UPC and Other Groups Urge Signing of SB 1520

Posted on August 31, 2004 by Brian Carnell

Yesterday, I noted that Friends of Animals sent out a press release opposing California SB 1520 which would outlaw force feeding of birds for the production of foie gras in 2012. Shortly after the Friends of Animals press release, United Poultry Concerns issued a press release urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the bill and slamming groups opposed to the bill.

The UPC press release said it was joined in support of the bill by the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, VivaUSA, Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, GourmetCruelty.com, and the Animal Protection and Rescue League.

According to UPC,

The bill if enacted will abolish a farmed animal abuse. The fact that
there will be a phase-in period is not a reason to oppose this bill. We have
applauded the banning of battery-hen cages in the European Union and in
Austria, and the banning of sow gestation crates in Florida, but all of this
important legislation for farmed animals includes phase-in periods. No one
who supports farmed animal protective legislation wants to wait for the law
to take effect, but that is now how the legislative process works. Yes, the
foie gras industry is going to use the time to try to overturn the law and
do other nefarious things, but this means that our public education work is
cut out for us. Given the facts of foie gras production and the videotaping
of the procedure that we have (Delicacy of Despair), it seems unlikely that
the public is going to be persuaded to abandon the ducks and oppose a ban on
foie gras production and sale in California.

. . .

Those groups who actively oppose SB 1520 could lobby at state and federal
levels to try to enact legislation that would ban foie gras production/sale
immediately, but they are not doing so. Instead, they are obstructing the
passage of this bill while offering no real alternative, just bashing the
bill and the groups that have worked so hard to get the bill introduced and
to retain as much of the original intent of the bill as possible.

United Poultry Concerns urges activists to support SB 1520 and to refuse to
reject this opportunity in pursuit of a purist fantasy. The objections being
raised against SB 1520 are unrealistic given the realities of the
legislative process and the enormous obstacles that farmed animals have
traditionally faced legislatively. Sabotaging this bill is going to hurt the
ducks, not help them.

The foie gras ban is one of about 1,000 bills that Schwarzenegger must either sign or veto by then end of September. Schwarzenegger has previously called the bill \”silly\” and pointed to it as an example of why California needs a part-time legislature.

Source:

Why UPC Supports SB 1520 and Urges Everyone Else to Support the Bill. Press Release, United Poultry Concerns, August 31, 2004.

Gina Lynn Again Jailed for Refusing to Cooperate with Grand Jury

Posted on August 31, 2004 by Brian Carnell

Animal rights activist Gina Lyn was jailed this month after invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify before a grand jury investigating acts of animal rights terrorism in Washington state. Lynn can be held until the grand jury\’s term runs out, which could be as early as September or as late as March 2005 if the prosecutor should request a six month extension of the grand jury\’s term.

Lynn has a habit of being jailed for failing to cooperate with grand juries, including a 22-day stint in 1999 and another in 2000 for refusing to cooperate with grand jury\’s investigating environmental and animal rights terrorism.

The grand jury in this case wants Lynn to answer questions about a May 2000 arson at an Olympia, Washington timber company and the theft of a couple hundred chickens at a nearby egg farm the same day.

Lynn has been granted limited immunity from prosecution, which would prevent prosecutors from using her statements against her in court.

Source:

Animal rights activist is jailed for contempt. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 27, 2004.

UK to Warn Blood Transfusion Recipients of vCJD Risk

Posted on August 31, 2004 by Brian Carnell

United Kingdom Health officials announced this month that they will warn people who received blood transfusions from people who later died of vCJD that they may be at risk of the disease as well.

The decisions follows on a report earlier this month in the Lancet that documented the second case of transmission of vCJD via blood transfusion. In that case, however, the vCJD infection was found in the spleen and the deceased did not have any symptoms of vCJD.

The Scottish Press Association reported,

A Department of Health spokesman said: \”The HPA has carried out a risk assessment exercise, as indicated by the Secretary of State in his December 2003 statement.

\”The Department of Health has asked the HPA to lead on preparations for notifying patients who have received plasma products, and we have been working with the Agency, clinician\’s representatives and the patient groups on this.\”

Source:

Blood recipients to get vCJD warning. Scottish Press Association, August 29, 2004.

Friends of Animals Urges California Governor to Veto Foie Gras Bill

Posted on August 31, 2004 by Brian Carnell

A bill that would eventually ban the production of foie gras in California recently cleared both houses of the California legislature, but one of its supporters — Friends of Animals — is urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.

