This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In " 'AnimalRights:' Pernicious Nonsense for Both Law & Public Policy ," Massachusetts attorney and "sportsman" Richard Latimer is on the mark with some concepts, and way off with others. Now, I know you're saying: That's not what animalrights is. For an attorney, that's awfully weak.
A group of animalrights activists sued the U.S. government Thursday to challenge the constitutionality of a rarely used law they say treats them like terrorists if they cause a loss in profits for businesses that use or sell animal products. Read the full article in the Washington Post.
From the press release: “To characterize protest and speech as terrorist activities is ludicrous,” said Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) cooperating attorney Matthew Strugar. And it is not just animalrights activists who are in danger here. The law must be struck down.”
But within the last year, an animal cruelty investigation almost shut one down because spikes were being used to antagonize the bull. This was a clear violation of animallaw. Next time, though, I might want to hook up with an animalrights group to protest.
It was also a perhaps belated realization by these chefs and their fans that a law signed eight years ago is truly taking effect and is about to change the way they do business drastically, putting California on the front lines of the battle about force-feeding ducks and geese to produce the silky liver delicacy.
It is simply projustice, insisting only that the scope of justice be seen to include respect for the rights of animals. The animalrights movement is not for the faint of heart. How we change the dominant misconception of animals—indeed, whether we change it—is to a large extent a political question.
Bush signed the “ Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act ” into law this past Monday (November 27, 2006). The law protects animal enterprises from courses of conduct designed to disrupt their normal profitable functioning. The new law is chilling both in its scope and in its narrowness. On November 4, 2005, Rep.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content