Month: October 2003

Gun Crazy Great Britain?

I absolutely love the headline on this story from The Observer from October 5,

Police fear they are losing control of gun-crazy Britain

Now wait a minute — starting in 1998 Great Britain banned the private ownership of handguns and forced everyone who had registered a handgun to turn their weapons over to the state.

And yet, according to The Observer, gun crime has doubled since the Labour Party came to power.

Apparently, as best I can tell, criminals aren’t abiding by the law and are obtaining weapons illegally — imagine that. The nerve of some people.

Not to worry, though, the government apparently has a plan. They’re talking about mandatory minimums for illegal possession of a gun. I’m sure that will accomplish what the ban on guns hasn’t.

Source:

Police fear they are losing control of gun-crazy Britain. Tony Thompson, The Observer, October 5, 2003.

More Andrea Lindsay on Animal Rights Extremism

Previously I mentioned statements that Andrea Lindsay made to KGO-TV about the bombing of Chiron Corp., apparently identifying herself as a SHAC spokesperson. KRON 4 also ran a story featuring additional comments by Lindsay justifying that and other animal rights extremist activities.

KRON identifies Lindsay as being part of the Animal Rights Direct Action Coalition and quotes her as saying of the Chiron bombing,

Tentatively, I would say yes [it was justified], it caused economic damage and no people were hurt and it did cause damage to Chiron, which is fantastic.

KRON also asked Lindsay what she though of activist harassment of Laurent Manrique. Manrique’s restaurant/shop, which served foie gras, was severely vandalized in an action that also damaged surrounding shops. The most disturbing aspect of the actions against Manrique, however, were activists who stationed themselves outside his home and videotaped him and his family going about their routine and then mailed the videotape to Manrique with a letter notifying the family they were being watched. As Manrique put it, “I freaked out and my wife started to panic.”

For Lindsay, however, this is all in a day’s work for the committed activist,

The things happening to the foie gras chefs I certainly support. I think that they don’t have any right to go home and feel comfortable while they’re inflicting suffering on innumerable animals.

Ah that trademarked animal rights compassion at work again.

Source:

Is radical activism effective? KRON, August 28, 2003.

SHAC's Latest Target in the UK

Having been banned, at least temporarily, from protesting close to Huntingdon Life Sciences or its customers, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists in Great Britain have turned to the next obvious target — a company that they claim sells HLS cleaning supplies.

The Evening Telegraph reported that about 15 SHAC activists protested outside of Industrial Supplies in Waterworks Lane, Glinton.

SHAC activist Gail Record, 37, told the Evening Telegraph,

We’ll continue our peaceful demonstrations until the company stops supplying HLS — whether it takes a week a month, or even a year. Our new strategy is to target all those companies which supply HLS, because they help to keep them in business. We have been successful with this strategy, and the suppliers are dropping like flies. Campaigning in this way also helps to keep the issue in the public eye.

SHAC also delivered to the UK government a petition it claimed held the signatures of one million people demanding the closure of HLS. Greg Avery told The Evening Telegraph,

This is a massive petition that shows the level of support for the closure of this hell-hole. We are more determined than ever, and absolutely committed to forcing the closure of this lab, so that no more animals suffer.

Avery himself, of course, has served time in jail for the very sort of harassment that led to the injunction against protests near HLS.

Source:

Animal Testing: ‘Campaign goes on’ say activists. The Evening Telegraph, September 5, 2003.

California SB 372 – Increased Penalties for Cockfighting

BILL NUMBER: SB 732	CHAPTERED
	BILL TEXT


	CHAPTER  256
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE  SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
	APPROVED BY GOVERNOR  SEPTEMBER 1, 2003
	PASSED THE SENATE  AUGUST 19, 2003
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  JULY 24, 2003
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JULY 1, 2003
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 17, 2003
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 4, 2003
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 21, 2003


INTRODUCED BY   Senator Soto
   (Coauthors:  Assembly Members Benoit, Koretz, Levine, and Yee)


                        FEBRUARY 21, 2003


   An act to amend Sections 597b, 597c, 597i, and 597j of the Penal
Code, relating to animals.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST



   SB 732, Soto.  Cockfighting.
   Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to aid, abet, or be present at
a cockfight; to own, possess, keep, or train any cock with intent
that it be used for fighting; or to manufacture, buy, sell, or
possess cockfighting implements.
   This bill would instead provide that these offenses are punishable
as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not
to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed  $5,000, or by both that
imprisonment and fine.  This bill would also specify that a 2nd or
subsequent conviction of specified animal fighting provisions is a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for  a period
not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by both
that imprisonment and fine, except in unusual circumstances where the
interests of justice would be better served by the imposition of a
lesser sentence.  The bill would also provide that aiding and
abetting a cockfight shall consist of something more than merely
being present or a spectator at a place where that fighting is
occurring.  Because this bill would change the definition of various
crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
  The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:



