Author: Brian Carnell

Palestinian Authority’s Hypocrisy

From an MSNBC story about Sharon’s saying Israel is at war with terrorism and the latest military incursions by Israel into Palestinian areas,

Palestinians immediately criticized the latest Israeli military move. Also speaking to the “Today” show, Hassan Abdel Rahman, the chief Palestinian representative in the United States, accused Sharon of “driving Palestinians into violence.”

“The war Mr. Sharon is waging … is [being waged] against the Palestinian people. He is not trying to achieve security for Israel. Peace cannot be achieved by killing more Palestinians.”

The real problem, of course, is that the Palestinians — including Arafat — seem to be under the impression that victory can be achieved by killing more Israeli civilians with suicide bombers.

Besides, if peace cannot be achieved by killing more Palestinians why does the Palestinian Authority openly tolerate the lynchings of Palestinians suspected of being Israeli collaborators?

Apologists for Pedophilia? In Academia of Course

With the nation in the grips of the scandal over pedophilia within the ranks of Roman Catholic priests (and the apparent coverup by church officials), the obvious question was how long would it take for someone nutcase academic to defend those actions? Just such a defense appeared, in fact, in the March 26, 2002 edition of The Minnesota Star Tribune.

There are, believe it or not, individuals and groups within academia who want to redefine and defend pedophilia. For the most part, this impetus comes from the same folks who believe that heterosexuality is simply an ideological construct forced on hapless people by an patriarchal and oppressive society. On the extreme end of this view are people who believe that the taboo prohibiting adults from having sex with children is the last holdout of that “old morality” which must be vanquished in order for a new, liberating morality to emerge.

As political science professor Harris Mirkin puts it, “Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality,” and Mirkin and his ilk want to destroy that old sexual morality even if it destroys children.

So how do the defenders of pedophilia intend to rehabilitate this crime? By pointing to research suggesting that the victims of pedophilia are not always harmed by it.

This was the source of a major controversy within the American Psychiatric Association a few years ago. A study published in the 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin studied 59 college students who were sexually abused as children by people older than themselves or by other children. What they found was that there was no single approach to how those 59 people dealt with the abuse.

The authors then want to say that in cases where negative effects are non-existent or there actually seem to be positive effects, that the encounter be called “adult-child sex” instead of “sexual abuse.” There are numerous serious problems with the study — in fact the study’s methodology is downright laughable. Besides, this is exactly like saying that physical abuse of children is okay in those few cases where the children do not experience any long-term negative impacts from the abuse.

But back to the priests, the University of Minnesota Press is publishing a book due out later this year called, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by journalist Judith Levine. Levine explicitly defends priestly pedophilia. Here’s what the Star Tribune reports,

She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it’s almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.

She added, however, that, “yes, conceivably, absolutely” a boy’s sexual experience with a priest could be positive.

Thank goodness we can rely on academic presses to ensure that such ideas get wide circulation. I’m sure those priests engaged in pedophilia will be overjoyed to hear that they have support among some in the academic community.

Source:

Some in mainstream contend certain cases of adult-minor sex should be acceptable. Mark O’Keefe, Minnesota Star Tribne, March 26, 2002.

Dictators, Development and Malaria

North and South Korea offer a nice look at the real sources of underdevelopment in Third World countries. That distinction was recently highlighted with word from the World Health Organization that North Korea has been experiencing a malaria epidemic over the past few years.

During the 1970s, malaria was eradicated from both countries. In 1997, however, malaria made a comeback in North Korea. The main reason is that although North Korea has a well–funded army, it does not have a well-funded water and sanitation system.

As a result, WHO estimates that last year there were as many as 300,000 cases of malaria in North Korea. WHO recently released an appeal for aid, noting that although much aid has been given to North Korea to avert famine, it also needs money to combat malaria and other problems.

South Korea, on the other hand, is prosperous to the point that it donated almost $700,000 of equipment to help its neighbor to the north fight malaria.

Both North and South Korea emerged from World War II as dictatorial societies. The North’s political system became ever more rigid and totalitarian, whereas the South’s political system gradually was forced to accept liberal democracy, both from internal and external forces.

The main problem still facing the developing world is too many regimes that have more in common with North Korea than with South Korea. A lack of democracy and political rights is a deadly combination.

Source:

WHO battles malaria in North Korea. Caroline Gluck, The BBC, April 1, 2002.

New Jersey Appeals Court Upholds Right of Cities to Hire Deer Hunters

A New Jersey appeals court has rejected an animal rights challenge to a law that allows municipalities to hire professional hungers to cull deer herds.

Groups opposed to deer culls in Princeton Township and White Buffalo had filed separate lawsuits challenging the law, which were consolidated by a three-judge panel. “We reject the claims of unconstitutionality raised in both appeals,” said the panel in its decision. “We uphold the validity and the implementing regulations.”