Animal rights activists originally pushed for the bill, but it was amended by the legislature in ways that did not make them happy.

First, the ban on force feeding of birds in California wouldn\’t go into effect until July 1, 2012 at the earliest. Ostensibly this is to give foie gras producers times to change their business practices, but this is also a nice way to simply punt the issue to a future legislature which could simply void the current bill.

Second, in the mean time the bill provides protections to foie gras producers from civil or criminal action. The bill provides that,

No civil or criminal cause of action shall arise on or after January 1, 2005, nor shall a pending action commenced prior to January 1, 2005, be pursued under any provision of law against a person or entity for engaging, prior to July 1, 2012, in any act prohibited by this chapter.

So instead of an immediate ban on foie gras, what the activists got for their trouble was a ban almost 8 years in the future with explicit criminal and civil immunity for foie gras producers in the meantime.

In a letter urging animal rights activists to call Gov. Schwarzenegger\’s office and urge him to veto the bill, Friends of Animals Daniel Hammer wrote,

In his testimony on SB 1520, Assemblyperson Joe Nation stated: \”I want to emphasize this. Sonoma Foie Gras, the only producer of foie gras in California, supports SB 1520.\”

Sonoma Foie Gras retained a lobbyist to work on getting SB 1520 passed. In his testimony, Sonoma Foie Gras owner Guillermo Gonzalez stated: \”I want to express my appreciation for allowing us to continue in operation! We are very appreciative.\”

Gov. Schwarzenegger\’s office needs to hear from you. Tell him SB 1520 only benefits the state\’s foie gras producer, while ensuring the continued torture of at least 440,000 ducks. Please press Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto SB 1520, \”the foie gras bill.\”

The full text of the amended bill can be read here.

Source:

Update on SB 1520: Urgent Action Alert. Press Release, Friends of Animals, August 31, 2004.

California SB 1520 – Amended – Force Feeding of Birds

Posted on August 31, 2004 by Brian Carnell



BILL NUMBER: SB 1520	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT


	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 17, 2004
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 21, 2004
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 6, 2004


INTRODUCED BY   Senator Burton


                        FEBRUARY 19, 2004


   An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to
Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed
birds.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL\'S DIGEST

   SB 1520, as amended, Burton.  Force fed birds.
   Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person
or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the
person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment
regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.
   This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force
feeding a bird, as defined.  The bill would prohibit a person from
force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird\'s liver
beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another
person to do so.  The bill would also prohibit a product from being
sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird\'s liver beyond normal size.  The bill
would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of
those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
   The bill would provide that these prohibitions shall become
operative on July 1, 2012.  
   This bill would provide that no civil or criminal cause of action
shall arisen or pending actions pursued, against any individual who,
prior to July 1, 2012, engages in acts prohibited by the bill.
  
   Until July 1, 2012, this bill would prohibit an existing or future
civil or criminal cause of action for engaging in an act prohibited
by the bill, from proceeding against a person or entity engaged in,
or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in,
agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time
of the enactment of this bill. 
   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  no.
State-mandated local program:  no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added
to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:


      CHAPTER 13.4.  FORCE FED BIRDS


   25980.  For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
   (a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose.
   (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to
consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would
consume voluntarily  while foraging  .  Force
feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed
through a tube or other device inserted into the bird\'s esophagus.
   25981.  A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of
enlarging the bird\'s liver beyond normal size, or hire another person
to do so.
   25982.  A product may not be sold in California if it is the
result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird\'
s liver beyond normal size.
   25983.  (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as
qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or
officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a
public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code,
may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this
chapter.
   (b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person
cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000)
for each day the violation continues.  The civil penalty shall be
payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce
this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court
proceedings.
   (c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be
prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the
violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the
violation occurred.
   25984.  (a) Sections 25980, 25981, 25982, and 25983 of this
chapter shall become operative on July 1, 2012.
   (b)  (1)  No civil or criminal cause of action shall
arise  ,  on or after January 1, 2005,  or
may   nor shall  a pending action commenced prior
to January 1, 2005, be pursued  , including a cause of action
under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of
Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, against any
individual who   under any provision of law against a
person or entity for engaging  , prior to July 1, 2012, 


engages  in any act prohibited by this chapter.  
   (2) The limited immunity from liability provided by this
subdivision shall not extend to acts prohibited by this chapter that
are committed on or after July 1, 2012.
   (3) The protections afforded by this subdivision shall only apply
to persons or entities who were engaged in, or controlled by persons
or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved
force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this chapter.

