On February 8, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller dropped his gavel and declared whales are not entitled to constitutional protection against slavery. This ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed last October by five orcas currently being "held in slavery and involuntary servitude" at SeaWorld. The plaintiffs, Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Corky and Ulises, apparently feel they "were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats... held captive... and forced to perform, all for Defendants' profit." Using PETA-sponsored legal representation as their collective blowhole, this pod of orcas demanded to be released to more suitable habitats.
Jeffrey Kerr, general counsel to PETA, argued the 13th Amendment should prohibit slavery against orcas. "Slavery is slavery," he said, "and it does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on gender, race or religion." Kerr attempted to circumnavigate the issue posed by the famous phrase "We the people" by reminding the Court of his client's ability to problem-solve, communicate and form complex communities.
SeaWorld dismissed the lawsuit as a publicity stunt, but I think Kerr and his legal team are deliberately paving the way to all animals having constitutional rights. Kerr states, "for the first time in our nation's history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human." It seems only potted plants are excluded from the scope of Kerr's sweeping statements.
Given PETAs colorful history of publicity stunts, perhaps Kerr's statements are just another attempt to commandeer the media spotlight. But how should similar stances by university academics be regarded? For example,
· Rutgers University law professor, Gary Francione, believes "animals deserve the fundamental right to not be treated as property."
· Michigan State University law professor, David Favre, has proposed "a new legal category called living property as a step toward providing rights for some animals."
· Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe, has written "the 13th Amendment could legitimately be applied to animals."
I love animals as much as anybody but do not want to live in a country where:
· Omelets have a right to life
· Bacon has the right to vote
· Cats have the right to consider neutering an elective procedure
· Dairy cows have the right to free press
· Pit Bulls have the right of peaceful assembly
The insanity of PETA: Its frivolous lawsuit against SeaWorld ...
The View | Killer whales lawsuit to sea world
Killer whales the plaintiffs in 'slavery' lawsuit - World - CBC News
Lawsuit Accusing SeaWorld of Enslaving Killer Whales Dismissed ...
The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.
Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:
“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
Cannot enter into private contracts without State police power intervention.
His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30to work for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.
See my You Tube video "An Animal Liberation Church Service" It should illustrate what I mean.
Anytime the argument is presented as " leading to" or "designed to set a president" the speaker is using a false comparison to an imagined event to distract the listener from the actual argument. Such blatant dishonesty is unforgivable.
Another point I would like to make is that one judge should never have the ability to dictate the extent of legal challenge to an entire country. No one person deserves that kind of power. A system that allows that is one that is designed to ensure corruption.
Finally, lets us consider the actual case at hand. This is about the ability to confine, torture, and destroy the lives of creatures that may very well be as intelligent as humans. This is a question of our very humanity, and whether the greed of an individual to exploit is more important to our society than the right of life itself. This case deserves a real consideration, not swept under a rug of lies.
It only takes one judge to recognize abject stupidity, but feel free to continue to let your imagination run wild. It makes it interesting to read such comments to an author whose name is followed by "humorist".
PETA equated African Americans to animals - are you equating the disabled to animals?
[Carl Sagan]
----'¿'----
Kilroy was here!