Great Britain Proposes Outlawing Secret DNA Paternity Tests

In response to a handful of bizarre cases, the United Kingdom is proposing outlawing DNA tests without the consent of all parties involved, which could make it very difficult for men who are suspicious about the paternity of their children.

This seems like an extreme position to take and the Human Genetics Commission chair Baroness Kennedy QC completely dismissed the position of men who are concerned about establishing whether or not they are really the father of their children saying,

A person may say, ‘what is wrong with a man knowing whether he really is the father of a child?’, but there are real repercussions for a family when that is done.

That is an outrageously patronizing attitude that would never be uttered in this day and age about women’s rights to know (or if it were, this woman would have faced immense pressure to step down immediately).

The cases of people trying to take DNA of celebrities or public figures can be handled without a blanket ban on all such private tests. Besides which the cost of genetic testing is falling so rapidly that it is doubtful such a ban will really prevent someone determined to do DNA testing from going forward.

Source:

Secret testing on ‘stolen’ DNA to be outlawed. Colin Brown, The Daily Telegraph (London), June 16, 2003.

Canadian Court: Cat Torture Is Not Art

The National Post reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal this month rejected an appeal by convicted animal abuser Jesse Power after dismissing his claim that his torture of a cat constituted art.

Power is one of three men arrested for their involvement in making a video showing the three men torturing a stray cat. At the time Power was a student at the Ontario College of Art and Design and after being arrested claimed that the film was designed as an “artistic protest” against society’s treatment of animals.

The Court of Appeal was not buying that nonsense. Writing for the court, Justice David Doherty wrote,

While it may help those who cannot reconcile this act with [Power’s] character to rationalize his actions as some form of artistic endeavor or artistic commentary gone amok, that interpretation is inconsistent with the contents of the videotape.

Doherty also criticized the trial judge, Judge Ted Ormston, for the lenient 90 day sentence imposed on Power. Doherty described as “patently unreasonable” the logic that Ormston used to arrive at the conclusion that Power “did not intend that the cat should suffer . . . there is nothing in the videotape or in his subsequent conduct to suggest that he did not fully appreciate and, indeed, to some extent relish in the cruelty being inflicted upon this cat.”

The National Post offered a chilling description of the tape that, to my knowledge, has not been published before (warning this is rather gruesome),

With the three young men whispering in the background, the camera suddenly comes into focus.

The cat, a pretty creature with a white belly and a striped tail, is alone in a white-walled barren room of a “squat” with Power and friends. It appears nervous from the get-go.

“Killing a raccoon would be a helluva lot more exciting,” whispers one unidentified voice.

“Pillowcase,” whispers another.

“No, we won’t be needing that,” someone says.

A white mouse, atop an empty margarine container, is put before the cat, who barely looks at it.

“Pacifist kitty,” one man says.

“Here they come on the run with their fingers up their bum … on the Tom and Jerry Show,” sings another voice.

The mouse is held by the tail before the cat, who moves away.

“Should I mutilate it now?” someone asks.

A little later, Power asks, “How do you guys feel about being filmed?”, and one of the others asks him, “What are you going to use it for?”

“I don’t even know yet,” says Power.

Wennekers then fashions a noose in the wire that has been affixed to the ceiling.

“Let’s get to work,” he says.

“I want to cut open its belly while it’s still alive and watch everything move around,” someone says.

“Yeah, me too,” someone else replies.

Power suggests they just “slit its throat and let it bleed,” but one of his cohorts says, “We can do both. Gut it and slit its throat.”

They hang the cat, which immediately begins to struggle frantically.

Power says, “Why don’t we just kill it?”, but takes a black glove and a straight razor when Wennekers hands them to him.

Power saws at the cat’s throat, while Wennekers stabs at it with a buck knife, and over the next terrible minutes, with the cat howling in agony and twitching, the trio attack it in various ways.

Once, Power is seen bending close to the animal, staring at it while it cries; another time, he whispers, “Beautiful, man”; once, he wipes the blade of his knife on the cat’s head.

In the final scene, Power slits open the cat’s chest, and appears to inhale deeply.

Surely the appeals court was right that Ontario might want to expand the 6 month maximum jail term for the sort of scum who can do this.

Source:

Cat torture was not art: judges. Christie Blatchford, National Post, June 14, 2003.

Major Supermarkets in Netherlands to Stop Selling Eggs from Hens Raised in Battery Cages

NamNews reports that major supermarkets in the Netherlands have reached agreements with animal rights groups there to stop selling eggs produced by hens raised in battery cages,

Supermarkets in the Netherlands will stop selling eggs from laying hens, who live in battery cages, from 2004, Dutch animal rights foundation Wakker Dier has said. All large supermarkets in the country will sell eggs only from poultry farms raising birds in open barns or in other free-range systems, Wakker Dier said. The foundation has been protesting over the past 30 years against the selling of eggs from battery cages. Dutch supermarkets of the Schuitema and Laurus retailer concerns declared in the week starting June 2, 2003 they would ban sale of battery cages eggs as of 2004. Supermarket chains like Albert Heijn, Aldi, Dirk van den Broek, Lidl, Bas van der Heijden and Digros already had promised to sell only free-range eggs. Dutch consumers in general do not accept battery cage eggs and they are willing to pay more for free-range eggs, an official of Dutch supermarket organisation Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelen, M. Jansen, said.

