseases that hens were afflicted with and thus reduced
or eliminated the need for antibiotics, helped protect the hens from
predators and the weather, and now helps to protect the spread of
Avian Influenza ( which is spread by birds and hens housed outdoors).
3. Yes, modern hen houses also are more efficient, which means eggs
can be produced for consumers at $1 dozen rather than $3 or more per
dozen for cage free or free range.
4. The way this issue is written on the ballot, it will ban not only
the most modern hen houses in California...it also inadvertently will
ban all cage free egg production as well (which are kept inside barns,
hence would still be in violation of the statute).
5. It may encourage more "free range" egg farms to be developed, which
environmentally will put much more pressure on air and water
resources.
So, if California voters pass this ballot issue in November, this will
drive almost all egg farmers out of California. California consumers
will then have to pay more to buy those very same eggs (from modern
hen houses and cages) from farmers in adjoining states or Mexico (the
law doesn’t ban the sale of those eggs in California, just the
production of them); California consumers will have some of their food
choices in the grocery store taken away from them and dictated by
animal rights activists (who, by the way, are vegans and don't eat
eggs at all; any kind of eggs. They want people to stop eating eggs
altogether, and forcing the price up is just one way of doing that);
poor people will have a nutritious, inexpensive source of protein
taken away from them.
You can find out more information about egg production by visiting
http://www.uepcertified.com/
On behalf of America's egg farmers and the United Egg Producers (the
industry trade association)
Mitch Head
Interesting. HSUS describes the initiative as merely requiring that
hens have enough space to turn around and spread their wings. The
industry's "modern cages" would seem to do that, but the HSUS
representative admitted that the practical effect would be to ban all
cages. So, there is a point of agreement there. But HSUS says the
change would only raise the price of eggs a cent, while the industry
believes it will raise the cost of eggs so high it will drive the
industry out of the state.
My sense is that the animal rights movement would be very pleased to
drive the egg business out of California. But the time has clearly
come to check out the initiative's language. Stay tuned. My business
and personal schedule is frantic, but I will get to that task soon.
Labels: Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act
_________________________
I now use blue,to define my posts.
Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