The decision came as a surprise to Nielson Lewis, a lawyer for one of the groups challenging the law. Lewis had asked for an opportunity to present oral arguments. That request was ignored by the appeals court. Lewis said the group he represents, the Mercer County Deer Alliance, had not yet decided whether to appeal the decision further.

Meanwhile, Trishka Waterbury, a lawyer for Princeton Township, told the Associated Press that this was a complete victory for the township. “This decision completely validates the township’s program.”

Source:

Judge dismisses challenges to the hiring of deer killers. Associated Press, March 29, 2002.

College Students Tortured, Killed Cat to Highlight Cruelty of Meat Eating

Last June, I wrote about two men arrested in Canada who had videotaped gruesome scenes of themselves and a third, as yet unidentified man, torturing and killing a cat (see Did Animal Activist Torture Cat?). At the time there was speculation among people who knew Anthony Ryan Wennekers, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers, 21, that they had made their videotape to highlight the plight of animals.

In fact, that was the argument their lawyer made in arguing for light sentences for Wennekers and Powers. Lawyer Andrea Tuck-Jackson told a Toronto court last week that Power was an art student at The Ontario College of Art and Design who wanted “to challenge the decision of people who choose to eat meat.”

Wennekers and Powers plead guilty to charges of mischief and cruelty to animals rather than go to trial.

Tuck-Jackson argued that since her client was a vegan and a pacifist (who just happens to torture and kill cats on occasion), he should receive a 60 to 90 day jail sentence along with the equivalent of 12 to 18 months under house arrest. The maximum sentence that each man could receive would be 2 and a half years in jail.

After reading what Tuck-Jackons and Wennekers did to the cat, however, it is difficult to believe that they do not deserve the maximum. Here’s how The Ottawa Citizen described the 17-minute videotape that was played in court (warning this is extremely graphic and disgusting),

The 17-minute tape shows Mr. Power, Mr. Wennekers and an unidentified man putting the cat in a makeshift noose. The two have declined to help police identify the third man.

As the cat is flails [sic] in the noose, the men stab and slash at repeatedly at it. About halfway through the video, one man can be heard saying, “It’s still alive.”

The cat is stabbed several more times and two men kick the animal as it dangles from the cat’s neck and stomach area are sliced before it dies and the video ends.

The cat’s cries of pain can be heard throughout the attack. Several people in the public gallery blocked their ears, bowed their heads and could be heard crying during the presentation.

As prosecutor Robin Flumerfelt put told the court, “The videotape makes it clear that what these men lack is an appreciation of the wrongfulness of their crime.” Flumerfelt argued that the men should receive the maximum possible sentence.

Sources:

Student tortured cat to support animal rights, lawyer tells court: Video of the killing brings public to tears. Shannon Kari, The Ottawa Citizen, March 29, 2002.

Cat torture horrifies court: ‘Art’ video of men skinning stray prompts tears, disgust from spectators. Nancy Carr. Montreal Gazette, March 29, 2002.

Bizzare Pet Theft Lawsuit Against Activists

In the early 1990s pet theft was a hot topic among animal rights activists, but it seems to have died down — perhaps because animal rights activists themselves seem to be getting in on the act. Such is the case of a dog-napping in Portland, Oregon.

John Lindberg, an Oregon doctor, had been jogging with his dog in Portland last May. He leashed the dog to a post outside of a market for a few minutes, and when he emerged from the store his dog was gone. When the dog did not turn up, Lindberg assumed the dog was stolen.

Patti Webb works with the Boxer Rescue League and received a call from Kim Singer. Singer used to be a news anchor at a Portland station, and described to Webb a boxer she had come into possession of. Webb realized that the dog was the same boxer that Lindberg had reported stolen, and told Singer to take the dog to Animal Control.

Instead, Singer gave the dog to Samantha Miller who, like Singer and her friend Paige Powell (who apparently stole the dog in the first place), has a history of being involved in this sort of “pet rescue”/theft.

The dog had a history of stomach problems and when it began experiencing problems while with Miller, she took it to a vet. The vet told her the animal needed an operation. Since none of the three people involved in stealing and transferring the dog were willing to pay for the operation, the dog was euthanized.

Singer and Powell both denied to police that they had any involvement in the theft of the dog. But when Lindberg filed a lawsuit against them, the duo quickly changed their mind.

In March, Singer and Powell reached a settlement with Lindberg in which they each agreed to pay him $12,500 and agreed to stop making public statements that they had nothing to do with “events relating to the dog, Shaq.”

More importantly, the settlement agreement calls for Singer and Powell to testify truthfully in any further civil lawsuit, and Lindberg’s lawyer maintains he is preparing to file suit against Miller.

Source:

Boxer’s story takes a sad twist. Phil Stanford, Portland Tribune, March 29, 2002.