   (c) It is the express intention of the Legislature, by delaying
the operative date of provisions of this chapter pursuant to
subdivision (a) until July 1, 2012, to allow a seven and one-half
year period for  individuals   persons or
entities  engaged in agricultural practices that include raising
and selling force fed birds to modify their business practices.



   (d) Because the Legislature intends to assist individuals engaged
in agricultural practices that include raising and selling force fed
birds to modify their business practices, the Legislature declares
its support for the following:
   (1) Assistance in identifying alternate business opportunities for
California businesses that currently rely on the sale of force fed
birds.
   (2) Assistance in finding alternate employment, or providing job
training, for employees of California businesses that currently rely
on the sale of force fed birds.

Karen Davis Promotes Radio Show Highlighting Her Claim That 9/11 Was a Good Thing

Posted on August 29, 2004 by Brian Carnell

On Friday, August 27, the Howard Stern show repeated a show from April 10, 2002 in which United Poultry Concerns\’ Karen Davis defended her comments that the 9/11 terrorist attacks may have reduced net suffering by sparing many chickens. For those who missed her comments the first time, in a letter on Dec. 26, 2001 to Vegan Voice, Davis said,

Doubtless the majority, if not every single one, of the people who suffered and/or died as a result of the September 11 attack ate, and if they are now a life continue to eat, chickens. It is possible to argue, using (Peter Singer\’s) utilitarian calculations, that the deaths of thousands of people whose trivial consumer satisfactions included the imposition of fundamental misery and death on hundreds of thousands of chickens reduced the amount of pain and suffering in the world.

Davis has also claimed that Jewish victims of the Holocaust who ate meat were the moral equivalents of their Nazi persecutors (emphasis added),

It\’s been said that if most people had direct contact with the animals they consume, vegetarianism would soar, but history has yet to support this hope. It isn\’t just the Nazis who could see birds in the yard, slaughter them and eat them without a qualm, and in fact with euphoria. In this respect, the persecuted Jewish communities were no different than their persecutors.

The odd thing is that Davis herself was promoting the re-broadcasting of the Stern show on the UPC web site. Hey, good for her — more people should know that animal rights leaders like Davis think that it could be argued that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a good thing or that Jewish families who ate chicken were just like the Nazis.

Davis is now writing a book length treatment of these bizarre beliefs, The Holocaust and the Henmaid\’s Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities, to be published in 2005.

Source:

UPC President Karen Davis Talks about Chickens on The Howard Stern Show. Press Release, Untied Poultry Concerns, August 27, 2004.

Hypocrite Against Animal Research

Posted on August 29, 2004 by Brian Carnell

Over the weekend, the Times of London ran an interesting profile of an animal rights activist who has actively campaigned against Huntingdon Life Sciences and other animal research firms in the UK, but who now is using treatments tested on animals to treat her breast cancer.

According to the Times, Janet Tomlinson, 61, has been an active campaigner in a number of animal rights protests in the UK, from the successful campaign against Hilgrove, to the current campaigns against the Newchurch guinea pig farm and Huntingdon Life Sciences. But when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, Tomlinson had no problem running to doctors to receive the sort of treatments that would never have been developed had she had her way.

Tomlinson uses a number of justifications for her behavior. The classic, of course, is the Mary Beth Sweetland defense — Tomlinson\’s taking the drugs for the animals,

I can do more good for animals staying alive than dying.

Well, of course — she and her fellow animal rights activists are special. Why shouldn\’t they partake of the fruits of the animal research industry? Hell, who could blame Tomlinson if she wanted to enjoy a nice steak or wear leather, either. After all, she\’s doing it for the animals.

Her second line of reasoning is that it\’s really all the drug companies fault. In fact — pay close attention here — the drug companies are guilty of criminal behavior for providing her with a treatment that might extend her life,

If this testing on animals is as beneficial as the doctors say, then it would stop cancer. But it hasn\’t — and that has to be criminal. It helps some, and chemo might help me and kill the infected cells, but it might not. I should not have to live with that fear when scientists have had so much money and tested enough animals and yet they can\’t tell me the treatment will work.

Thanks to medical advances in detection and treatment, the 20-year breast cancer survival rate is as high as 65 percent in some countries. In the United States, deaths from breast cancer fell from almost 34 per 100,000 in the late 1980s to less than 27 per 100,000 in 1999. Ah, those wiley criminal scientists.

And, of course, Tomlinson hedges her bets. In case she does live another 20 years or more, it won\’t be due to the animal-tested drugs she\’s taking,

If I\’m saved, it will be in spite of the drugs being tested on animals. All my friends are telling me I\’m the guinea pig because whether you recover or not, it is a fluke of nature, a lottery.

