With April 1st just around the corner, it appears that the meat industry is playing us as April Fools by hiding its violations of humane and sanitary laws.
Under intense pressure from the meat lobby, Iowa and Utah have enacted the infamous “ag-gag” laws that criminalize taking or possessing photographs and videotapes documenting the atrocious treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Six other state legislatures (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and New York) have been considering such legislation.
As these bills were being debated, the head of the World Health Organization forecast the “end of modern medicine,” unless the meat industry stops its wholesale use of antibiotics. Industry uses these drugs to ensure that animals survive the extreme crowding of factory farms.
Each of us has a choice to make on the next trip to the local supermarket. We can continue to subsidize the inhumane and unsanitary conditions hidden by the meat industry and condemned by the World Health Organization. Or, we can elect a wholesome nonviolent diet of vegetables, fruits, and grains recommended by leading health authorities.
Roger Wicklund
Mesa
Rational Human posted at 4:27 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
If you PITATARDS had your way we'd all be eating tofu and sprouts. These farmers have a right to provide us meat eaters - the majority - with as cheap a meat product as possible. Go eat your tofu and leave the rest of us alone Roger.
chatmandu002 posted at 8:01 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
OK, it's my choice right? Well, I chose to eat the meat, as a matter of fact I just finished at delicious 8oz filet. Yummy...
Dale Whiting posted at 9:05 am on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
Roger,
You'd think that the right of free speach would include taking pictures, possessing those pictures and talking about them to others. Apparently not!
Question: "Whatever happened to Conservatism in this Country?"
Answer: "Neo-conservatism, a faux brand of conservatism, took over!"
Rational Human posted at 3:00 pm on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
Roger,
You'd that that the rights of property and business owners would be respected, but since they aren't I guess we need to make more laws to protect their rights. Apparently harassing business owners is ok with some people.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:57 pm on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
Humm, Harrassment you say!
Rational Human, let's take a look at this theory of yours, harrassment.
We are told that "Iowa and Utah have enacted the infamous “ag-gag” laws that criminalize taking or possessing photographs and videotapes documenting the atrocious treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses."
Now name me one harrassment law, besides these, which criminalize harrassment? If I am not mistaken, they are all civil matters. Haven't Iowa and Utah just gone overboard? Wouldn't a truly rational conclusion inescapably take us there?
Perhaps you are in need a new "handle?"
Rational Human posted at 6:52 pm on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
Simple Mr Psychobabble, there is no law that criminalizes taking or possessing photographs and videotapes documenting the atrocious treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. That is because the treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses is not atrocious. The PITA groups and other vegheads use videos and photographs to use as leverage against meat producers in various ways.
harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.
Many states have enacted "cyberstalking" or "cyberharassment" laws or have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws. In addition, recent concerns about protecting minors from online bullying or harassment have led states to enact "cyberbullying" laws.
I could go on but then anyone can google. So what's your problem, Mr Psychobabble?
Dale Whiting posted at 7:56 am on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Rational Human,
You admit that "there is no law that criminalizes" these activities related to the meat packing industry. Yet in the main article we are told differently, aren't we! So perhaps you need to challenge that assertion.
Once again, quoting that main piece I quote "Iowa and Utah have enacted the infamous “ag-gag” laws that CRIMINALIZE taking or possessing photographs and videotapes documenting the atrocious treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses."
Now just in case you didn't know, the word "criminalize" when applied to describing the impact of law means that the violator may be "prosecuted" by the state and fined, jailed or otherwise punished for criminal activity. One may get an injunction in civil cases. There is little need for injunctions in criminal cases. The AG simply throws the person in jail and terms and conditions of bail specify that they cease and desist their alleged criminal activities. Being over reaching as most AG's are, some who are alleged to have engaged in criminal activities are required to shut down their entire business operation, even if later on they prove their innosence! Needless to say, their business fails. But as long as the AG has probable cause, the State cannot be sued!
So nice first try. But I repeat, name me one law which criminalizes any form of "harrassment."
Rational Human posted at 8:10 am on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Criminal Harassment
It is a criminal offense for anyone to make you reasonably fear for your safety or the safety of someone you know by...
repeatedly following you or someone you know
repeatedly visiting, calling, writing or contacting you or someone you know
watching your home or workplace
threatening you or someone in your family
No actual injury need occur. The offender does not need to have intended to harm you. If their behavior would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety, it is criminal harassment. Serious cases could result in an offender being sent to jail for up to ten years. In some cases an offender may be prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition or explosives.
Dale Whiting posted at 1:52 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Rational, I trapped you once again.
Finally you have helped me to make my two points. Where we do classify one part of human activity as criminal harrassment, even making the harrasser liable for imprisonment, would you advocate either of the following?
First, would you advocate imprisoning those who are exercising their free speach rights by taking, holding, distributing and commenting on photographs about business practices which they believe are immoral? Would you criminalize free speach? I surely hope not!
And second, would you not agree that those who might place someone in reasonable fear for their personal safety be arrested and jailed! Or do you prefer just allowing those who have what they personally and not objectively view as reasonable fear just turn around and shoot with a 9mm?
In today's Neo-conservative world we would promote vigilanteism, allowing people who are not supposed to be bearing arms [because they are participating in a neighborhood watch program and are told not to follow others and not to carry weapons] use the "self defense" cop out. And we make those who would exercise their right to speak out freely to be imprisoned for doing so.
Neo-conservatives have minds which are all messed up! We need both to get rid of Arizona's version of the "don't back down" Self-defense law, and make sure we do not follow Iowa and Utah with these "free speach" infringement laws. When we criminalize free speach and punish those who exercise it and make it possible to gun down teenagers who walk home from the 7-11 with an iced tea and skiddles, we would be better off living under Muselini!
Rational Human posted at 4:12 pm on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
What makes you think you have the right to harass people Dale? If I follow you around taking photos of you and then try to use these photos to ruin your business or cause you some other injury I could be prosecuted for it. You are a very confused individual. No wait I forgot. You're MR Psychobabble.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:45 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
And ditto back to you, Rational human!
On a business premises, trespassing law is sufficient to protect those engaged in enterprise from having their privacy invaded. But when those who are on the presises with permission [like employees] take pictures without disturbing others and then share those pictures with others who are perhaps equally outraged by what may be going on inside, possession of such materials with intent to talk to others about them is a First Amendment protected right we True Conservatives, not faux Neo-conservatives like you, call "Free Speech." Have you not heard of that concept, my friend? You know before "Citizens United" free speech was a fundamental right of citizens of these glorious United States. Apparently after Citizens United, only corporations have free speech rights, at least it would appear that Utah and Iowa believe so! Is Arizona next?
CSalafia posted at 8:28 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
"These farmers have a right to provide us meat eaters - the majority - with as cheap a meat product as possible."
That may be true, but they don't have the right to poison us, and our children, by contaminating the food system with antibiotics, growth hormones, and ammonia (used in making pink slime).
Overprocessed, hormone and antibiotic injected, and HFCS laden foods are responsible for the exponential increase in diabetes and obesity over the last 20-30 years. What's IN the food messes with the body's natural processes.
While you're concerned about how much your poisoned meat costs, the rest of us are concerned with the poison in the meat.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:41 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
I prefer my t-bone medium rare.
If you make it harder for the farmers to make a profit, no one will be able to afford steak one day. As it is, I'm concerned mankind's population will grow until there will not be enough food to feed MILLIONS. Then governments will fall overnight.
Mankind as a whole has to stop thinking of just themselves, and consider/plan for our future generations. Mother Nature can be a harsh taskmaster...