It has recently come to my attention that shocking laws have passed in both Iowa and Utah this year. These laws are designed to stop whistle-blowers from going undercover in meat factories and videotaping the cruelty that happens there. In the past 20 years, probably the most essential tool used by animal rights groups to convince the public about the plight of animals has been for whistle-blowers to go into factory farms (undercover), videotape the horrors occurring in those places, and then share their recordings with the public — to make them aware of the extreme suffering and brutality caused to billions of living beings, and to show the poor standard of health in such locations (potentially posing a health risk to the public). Such documentations have been crucial in pushing people to recall contaminated foods and have been essential in make the public aware of the horrors that occur behind close doors in places like Iowa.

Understandably, corporations in places like Iowa want their doors to be shut. They want the freedom to do whatever they feel like, even if that means exploiting animals in filthy, deplorable conditions in order to maximize profit. Corporations like those in Iowa do not want transparency — they want an opaque environment free of scrutiny. They also want people who eat meat to not think about the horrors that went into making their meals. Because of this desire to be secretive about their ways, the corporations of Iowa lobbied politicians there to make a law called an ag-gag law. “Ag-gag” laws, like the one in Iowa, have one purpose: to stop undercover whistle-blowers from revealing the truth about the suffering and cruelty they inflict on animals. The lawmakers cleverly disguise the law with euphemisms, using names such as “animal enterprise interference prevention act”.

The Humane Society of the United States, Mercy For Animals, the ASPCA, PETA and Farm Sanctuary have all came out against ag-gag bills in Iowa. It is now recommended that people boycott all animal products coming from Iowa. People need to send a message to Iowa that trampling on First Amendment rights will not be tolerated in this country. People have a right to know where their food came from and what’s occurring to it. People have a right to go undercover and document the truth. The same is true for the 4 other states with “ag-gag” laws: Utah, North Dakota, Montana and Kansas.

But of those states, Iowa is probably the most important because it has very large agricultural facilities, including the nation’s largest pork producers. People need to fund politicians in Iowa who oppose the draconian new “ag-gag” law, and they need to vote out politicians like Joe Seng who authored the bill. The “ag-gag” law in Iowa MUST be repealed.

Even more shocking is that there were about 7 other states (including New York, Florida and Minnesota) where similar ag-gag bills were introduced and failed. I fear that the big agricultural corporations will keep authoring these laws in all states until they finally get their way. Unless people stop them, they will try year after year to get unconstitutional “ag-gag” laws passed in various states until they succeed.

It is amazing that instead of actually trying to solve the problem by stopping animal slaughter, the agricultural corporations are trying to cover it up by attacking the whistle-blowers (who are the true heroes in this case). It is such bull**** that the good people in Iowa (i.e. those who try to stop animal abuse via videotaping) are now being criminalized, and the real criminals (i.e. those in the meat industry) are getting away with billions of murders every year. The real criminals (the meat industry animal abusers and animal torturers) are now being protected by Iowan law thanks to the new ag-gag law, and the whistle-blowers who try to stop the animal abuse are now being punished. The law in Iowa, Utah, North Dakota, Montana and Kansas is the opposite of the way it should be.

Part of the problem is that in many states, farm animals are deliberately excluded from the state’s animal cruelty laws. State laws often say things like A person may not torture or kill an animal… farm animals and animals used for “standard farm purposes” are exempt from this law. Either that, or they’ll say A person may not torture, kill or strangulate an animal… so long as it is not a farm animal. Sometimes the law of a state will say A person may not torture or kill an animal… this law may not be construed to be used against “accepted” farm practices.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this kind of legal language is UNACCEPTABLE and never should’ve been written in the first place. It is unfair to write a law banning animal cruelty, only to conveniently exclude animals which people torture and kill for profit (i.e. the agricultural industry). See these links:

http://animallaw.info/statutes/stusinst35_46_3_1_13.htm#s12

http://animallaw.info/statutes/stusmtst45_8_209_211.htm

The above links are to the “consolidated animal cruelty statutes” of Indiana and Montana. They both prohibit cruelty to animals so long as it is not a farm animal undergoing “accepted farming practices”. The term “accepted farming practices” is a euphemism for “cruelly killing billions of animal who suffer miserable lives prior to their deaths”.