  SECTION 1.  Section 597b of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   597b.  (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who,
for amusement or gain, causes any bull, bear, or other animal, not
including any dog, to fight with like kind of animal or creature, or
causes any animal, including any dog, to fight with a different kind
of animal or creature, or with any human being; or who, for amusement
or gain, worries or injures any bull, bear, dog or other animal, or
causes any bull, bear, or other animal, not including any dog, to
worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be
done on any premises under his or her charge or control; and any
person who aids, abets, or is present at  the fighting or worrying of
  an animal or creature, as a spectator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


   (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any person who, for amusement
or gain, causes any cock to fight with another cock or with a
different kind of animal or creature or with any human being; or who,
for amusement or gain, worries or injures any cock, or causes any
cock to worry or injure another animal; and any person who permits
the same to be done on any premises under his or her charge or
control, and any person who aids or abets the fighting or worrying of
any cock is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to
exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that imprisonment
and fine.
   (c) A second or subsequent conviction of this section, Section
597c, or Section 597j is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in
a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to
exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine, except in unusual circumstances where the
interests of justice would be better served by the imposition of a
lesser sentence.
   (d) For the purposes of this section, aiding and abetting a
violation of this section shall consist of something more than merely
being present or a spectator at a place where a violation is
occurring.
  SEC. 2.  Section 597c of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   597c.  (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), whoever owns,
possesses, keeps, or trains any animal, with the intent that the
animal shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting, or is present
at any place, building, or tenement, where preparations are being
made for an exhibition of the fighting of animals, with the intent to
be present at that exhibition, or is present at  that exhibition, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
   (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), whoever owns, possesses,
keeps, or trains any cock or other bird, with the intent that the
cock or other bird shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting is
guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a
period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed  five thousand
dollars ($5,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
   (c) A second or subsequent conviction of this section, Section
597b, or Section 597j is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in
a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to
exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine, except in unusual circumstances where the
interests of justice would be better served by the imposition of a
lesser sentence.
   (d) This section shall not apply to an exhibition of fighting of a
dog with another dog.
  SEC. 3.  Section 597i of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   597i.  (a) It shall be unlawful for anyone to manufacture, buy,
sell, barter, exchange, or have in his or her possession any of the
implements commonly known as gaffs or slashers, or any other sharp
implement designed to be attached in place of the natural spur of a
gamecock or other fighting bird.
   (b) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section
is guilty of a  misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed
five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine
and upon conviction thereof shall, in addition to any judgment or
sentence imposed by the court, forfeit possession or ownership of
those implements.
  SEC. 4.  Section 597j of the Penal Code is amended to read:
   597j.  (a) Any person who owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any
bird or animal with the intent that it be used or engaged by himself
or herself, by his or her vendee, or by any other person in an
exhibition of fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by
a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine.
   (b) This section shall not apply to an exhibition of fighting of a
dog with another dog.
   (c) A second or subsequent conviction of this section, Section
597b, or Section 597c is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in
a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to
exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine, except in unusual circumstances where the
interests of justice would be better served by the imposition of a
lesser sentence.
  SEC. 5.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

Judge Dismisses Activist's Lawsuit Over Makah Injuries

In April 2000, Erin Abbott was one of a number of activists who used watercraft to dart in and out of an exclusion zone set up by the Coast Guard during the Makah whale hunt. Abbott’s watercraft collided with a Coast Guard boat that attempted to shield a Makah canoe in the exclusion zone.

Activists at the time likened the collision to attempted murder on the part of the Coast Guard and, incredibly, Abbott sued the Coast Guard over the injuries.

Not surprisingly, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that a judge has dismissed Abbott’s lawsuit saying that she was “wholly responsible” for the injuries she sustained.

According to the Post-Intelligencer, Judge Franklin Burgess said in his ruling that,

Ms. Abbott thus not only intentionally violated the MEZ (exclusionary zone), which she knew was in effect, and pled guilty to negligent endangerment of life at sea, and violated the rules of the road, but she violated safe operating practices, good seamanship, federal regulation and common sense in making high-speed passes with a personal watercraft in the vicinity of a canoe, a vessel engaged in a completely lawful activity in the open ocean with little freeboard.

Abbott was sentenced to just 120 hours of community service on the negligent endangerment charge.

Source:

Judge throws out whaling protester’s lawsuit against Coast Guard Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 6, 2003.

California Law Increases Penalties for Cockfighters

Outgoing California Gov. Gray Davis recently signed into law a bill that will significantly increase fines against those convicted of cockfighting, but likely not have much real impact because it does not increase possible jail time nor elevate cockfighting to a felony.

Under current California law, cockfighting is a misdemeanor with a maximum $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. Effective January 1, 2004, however, the fine for a first offense is raised to a maximum of $5,000 and a second offense to $25,000.

The impetus for the bill was the 2002 outbreak of Newcastle disease in California which some blamed on the large number of illegal cockfighting operations in California. An expert on poultry from the University of California extension testified against that notion, however, and language to that effect was removed from the bill by its sponsor.

Originally the bill was written to elevate cockfighting to a felony, but legislators balked at that because of the implications it might have for California’s three strikes law. Without felony status backed up with longer terms in jail, however, police are unlikely to devote limited resources to cracking down on cockfighting in California./

The full text of the bill can be read here.