Source:

Netherlands: Supermarkets To Ban Battery Eggs From 2004. NamNews, June 9, 2003.

HLS Continues to Make Progress

Huntingdon Life Sciences released its first quarter 2003 results which were generally positive, although Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was desperately trying to spin the results as showing the company in dire financial straits (remember, according to SHAC, HLS has been on the verge of failing for several years now).

This is how SHAC tried to spin HLS’ financial results,

HLS released its earnings and expenditures for the first three months of
the year, revealing again that it made a loss. Even more damaging for
Huntingdon was having to admit that this loss is direct result from the
loss of customers.

What is really damaging is SHAC’s inability to actually read for comprehension.

First, HLS did report a small net loss of $0.4 million on net revenues of $31.9 million. Should shareholders be worried that companies deserted SHAC in the first quarter leading to this loss? Hardly.

Revenues in the first quarter 2003 were up 22.2 percent over HLS’ first quarter 2002 revenues of $26.1 million. Similarly, the loss of $0.4 million this quarter compares nicely with HLS first quarter 2002 loss of $3.3 million. Hmmm . . . HLS did $5.8 million more business this quarter, and saw its losses shrink dramatically to last year but “this loss is direct result from the loss of customers”?

The loss, by the way, was not due to a loss of customers, but rather one time charges including a $0.5 million charge resulting from non-cash foreign exchange remeasurement loss, and $2.6 million in expenses related to its merger/offer and some additional foreign exchange remeasurements. As anyone with half a brain (i.e. not SHAC) could see right there in the HLS press release,

Excluding those Other Expenses, Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) was $3.7 million for the first quarter of 2003, or 11.7% of revenues, compared with $2.1 million, or 8.0% of revenues, for the same period in the prior year.

Yeah, SHAC activists are really killing the company, aren’t they? And what of the “lost customers” that SHAC refers to? They seem to be misunderstanding this paragraph which seems pretty clear and not open to a whole lot of misinterpretation (emphasis added),

Brian Cass, LSR’s President and Managing Director said “First quarter results continued the strong performance we?ve been building for the past year. The revenue trend has remained positive and we?re delighted with the growth exhibited over last year. New order signings for the quarter were some 10% ahead of revenues and roughly flat with last year. After an exceptionally strong market in 2002, we have built a considerable volume of booked on work. This will be of particular value as we, and our competitors, have seen some softening in demand recently with uncertainty in customers? development programs; such variations are a regular phenomenon and we remain confident of the long term potential of our market.

HLS says its new orders for the first quarter are about what it had last year, but it suspects some softening might occur later in the year. After SHAC gets done with this, it becomes Huntingdon lost money this quarter because it lost customers. These idiots cannot even read straightforward financial reports correctly, but people actually consider them a credible source for information about animal research?

Source:

LSR Announces First Quarter 2003 Results Huntingdon Life Sciences, Press Release, May 12, 2003.

PETA Really Winning Public Support with Its Campaign Against Vogue Editor

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has recently taken to targeting Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour with some bizarre tactics. PETA is angry at Wintour for her promotion of fur in Vogue — Wintour recently received a lifetime achievement award from the Council of Fashion Designers of America.

According to a New York Newsday report, in early June five PETA protesters wearing fur courts drenched themselves in fake blood and crawled up the sidewalk toward the Conde Nast building in New York. After smearing the fake blood over the building, the activists then wedged themselves into a revolving door at lunchtime.

Now that’s the way to send the message that the animal rights movement is just a bunch of nutty extremists.

PETA has also been trying to place a billboard featuring an unflattering picture of Wintour with the copy, “Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people.” I suppose the feminists angered at the “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” will have a field day with that image.

PETA is apparently especially angry that while it promotes fur fashion, Vogue apparently will not even look at anti-fur ads submitted by the animal rights group.

Sources:

Faux gore for Wintour. New York Newsday, June 3, 2003.

PETA vs. Vogue: It Ain’t a Pretty Picture. PETA web site, Accessed: June 25, 2003.

PETA targets Vogue editor. The Vancouver Province, May 29, 2003.

Researchers Repair Rat's Spinal Cord

A team of researchers led by Dr. Geoffrey Raisman published a study in the June Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine describing how they repaired a rat’s damaged spinal cord by transplanting cells from its nose.

The researchers transplanted olfactory nerve cells into the scar tissue of the rat’s damaged spinal cord. The nerve cells bridged the damage and restored the functionality of the severed nerve fibers in the spinal cord.

Raisman was quoted in the Daily Mail (London) as saying,

This procedure allows spinal nerve fibres to regrow in a way which has not been thought possible. . . . I have been working in this direction all my life and I never expected we would get this far. We now believe that human trials would be worthwhile.

Similar studies in other animals will have to take place first, but Raisman hopes human trials of this technique could begin within three years. It is certainly the latest in a string of findings thanks to animal research that offers the hope of one day curing even serious spinal cord injuries.

Sources:

Rat healing raises hope for spinal cure. Corinne Amoo, Reuters, June 1, 2003.

Trials To Start On Repairing Damaged Spinal Cords. Paul Sims, The Daily Mail (London), June 2, 2003.

Rat Study Raises Spinal Cord Hopes For Humans. Stephen Cauchi, Sydney Morning Herald, June 3, 2003.