And it is not just Indiana and Montana that have this bad legal language — nearly every state conveniently excludes farm animals from their animal cruelty laws. This is not the way the law should be; the law should be protecting all animals from cruelty, regardless of whether they are being “farmed” or not. It is clear that the language in these laws was written by corporations or lobbyists for corporations, and do not represent the will of the public (a recent poll estimated that 71% of Americans support whistle-blowers who try to stop cruelty behind the closed doors of animal slaughter facilities).

Another issue of concern is that in about 28 states, there are “anti-ecoterrorism” acts — the term “ecoterrorism” is a scare tactic used by corporations to paint the good guys (i.e. the anti-slaughter whistle-blowers) as “terrorists”, which is complete bulls***. These bad laws also take on other monikers, such as “law to prevent interference with animal enterprise or facility”. Whatever they are called, these laws, though not as bad as the ag-gag laws, are pretty bad in their own way. By labeling the good guys (i.e. the animals rights people trying to stop abuse) as “ecoterrorists” and making laws to stop their animal advocacy, the corporations have already successfully silenced their opposition in 28 states. Now, in states like Iowa, they’re taking it a step further by unconstitutionally making it a criminal offense to videotape animal cruelty [damning evidence] happening in factory farms.

Go to the anti-ag-gag petition website and sign it: ag-gag.org

Those who are reading this should try to stop eating meat and become a vegetarian. The more vegetarians, the better, because it will mean less money in the pockets of these unethical corporations who try to trample on people’s First Amendment rights by silencing their opposition. If you have that “I’ve gotta have meat” feeling, just buy Boca or Morningstar products in your local grocery store — they are meat imitators (but not actually made of meat). Or you could try Amy’s products, which are always vegetarian. But you should really avoid meat at all costs, and you should definitely not buy any meat coming from Iowa (as a way to send a message to the corrupt politicians there that their behavior is unacceptable).

Above: pink states = states with unjust “hunter harassment” laws; dark yellow (olive) states = states with unjust “hunter harassment” laws AND unjust “interference with animal facilities” laws; red = states with unjust “hunter harassment” laws AND unjust “interference with animal facilities” laws AND unjust “Ag-Gag” laws (anti-whistle-blower laws); gray = no data

Here are some quotes relating to the atrocious, unjust, unconstitutional ag-gag laws:

From animalrights.about.com:

“One of the best tools the animal protection movement has against factory farming is the truth, and a picture is worth a thousand words. But special interests are trying to take those tools away from activists in Iowa and Florida by trying to ban the making of undercover factory farming videos. In Iowa, H.F.589 creates the crime of “animal facility interference” for shooting a photo or video without the facility owner’s consent, and “animal facility fraud” for those who obtain employment at a farm for the purpose of shooting undercover photos and videos. […] Iowa residents can contact their state senators, and ask them to oppose H.F.589. You can find your Iowa state legislators here, along with their contact information. The Humane Society of the US recommends making a phone call first, then following up with an email. If you’re in a hurry, you can use their webform.

Bottom line? Whether or not it’s unconstitutional, these bills are wrong and dangerous because criminalizing the making of undercover videos protects the animal abusers and hides illegal activity from the public. These bills would also prohibit journalists from shooting undercover videos, and even prohibit the farms’ own employees from making undercover videos of animal cruelty, unsafe work conditions and other illegal activity.” — Doris Lin, http://animalrights.about.com/b/2011/03/23/bills-to-ban-undercover-factory-farming-videos-moving-ahead-in-iowa-and-florida.htm

From Good.is:

“Undercover footage filmed last year at Iowa’s Sparboe Egg Farms, America’s fifth-largest egg producer, shows scenes more harrowing than a slasher flick. Workers burn the beaks off young chicks without painkillers, then toss the bloody, beakless birds into crowded pens. Other employees grab hens by their throats and shove them inside battery cages, enclosures so small the birds can’t even stretch their wings and some become mangled and disfigured by cage wires. Others are tied inside plastic bags and left to suffocate. A particularly disturbing incident shows a worker torturing a hen by swinging it around in the air while the bird’s legs are stuck in a trap.

