February 14, 2002 – Brian.Carnell.Com

Clueless Big Media Web Sites

Glenn Reynolds points out a hilarious example of complete cluelessness on the part of a big media web site. It seems ABC News’ web site has started a weblog called The Daily Note — sort of like The Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web, though not nearly as entertaining.

The clueless part is that they include a short description of items on the web, but don’t link to them directly. Instead they just include a plaintext URL at the end of the item that you have to copy and paste into your browser if you want to visit the site. Since they’ll almost certainly change this once they realize everyone’s laughing at their ineptness, here’s a screenshot example with the URL highlighted,

Wouldn’t want to link off-site. That would be totally inconsistent with the way the web works.

Newsweek Issue Banned for Depicting Mohammed

The BBC reports that several Muslim countries have banned the latest issue of Newsweek because the magazine includes a depiction of Mohammed. The illustration comes from a Turkish manuscript that shows Mohammed and the angel Gabriel. Time apologized last April for running the same image, depicted below.

Most Muslims believe that the Koran strictly forbids visual depictions of Mohammed So far, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia have banned the issue, while Egypt has condemened it has blasphemous.

The BBC reports that Reporters Sans Frontiers condemned the bans as blatant acts of censorship. In a press release, that group said, “Aware that the representation of Muslim prophets is forbidden, we nevertheless consider that the censorship of this international magazine is in the first place an attack on the free flow of information.”

Not that such censorship is exactly a surprise in either of those four countries.

Center for Consumer Freedom Highlights PETA's Financial Support for Eco- and Animal Rights Terrorism

The Center for Consumer Freedom continues its excellent investigative look at the animal rights movement with a press release outlining People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals‘ extensive financial support from 1995-2000 for individuals and groups who are connected with and advocates of animal rights and environmental terrorism. The entire press release is reproduced below, but the most damaging items are that PETA donated $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front in April 2001 as well as a $1,500 donation in 1999 to then-ALF spokesman David Wilson.

Here’s the full press release:

Arsonist “Support Committees” Funded By PETA

Washington, DC – In the wake of this weekÂ’s congressional hearings on eco-terrorism,
new evidence shows a close relationship between the animal rights group People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the violent Earth Liberation
Front (ELF). The FBI has labeled ELF as “the largest and most active U.S.-based
terrorist group.”

Richard Berman, Executive Director for the Center for Consumer Freedom, said
the financial links between PETA and ELF are very disturbing. “An investigation
of IRS documents shows that over the past 6 years PETA has given significant
money to the legal support funds of criminals with close affiliations to both
ELF and Animal Liberation Front (ALF),” Berman said. “More shocking is our most
recent discovery of a direct donation to Earth Liberation Front from PETA in
April 2001.”

PETAÂ’s 1995-2000 IRS tax filings show the following:

In FY2000, PETA gave a direct contribution of $1500 to the Earth Liberation
Front (ELF) to “support their program activities.”
In FY2000, PETA gave $5000 to the “Josh Harper Support Committee.” Josh
Harper is an ALF-affiliated criminal arrested numerous times and convicted
for assaulting a police officer. In 1998, Harper told Eugene Weekly newspaper
“weÂ’re going to continue to be confrontational, weÂ’re going to continue to
be militant. If people see that as extreme, then so be it.”
In FY1999, PETA gave $2,000 to David Wilson, a Utah-based animal-rights
extremist who was then a national “spokesperson” for the ALF. In March of
that year, Wilson bragged to Mother Jones magazine: “We started with animal
rights, but we’ve expanded to wildlife actions like the [October 1998 ski
resort arson] one in Vail. We’re the ones bridging the environmental gap.”
In FY1995, PETA gave a $45,200 contribution to the “support committee” of
Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist who firebombed a research facility at
Michigan State University. PETA also gave an unreturned $25,000 “loan” to
Rodney CoronadoÂ’s father.
PETA has used their closely controlled Foundation to Support Animal Protection
to launder over $500,000 in contributions to the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, an organization whose president collaborates with a
violent animal rights group known as Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC).
SHAC is a special-interest subset of ALF responsible for firebombings, property
destruction, grand theft and assault.

“People are being deceived by PETAÂ’s self-portrayal as a warm and cuddly animal
rights organization,” Berman said. “PETA should explain to their contributors
why their money is being used to help finance domestic terrorism.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a coalition of more than 30,000 restaurants
and tavern operators working together to protect the public’s right to a full
menu of dining and entertainment choices, through education, training and public
outreach. To learn more, visit www.consumerfreedom.com.

-30-

Helms Amendment Would Exempt Rats, Mice and Birds from Animal Welfare Act

Yesterday the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to a major farm bill that would exempt rats, mice and birds from the Animal Welfare Act. The amendment was introduced by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) and would overturn a successful legal victory by the Humane Society of the United States to have those animals included under the Animal Welfare Act.

Although the Animal Welfare Act did not specifically exempt rats, mice and birds, the U.S. Department of Agriculture never applied the law to those animals which together constitute 95 percent of animals used for medical research.

HSUS and other animal rights groups sued the USDA in 1990 arguing that it had no legal basis for exempting rats, mice and birds. After the USDA lost a court ruling on that matter, it reached an agreement with HSUS in which the USDA promised to draft regulations covering the formerly exempted species. Under the proposed rule changes, researchers would have to more thoroughly justify research involving such animals and demonstrate that they are not repeating previous research.

