by Jason on July 28, 2006
For more than five years, I’ve been writing about the many many (many) serious and not-so-serious reasons to adopt a plant based diet, and yet the majority of the world continues to eat animals. From time to time I wondered why that was, but it wasn’t made clear to me until I got a note from Dagda Samildanc that explained the one thing dead animals can do that plants can’t: they can get your car classified as a hearse, which lowers the vehicle registration fee by $200. That’s the way of the world in New Zealand, where a woman recently tried it out, claiming her car was a non-commercial hearse because she carried dead chickens home from the supermarket. And it worked. So there’s a fun game for you this weekend: as traffic goes by, speculate how many hearses are on the road. Remember, it’s not just vegan hyperbole, it’s a matter of NZ law. Link.
by Jason on June 14, 2006
PonderingWillow notes that California lawmakers are looking at a bill that would direct the state’s Office of Emergency Services to add animals into its evacuation plans in the event of a disaster. Now, in addition to the animals who, say, might not drown in a flood, the other prime beneficiary of the law would be factor farmers – from all indications, the bill is directed at commercial animals more than dogs and cats and lemurs. Critics of the plan say that farmers should take out insurance policies instead of relying on taxpayer dollars, and I can’t believe I’m siding with factory farmers over government, but I’ve always said that if you’re going to own animals, you have to take responsibility for them through good times and bad, and lobbying the government is a part of that, I guess. In the meantime, this bill might draw some small degree of attention to the fact that California has 1.7 million dairy cows, which carry a cost far beyond the price per head paid by the farmer. Link.
Steve_L sends news of the US government’s latest efforts to protect consumers from themselves, also known as protecting fisheries from health advocacy groups. A California law requiring tuna companies to place mercury warning labels on their cans has been overturned. What’s more, the decision appears to have been made in part due to new legislation passed in March which would prevent states from requiring food warnings that go beyond federal law. There are already a number of stupid labeling regulations on the books, like the one that prevents milk from being marked as growth-hormone free (because there’s officially no difference, and it makes the Monsanto-produced milk look inferior), and if this law goes ahead (39 attorneys general have come out against the bill), I’m sure we can expect many more, with states powerless to oppose them. Link.
As kunsjoi reports, Italy continues to, as they say over there, rock the animal rights hizzouse. It wasn’t enough to ban goldfish bowls in Rome, or to enforce three times per day dog walking in Turin, now Vicenza has fined a restaurant for displaying live lobsters on ice to attract customers. The restaurant owners are, of course, shocked and plan to appeal, because how could anyone consider a lobster to be the same as a dog or a cat, right? How long do you think it’ll take for people to realize the being boiled alive kinda sucks too? Link.
by Jason on April 3, 2006
kunsjoi sends news of a new law in Maine that extends protection from abuse to companion animals. I’m not sure how this differs from animal cruelty laws, but it’s the first law of its kind, so maybe I just need to wait for the pamphlet. The basic idea seems to be to protect animals in spousal abuse situations, such as the case where a spouse kills the family pet to send a message. The idea of a court order that says “don’t kill the dog” seems odd, but apparently there are already court orders that say “don’t beat your spouse,” and this new law rides on top of that concept. Again, I don’t really understand the law, but anything that shows an understanding of the link between animal abuse and people abuse is good news in my book. Link.
by Jason on March 28, 2006
I thought that Britain was pretty forward-thinking when it came to vegetarianism, but maybe I was wrong – Rainycat sends news of a West Sussex couple who were denied the opportunity to be foster parents because they were vegetarian. While they put on their application that they wouldn’t mind if the child ate meat in a restaurant or at a friend’s place, apparently the (quite reasonable) refusal to allow dead animals into their home was too much for the county council to tolerate. Possibly due to the press attention, West Sussex is revising their guidelines. Link.
by Jason on February 15, 2006
AimeeLeigh79 sends some encouraging news on the whole “link between animal cruelty and human cruelty” front – a Michigan judge has made the connection between sex offences against animals and later attacks on people, and now Jeffrey S. Haynes is fighting to keep his name off of the state’s sex offenders registry. Haynes pleaded no contest in a sodomy case involving a sheep, which means he doesn’t have to say he did it, but as far as his sentencing goes, he did in fact have sex with a sheep, and by the way, the sentence is for 2 1/2 to 20 years in prison. When Haynes gets out, he’ll be treated as a sex offender, which apparently surprised the seducer of sheep. According to Haynes, the registry is intended to track crimes against humans. Kudos to the judge for recognizing that the list is supposed to help prevent these crimes, and I think this is one of those situations where veggies and omnis can agree – if you sodomize a sheep, you probably have a little trouble recognizing what’s appropriate when it comes to sex. Link.
by Jason on February 14, 2006
Hey, is anyone liking our new little podcast box on the front page? I’ve been catching up on my listening this week, and I had to share a snippet from the February 2 Erik’s Diner, where Erik talks about a proposed change to a state law governing hunting laws – it’s the best rant I’ve heard this week, and hopefully nobody will mind if I steal a 2.5 minute clip: MP3 Link (1.18 meg)
by Jason on February 10, 2006
Dave Noisy reports that the city of Oakland, California has implemented a new tax against fast food companies, designed specifically to deal with the litter associated with fast food packaging. This is an interesting move, especially since one of the verdicts in favour of McDonald’s in the UK McLibel trial was that the company was not to blame for fast food wrappers lying around the streets. Even so, I like the connection here – even if the tax gets passed on to consumers, it means less vegan taxpayer money will be going towards helping clean up after burger joints (in Oaklland, anyway). Link.
by Jason on January 30, 2006
Here in Canada, it takes over a hundred years to update animal cruelty laws, so forgive me if I’m not up to speed on recent American developments. That said, Dave Noisy sent in some news of an American bill in the works that would, among other things, make it a crime to take a picture or video of pretty much any facility that uses animals without first obtaining written consent. This isn’t the first such bill to be proposed, and let’s hope it won’t be the last, in the sense that this one will get smashed down as well, and in the future it’ll be a handy career suicide indicator for politicians who value the rights of corporations to break laws over the rights of society to monitor them. Link.