The video was produced by a representative from animal welfare organization Mercy for Animals who took a job with Sparboe to go undercover. While the footage is tough to watch even for the most committed egg eaters, it led to positive results: McDonald’s, Target, Sam’s Club, and Supervalu—Sparboe’s biggest clients—all ended their relationships with the producer after viewing the video last November. But such changes won’t happen in Iowa anymore: Capturing this sort of footage is now illegal under the state’s newly passed “ag-gag” law—and other states are poised to follow.[…]

So if undercover farming videos are bringing about such positive change to the food system, why blow the whistle on whistleblowers? Blame Big [Agricultural groups]. Industrial farming groups like the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, Iowa Select Farms (the very same operation that was investigated by Mercy for Animals in 2011), the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, the Iowa Farm Bureau, and Monsanto heavily supported the legislation in America’s biggest hog and egg producing state. Because these Big Ag interests mean big money to Iowa, lawmakers wanted to crack down on the folks who hurt their bottom line: animal welfare advocates.
The irony is that while legislatures protect factory farms, they’ve shown far less interest in protecting defenseless animals: No federal regulations protect farm animals from cruelty, and while state regulations exist, factory farms are rarely investigated and laws are seldom enforced. That’s why forward-thinking organizations like the Humane Society of the U.S., Mercy for Animals, and Compassion Over Killing have taken it upon themselves—often at great risk to those involved—to expose the food safety and animal cruelty issues rampant at factory farms throughout the nation. Undercover farming investigations make our food system better—not just for animals, but for consumers too.” — Sarah Parsons, http://www.good.is/post/gag-order-why-states-are-banning-factory-farm-whistleblowers/

From the New York Times:

“Undercover videos showing grainy, sometimes shocking images of sick or injured livestock have become a favorite tool of animal rights organizations to expose what they consider illegal or inhumane treatment of animals. Made by animal rights advocates posing as farm workers, such videos have prompted meat recalls, slaughterhouse closings, criminal convictions of employees and apologies from corporate executives assuring that the offending images are an aberration.
In Iowa, where agriculture is a dominant force both economically and politically, such undercover investigations [are now] illegal. […] Their opponents, including national groups that oppose industrial farming practices, say these undercover investigations have been invaluable for revealing problems and are a form of whistle-blowing that should be protected. They argue that the legislation essentially hides animal abuse and food safety violations.[…]

After a 2008 investigation of an Iowa pig farm showed workers beating sows and piglets as well as bragging about the abuse, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals turned over its unedited video to law enforcement, leading to criminal convictions against workers for animal abuse, said Jeff Kerr, general counsel for the organization.[…]

The association representing egg producers helped draft legislation to ban such videos, earning support from other powerful agricultural groups in Iowa.” — A.G. Sulzberger, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/us/14video.html?_r=1

From theatlantic.com

“[Iowa's new ag-gag law] criminalizes investigative journalists and animal protection advocates who take entry-level jobs at factory farms in order to document the rampant food safety and animal welfare abuses within. In recent years, these undercover videos have spurred changes in our food system by showing consumers the disturbing truth about where most of today’s meat, eggs, and dairy is produced. Undercover investigations have directly led to America’s largest meat recalls, as well as to the closure of several slaughterhouses that had egregiously cruel animal handling practices. Iowa’s Ag Gag law — along with similar bills pending in other states — illustrates just how desperate these industries are to keep this information from getting out.[…]

As a Humane Society of the United States investigator, I worked undercover at four Iowa egg farms in the winter of 2010. At each facility, I witnessed disturbing trends of extreme animal cruelty and dangerously unsanitary conditions. Millions of haggard, featherless hens languished in crowded, microwave-sized wire cages. Unable to even spread their wings, many were forced to pile atop their dead and rotting cage mates as they laid their eggs.

Every day, I came to work wearing a hidden pinhole camera, using it to film conditions as I went about my chores. Once I quit, the Humane Society released a video of my findings that showed viewers the everyday, routine conditions in modern egg factories. Although nothing I filmed was illegal (since Iowa’s anemic animal cruelty law exempts “customary farming practices”), the video was alarming enough to make national headlines.[…]

But without investigations like the ones I did in Iowa, the impetus behind this progress would be gone. At least, that’s the hope of groups like the Iowa Poultry Association and Minnesota Pork Producers, each of which helped draft the Ag Gag laws and oppose the federal hen protection bill. They and their backers at Monsanto and Dupont don’t want anything to change at all. They prefer having no rules on how they treat animals and no one from the public second-guessing what they do.