Just because the drugs are tested on animals it does not mean that we are going to survive. I am only taking the course of action I am because there is no alternative. I really don\’t see how putting an electrode in a monkey\’s head or stripping fur on a guinea pig and sticking toxic liquid on it has helped me or is going to help me. It\’s disgusting that I don\’t have a choice.

But, of course, she has an obvious choice — don\’t accept the treatment. If animal research is complete hooey and Tomlinson can\’t see how experimenting on animals might help her or other breast cancer patients, then don\’t reward drug companies by buying their wares. Just say not to animal-tested drugs.

Instead Tomlinson would prefer the hypocrisy of accepting the only treatments proven to increase the odds of survival in women afflicted with breast cancer, while simultaneously raging against the individuals, companies and governments for encouraging the sort of research that led to these treatments in the first place.

Source:

The animal lab critic, cancer and hypocrisy. Valerie Elliott, The Times (London), August 28, 2004.

Vlasak Again Defends Violence

Posted on August 29, 2004 by Brian Carnell

As if to re-emphasize why David Blunkett was right to bar him from traveling to Great Britain, Jerry Vlasak again defended the use of violence in the animal rights cause on British radio show.

In an interview with Radio 4\’s World at One, Vlasak said,

I am simply saying that it [violence] is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation.

Source:

Banned activist defends violence. Sandra Laville, The Guardian, August 28, 2004.

PETA to Send Dog Excrement to Iams

Posted on August 28, 2004 by Brian Carnell

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals this week announced that it would send dog excrement to Iams to protest the pet food company\’s continuing use of animal tests.

In a press release, PETA said,

Taking a page from the \”flaming bags of dog poop\” book of practical jokes, PETA members will clean up dog \”business\” at a local dog park and raise a stink about Iams abuse of dogs and cats by sending it to the pet-food maker in bags marked \”IamsÂ’ Animal Tests Stink\” as an unmistakable statement that the companyÂ’s cruel laboratory experiments stink

Just one question — how will Iams tell the difference between dog excrement and the normal crap that PETA sends it in letters, flyers and press releases?

Source:

Â‘Poop BagsÂ’ Spoofing Iams Dog-Food Bags Marked Â‘IamsÂ’ Animal Tests StinkÂ’. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, August 27, 2004.

Great Britain Bans Vlasak

Posted on August 28, 2004 by Brian Carnell

Great Britain this week followed through on earlier threats by banning U.S. animal rights activist Jerry Vlasak from entering the country to speak at a UK animal rights meeting. The British government cited Vlasak\’s statements that justify and encourage animal rights violence.

At Animal Rights 2003, Vlasak told attendees,

I don\’t think you\’d have to kill — assassinate — too many … I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.

This summer at Animal Rights 2004, Vlasak said,

It won\’t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It\’s going to happen sooner or later. The Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front — sooner or later there\’s going to be someone getting hurt. And we have to accept that fact. It\’s going to happen. It\’s not going to hurt our movement. Our movement will go on.

In an episode of Penn & Teller\’s Showtime show Bullsh*t! broadcast in April 2004, Vlasak said,

If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution.

In July, Vlasak told British newspaper The Observer,

I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective

The British government also forbid Vlasak\’s animal rights activist wife, Pamelyn, from entering the country. In both cases, the Home Office said that allowing the animal rights activists to enter Great Britain would not be \”conducive to the public good.\”

Vlasak plans to give his speech via videoconference.

Source:

Blunkett bars US animal rights activist from Britain. Colin Blackstock, The Guardian, August 26, 2004.

Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Jamie Doward, The Observer, July 25, 2004.

Britain bans U.S. doctor over animal rights views. Reuters, August 26, 2004.

AnimalRights.Net

Monthly Archives: August 2004

UPC and Other Groups Urge Signing of SB 1520

Gina Lynn Again Jailed for Refusing to Cooperate with Grand Jury

UK to Warn Blood Transfusion Recipients of vCJD Risk

Friends of Animals Urges California Governor to Veto Foie Gras Bill

California SB 1520 – Amended – Force Feeding of Birds

Karen Davis Promotes Radio Show Highlighting Her Claim That 9/11 Was a Good Thing

Hypocrite Against Animal Research

Vlasak Again Defends Violence

PETA to Send Dog Excrement to Iams

Great Britain Bans Vlasak

August 2004
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jun				Sep »
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31