This change has been opposed by the medical research community on the grounds that it will create an expensive nightmare of forms that will not enhance the welfare of research animals but will increase the costs and hence slow the pace of medical research with animals.

Helms’ amendment specifically exempts rodents and birds used in medical research from USDA oversight.

HSUS vice president Michael Stephens accused Helms of not caring enough about research animals. He told the Associated Press,

Just because Senator Helms doesn’t care about birds, mice and rats doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have legal protections. This is an issue that concerns millions of animals used in research. No one doubts that they can feel pain.

Helms’ amendment passed on a voice vote in the Senate without debate, and the farm bill itself passed the Senate. Now a House-Senate conference committee will meet to reconcile the different farm bills passed by each chamber of Congress. If the amendment remains in the final version of the bill that emerges from that conference committee, it will become law as long as George W. Bush decides not to veto the farm bill (which would be highly unlikely).

Source:

Helms denies protections for rodents in lab experiments. The Associated Press, February 14, 2002.

Scotland Bans Fox Hunting, But with Plenty of Twists

Yesterday Scotland’s Parliament voted 67 to 37 to ban the hunting of foxes with dogs, but the bizarre finale to a process that began in 2000 left numerous questions as to whether or not the law would survive legal appeals and whether or not it is enforceable as written.

In a flurry of legislative maneuvering, the Scottish Parliament considered no less than 107 amendments to the bill, adopting some and rejecting others in what the Glasgow Herald described as a last minute legislative scramble. The various amendments — and lack of a specific set of amendments — will likely leave the ban in legal limbo for several years.

The Protection of Wild Mammals Act provides for up to six months in jail and a 5,000 pound fine for anyone who takes part in a fox-hunt using dogs, engages in hare coursing, or participates in fox-baiting, Subcommittee on FOrests and Forests Health

Supporters of fox hunting are expected to mount a number of legal challenges to the bill, including one over the compensation that is to be given to people whose businesses and jobs will be lost due to the ban. Three amendments designed to offer compensation to such people were offered and all three were rejected. This is in contrast to Scotland’s ban on fur farms where it included a compensation package to fur farmers put out of work, even though there were no operating fur farms in Scotland.

The lack of any compensation opens the possibility that the ban violates the European Convention on Human Rights which forbids the government taking of property without compensation.

About 3,000 people are employed in jobs relating to mounted hunts in Scotland.

The bigger problem, though, is that the law has so many exceptions and loopholes that it is questionable whether or not it can be meaningfully enforced. There are exemptions for pest control, the bill requires prosecutors to prove an “intent to kill” a fox beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are plenty of similar legal ambiguities. As one British newspaper put it, the entire bill is one big gift to lawyers.

Which did not stop supporters of the ban from proclaiming this one of the most important acts in human history. Consider anti-hunting activist Graham Isdale’s comments to The Guardian about the ban,

This is one of those defining moments in the history of UK parliaments. It is a momentous occasion because Scotland is taking a lead in the UK, in the rest of Europe, and possibly in the rest of the world.

There is no denying, however, that the passage of the ban will put new pressure on Tony Blair and the Labor Party to follow-through on Blair’s 1999 promise to ban fox hunting posthaste. Labor, however, keeps finding excuses not to reintroduce a ban on hunting and is apparently wary of further alienating rural voters.

Sources:

Edinburgh ban on blood sport raises pressure on Blair. Nigel Morris, The Independent (London), February 14, 2002.

Scotland bans fox-hunting. Kirsty Scott, The Guardian (London), February 14, 2002

Only the lawyers will benefit from this sorry mess. Alan Cochrane, The Daily Telegraph (London), February 13, 2002.

Sportsmen outfoxed as hunting ban is passed. Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2002.

Final scramble kills compensation; Struggle to deal with 107 amendments produces a shock. Frances Horsburgh, The Herald (Glasgow), February 14, 2002.

The ban on fox-hunting; Executive must intervene with compensation. The Herald (Glasgow), February 14, 2002.

Anti-Abortion Groups Challenges Morning After Pill in Great Britain

Since January 2001, women in Great Britain have been able to buy the emergency contraception drug levonelle from pharmacists without a prescription. Now an anti-abortion group is mounting a legal challenge to this policy that could also threaten the availability of other forms of contraception.

The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Children is challenging the law based on Great Britain’s 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which makes it a crime to sell any “poison or other noxious thing” in order to cause a miscarriage.

Levonelle acts by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself in he womb — essentially causing a spontaneous miscarriage. SPUC agues that on that basis the drug should be illegal under the 1861 law.

Of course commonly used birth control drugs operate on the same principle, so if the court agreed with this line of reasoning all chemical birth control might be illegal. As Anne Weyman of the Family Planning Association told the BC,

Their case is about the provision [of emergency contraception] in pharmacies but in fact the same argument would apply to all methods of contraception which can prevent implantation and that would affect every method except barrier methods, sterilization or natural family planning.

So we’re talking here about something like 4.5 million women being told overnight that their method of family planning is illegal.

And beyond that, what exactly would be the legal status of abortion?
This is in the courts now, but a better approach would be for the British Parliament to pass new legislation overturning that part of the 1861 law being used here.

Sources:

Legal challenge to morning-after pill. The BC, February 12, 2002.

Head to head: contraception challenge. The BC, February 12, 2002.