The Ag Gag laws pretend to be about preventing “fraud,” but they actually perpetuate it. They protect a system where consumers are regularly deceived into supporting egregious animal suffering, deplorable working conditions, and environmental degradation. They protect guys like Billy Jo Gregg, a dairy worker who was convicted of six counts of animal cruelty in 2010 after being caught punching, kicking, and stabbing restrained cows and calves at an Ohio farm.[…] Perhaps most egregiously, the Ag Gag laws also protect the slaughterhouses that regularly send sick and dying animals into our food supply, and would prevent some of the biggest food safety recalls in U.S. history.[…] In short, the Ag Gag laws muzzle the few people that are telling the truth about our food. With no meaningful state or federal laws to regulate industrial animal farms, they take away one of the only forms of public accountability this multi-billion dollar industry has ever faced. Now, the foxes are truly guarding the henhouse.” — Cody Carlson, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-ag-gag-laws-hiding-factory-farm-abuses-from-public-scrutiny/254674/

From Time.com

“There may be many regulations, but PETA, Avella and others say enforcement is sorely lacking and that undercover investigations are essential. Cayuga County district attorney Jon Budelmann, who prosecuted Phil Niles, tells TIME that the Mercy for Animals video of the employee striking the Willet Dairy cow “was the case.” Banning undercover investigations on farms strikes him as ludicrous. Without proof, he says, authorities would have just one person’s word against another’s. ‘Without the videotape, we wouldn’t have had the admission,’ he says. It seems that down on the farm, if you see something, you have to do more than say something. You have to show something too.” — Alexandra Silver, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077514-2,00.html

From humanesociety.org:

“[Bills aim to keep Americans in the dark] — The industry has introduced “ag-gag” bills in numerous states aimed at making whistle-blowing on factory farms essentially impossible. Some of the bills would criminalize photo-taking at factory farms, while others would make it a crime for whistle-blowers to gain employment at an agricultural operation. Some would impose unreasonable and impossible reporting requirements intended to silence potential whistle-blowers. These bills aim to ban critical whistle-blowing investigations such as The HSUS’ exposés of unacceptable and callous animal cruelty at a Vermont slaughter plant leading to its closure and a felony criminal conviction—as well as our investigation of a cow slaughter plant in California which prompted the largest meat recall in U.S. history and led to a new federal regulation that banned the slaughter of adult downer cattle. These ag-gag bills raise the question, “What does animal agriculture have to hide?” — http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/fact-sheets/ag_gag.html

From the Huffington Post:

“Americans overwhelmingly believe that food from our farms should be safe to eat and that farm animals should not be abused for its production. So it is disturbing that legislators in a number of states throughout the country are considering legislation known as ‘Ag-Gag’ bills that would cripple the ability of investigators to expose animal abuse and food safety concerns. Ag-Gag bills criminalize taking photos or videos on farms to expose problems, such as animal cruelty, environmental and labor violations, and other illegal or unethical behavior. Simply put, Ag-Gag legislation poses a danger to the American public — people and animals.[…]

Legislators bent on suppressing exposés through the passage of Ag-Gag legislation are not only harming animals, but putting all of us — including our children — in jeopardy by preventing our access to critical information about our food supply. They also threaten our constitutional rights by stifling dissemination of information and chipping away at our First Amendment protections.

It’s ironic when you think about it. The individuals targeted by Ag-Gag laws are not the criminals who are beating or stabbing animals (as seen on some undercover videos). Instead, the bills would punish the whistleblowers, the people who dare to lift the veil on these oft-hidden cruelties. The language in the bills varies somewhat state to state, but in many cases the penalties for exposing cruelty may be harsher than those for the actual commission of cruelty. In a number of states the proposed legislation would not only prevent the documentation of the abuse of farm animals, but also could prohibit investigations of puppy mills and dog racing.

Lawmakers who support Ag-Gag bills do so because they are accommodating the agribusiness lobby, not because it is in the interest of their constituents. In fact, a recent national poll by Lake Research Partners found that 71 percent of Americans support undercover investigative efforts to expose farm animal abuse on industrial farms.[…]

These bills represent a wholesale assault on many fundamental values shared by all people across the United States. Not only would these bills perpetuate animal abuse on industrial farms, they would also threaten workers’ rights, consumer health and safety, and the freedom of journalists, employees and the public at large to share information about something as fundamental as our food supply. We call on state legislators around the nation to drop or vote against these dangerous and un-American efforts.

