January 06, 2004

• [Via Fark and Blort.]
• The article makes a good point, while the law may deter the casual animal activist, I just can't see terrorists quivering in the boots in fear of an extra $100 fine and some community service. Also, we also hear about these wacky, stupid laws from the US, but I find it hard to believe that other countries don't go overboard like us USians. (ok maybe not that hard, but still)
• Hmph. The law will stand until the first challenge, at which point it will blow away like the smell of cowflop on a windy day. Legislators propose, but the courts dispose.
• I'm in support of this, if for nothing else than to stick it to animal rights activists. Those people chap my hide.
• Here's more on the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act," which this law is modeled after: for it and against it.
• Eco-terrorism has few defenders. However, such an extreme position shouldn't be equated with humane concern fueled by incidents like this, where 4 horses were inexplicably starved to death by a 34 year-old owner.
• For every humane concern there's a reasonable path of action. No need for violence or harrasment.
• harassment, I mean.
• Hmm, my understanding is that animal rights activists are much more vocal in the UK compared to the US. Is that a fair assessment? What about you Canadian, Australian and NZ monkeys?
• Animal activists here are generally laughed at for their wacky and naive antics. Last winter some silly woman from Auckland had a go at Southland farmers for letting the poor wee lambies get cold. She made it onto the TV news, and as far as I know she was never, ever heard from again. She even wrote a poem. Of course, the idiot Greenpeace activists who have been in the news recently for ramming (or being rammed by) a Japanese whaling ship are putting human lives in danger to make their point. You have to take people like that seriously just so they'll go away and stop making the human race look even sillier than it already is.