Ag-Gag laws are an affront to many values Americans hold dear. If you live in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska or New York, you should be especially concerned since Ag-Gag laws are now pending in your state legislatures. Please contact your legislators to let them know that Ag-Gag laws are dangerous for people and animals.” — Ed Sayres, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/aggag-bills-threaten-our-_b_1370091.html

From animalrights.about.com

[Ag-gag laws] are troubling not only to animal protection activists, but also to those concerned with food safety, labor issues, free speech, and freedom of the press. The bills would apply equally to journalists, activists and employees. By prohibiting any type of undercover recordings, a farm’s own employees would be prohibited from attempting to record food safety violations, labor violations, sexual harrassment incidents or other illegal activity. First Amendment concerns were raised[…]

[This paragraph: Matt Rice] Legislation should focus on strengthening animal cruelty laws, not prosecuting those who blow the whistle on animal abuse… If producers truly cared about animal welfare, they would offer incentives to whistleblowers, install cameras at these facilities to expose and prevent animal abuse, and they would work to strengthen animal abuse laws to prevent animals from needless suffering.[…]

Undercover videos are important not just for educating the public, but also because they can be used as evidence in animal cruelty cases. — Doris Lin, http://animalrights.about.com/od/animallaw/a/What-Are-Ag-Gag-Laws-And-Why-Are-They-Dangerous.htm

From Foodsafetynews.com

“If the Iowa law had been in effect in California in 2008, Hallmark and Westland [an agricultural company who was targeted by whistleblowers] would have been able to go to court claiming status as victims of “animal facility tampering” for an “amount equaling three times all the actual and consequential damages” against “the person causing the damages.”

“This flawed and misdirected legislation could set a dangerous precedent nationwide by throwing shut the doors to industrial factory farms and allowing animal abuse, environmental violations, and food contamination issues to flourish undetected, unchallenged and unaddressed,” says Runkle.  ”[The Iowa Ag-Gag law] is bad for consumers, who want more, not less, transparency in production of their food.” [The purpose of the law is] “to shield animal abusers from public scrutiny and prosecute investigators who dare to expose animal cruelty, environmental violations, dangerous working conditions or food safety concerns.”[…]

Animal rights organizations like HSUS and MFA – working with investigators to expose violations – could themselves be prosecuted under the new Iowa law. Runkle says passage of the  ”ag-gag” law proves Iowa agriculture “has a lot to hide.” “This law is un-American and a broad government overreach. It seeks to shield animal abusers from public scrutiny and prosecute the brave whistleblowers who dare to speak out against animal cruelty, environmental pollution and corporate corruption.” The new law makes criminals out of those who dare to expose cruelty to farm animals and threatens the consumers’ right to know, according to the MFA.[…]

“The intent of [the Iowa Ag-Gag law] is simple: shield animal agribusiness from public scrutiny by punishing whistleblowers and protecting animal abusers,” wrote Pacelle. “By signing this bill into law, animal agribusiness will have unbridled and unchecked power over worker safety, public health and animal welfare.”

This year [2012], ag-gag bills have been introduced in Utah, Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Florida and New York. [Of those states, only Utah and Iowa signed them into law]

Under the new [Iowa] law, anyone making “a false statement or representation” as part of an application of employment at an animal facility could, after a first conviction, be charged with a class D felony.  

To produce a record of image or sound without the owner’s permission is defined as the new crime of “animal facility interference.” — Dan Flynn, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/iowa-approves-nations-first-ag-gag-law/#.UEvCVXAtcXx

From NPR.org

“Now in Iowa, if someone captures that treatment on video, he or she can be prosecuted. Constitutional law professor Mark Kende of Drake University says this could infringe on free speech rights. It could silence any worker who sees abuse and films it. “He can be threatened, not just with being terminated, but he can be threatened with criminal prosecution,” Kende says. “So this is really an extraordinary form of anti-whistle-blowing legislation — and really troubling in that respect.” — Kathleen Masterson, http://www.npr.org/2012/03/10/148363509/ag-gag-law-blows-animal-activists-cover

From guardian.co.uk

Multiple states have passed what are known as “ag gag laws”, designed to penalize investigative reporters who explore conditions on industrial agriculture operations. Many of these laws focus specifically on livestock, in the wake of numerous exposés on the abuses of livestock in industrial agriculture. These laws are a significant threat to the freedom of the press, and it’s rather remarkable that they are being allowed to stand. More than that, they threaten the health and safety of consumers, in addition to making it difficult and sometimes impossible for consumers to make educated choices about the sources of their food.

The US should be in an uproar about ag-gag laws, and it’s not. That’s a telling reflection of attitudes about agriculture, and illustrates the lack of interest among many people in the US about journalism[..] Attempts to raise awareness about the issue are often met with indifference[…]

It should come as no surprise to learn that the source of the pressure behind ag gag laws is, of course, industrial agriculture. Big companies have pushed legislators heavily to pass laws limiting the freedom to report on conditions at livestock facilities, including ranches, feedlots, and slaughterhouses. With the benefit of lobbyists, they can exert pressure directly in the halls of the legislature, as well as doing so indirectly by contributing to the electoral process and deciding who gets elected. In states like Iowa, you have to be agriculture-friendly to get elected, and if you want a chance at beating the competition, you’d better be willing to toe the line on industrial agriculture so you’ll get the needed support.[…]

It’s not just about animal welfare. Industrial agriculture also trashes the environment, something that should be of grave concern even to people who aren’t concerned about the health and wellbeing of animals raised for food. Industrial farms contribute to air, water, and soil pollution, consume vast volumes of water, and destroy soil biology and animal habitat[…]

This is why investigative journalism is important: because it brings these kinds of abuses to light and confronts consumers with information about the facts behind their food. Journalists in a wide range of industries and environments spend months or years on research, often from the inside, to prepare stories intended to spark comment, discussion, and change. Ag gag laws are only one example of an attempt to limit the ability to report freely on pressing social issues, and they should be a subject of anger and horror in the population at large. Lobbyists are attempting to limit access to information, and they are doing so by limiting the abilities of journalists to do their jobs.

The anger about exposés is well-founded; consumers are usually horrified when they see images and video from livestock facilities, as well they should be. Dead and dying animals packed close together in unhealthy, dangerous conditions, some with open sores and other obvious health problems. Animals treated casually and abusively by staff members who need to work fast, and cannot afford compassion or gentleness. Horrific conditions in slaughterhouses, where terrified animals are rushed through the production line and subjected to utterly inhumane and dangerous conditions. Workers who are tired, working through overtime, obviously ill, and at high risk of injury.

That the reaction to exposés is to silence journalists, rather than addressing the poor conditions, is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. It is more cost effective to shut off the stories, rather to fix the problem, and legislators are evidently happy to go along with this plan, passing ag gag laws to ensure silence about the continued abuse of farm animals. Consumers, in turn, tolerate this because they have no idea about the nature of the news they can’t see.” — S.E. Smith, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/agriculture-gag-laws-press-freedom

From takepart.com

“State Sen. Joe Seng, [author of the Iowa Ag-Gag bill], is challenging three-time incumbent U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack in the state’s Democratic primary on Tuesday for the right to represent Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District in Washington. 

Unfortunately for Seng, the folks over at the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) have a very good memory, and they’re hoping Iowa Democrats do too. Just in case, they’ve been busy contacting voters to remind them of Seng’s record, and strongly encouraging primary voters to support Loebsack, whose district was recently redrawn. The legislation Seng authored, they say, “punishes whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and anyone who helps them report on problems uncovered at a factory farm.” Loebsack, on the other hand, is animal-friendly.[…]

Part of our message is to signal to candidates that there are consequences for championing ‘Ag Gag’ bills that stomp on our first amendment rights and dim the spotlight on animal cruelty,” Sara Amundson, executive director of HSLF, tells TakePart. [Update: Seng was defeated by Loebsack] — Clare Leschin-Hoar, http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/06/01/humane-society-legislative-fund-iowa-race-ag-gag

From ASPCA.org

“Ag-gag bills may seek to criminalize the recording, possession or distribution of still images (photos), live images (video) and/or audio at or upon a farm, industrial agricultural operation or “animal facility.” Bills in some states seek to bar potential investigators from gaining employment on farms. As noted above, many successful animal welfare investigations have revealed severe abuses of animals and raised additional concerns about industrial farms, such as the potential contamination of eggs and meat.

[Ag-gag laws are dangerous for at least 6 reasons]: Animal Welfare — Ag-gag laws are a direct threat to animal welfare. […] Food Safety — Ag-gag laws threaten our food supply[…] Control over food choices — Ag-gag laws are a direct threat to marketplace transparency[…] Worker’s rights — This legislation often seeks to criminalize the recording of sounds or images in animal facilities, no matter the content. […] Free Speech — [Ag-Gag bills] pose serious First Amendment threats.[…] Environmental Damage — Undercover investigations offer an effective way to expose [environmental] violations, [and Ag-Gag laws seek to stop them] […]

Ag-gag laws are also troublesome because they do not reflect the public’s will. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans favor humane treatment of farm animals.[…]

If you live in a state that has introduced an ag-gag measure, please visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online to take action now.

Be vigilant in your state—keep an eye on the local media for any news regarding the introduction and/or progress of ag-gag bills. Talk to your friends and neighbors about why ag-gag legislation is a bad idea.” — http://www.aspca.org/ag-gag

From Iowa State Daily:

“The video is graphic and shows male chicks just hatched being put on conveyer belts, sorted from the females and tossed into grinders alive. The females are debeaked and put in crates to be shipped throughout the states. The newly passed [Iowa Ag-gag law] makes it more difficult for activists to get access undercover to make such videos. “This bill moves this out of the realm civil and into realm of criminal behavior,” Mack said. […] Individuals and groups with animals in mind, such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, are concerned.” — Randi Reeder, http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_f340fa68-7132-11e1-907d-0019bb2963f4.html

From ACSlaw.org

“Similar bills have been introduced in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New York. Weeks after Iowa passed H.F. 589, Utah enacted an even harsher law to go after undercover reporting of industrial farm abuse.[…]

As the Food Integrity Campaign explains, undercover video is a vital tool for proving allegations of wrongdoing and vindicating whistleblowers. One need only recall ABC’s undercover expose into the Food Lion grocery chain’s unsanitary practices for an example of the public good these investigations can produce. Tellingly, Food Lion responded not by challenging the damaging content of the report but by accusing the undercover reporters of fraud. That case, which involved years of legal battles and court fees, had only the threat of civil penalties—these new [Ag-gag] laws come with potential jail time. The implied threat of legal action will only discourage employees who see problems from standing up to increasingly powerful agriculture business interests. [It is of ethical concern to] protect people from conditions that breed E.coli, salmonella, and unhealthy food [via undercover investigations].” — Joseph Jerome

From Intellectualyst.com

“It is all too understandable why factory farmers would want to keep hungry eaters in the dark. Research shows that following reports exposing modern animal agriculture, general meat consumption of the public lowers for up to six months. In 2008, Hallmark Meat Packing Company of Chino, California, was shut down after undercover investigations from The Humane Society of the United States brought forth footage depicting workers beating sick cows, striking those too crippled to walk into kill pens, and even ramming animals with forklifts. This company, which recalled 143 million pounds of meat (the largest recall in history) after the USDA saw footage and deemed the meat unfit for human consumption due to lack of complete and proper inspection, was also the nation’s second largest supplier to the National School Lunch Program.[…]

The scariest part of this mess may be the meat industry’s response to the unveiling of norms at factory farms. How does the industry respond to the public slowly being educated on the inhumane and unsanitary ways in which food is raised? Do they work to reform their ways, abolishing each method that adds to the diminishment of nutrition, environmental health, and animal well-being? Nope. Instead they work as fast as they can to cover it all up. Eradicating their factory farms of the disgusting practices shown in undercover footage would mean a complete reform for the entire industry. So instead they work to build a thicker barrier between their everyday practices and public knowledge. It’s got to make you wonder, just what is the industry so desperately trying to hide? […]

The undercover investigations, which sadly are the few accurate illustrations of how our meat is produced, should be lit with a spotlight, free for all to see and learn from, not shut in the dark, covered by corporate interests. Supporters of the bills claim they are necessary for the health and safety of our farms, but if factory farms were properly regulated to be healthy and humane, then there would be no need to conceal these practices. They would welcome the mindful consumer, not criminalize his assets.

These ag-gag laws are an assault on our values and rights as Americans. They are a violation of our first amendment rights to free speech and free press, and they constitute a huge step back from our American principles. If Ag-gag bills continue to pass and make undercover investigations illegal, there is no knowing where this will end.[…] Our basic American principles hold “freedom and justice for all” above all else. Let us defend these values even in the face of large companies whose ties run deep in government. Let us exercise our right to unveil truths, which will be held as self-evident when given the opportunity to transcend. “ — Clare Edwards, intellectualyst.com/ag-gag-laws-a-violation-of-our-rights-as-consumers-and-americans/

It really angers me that there are laws in many states which protect the unethical practices of factory farms and “research” laboratories — and yet in those same places, there are laws which prohibit ethical sex with animals. As I’ve stated in previous posts, animal rights activists should stop being hostile to zoosexual people and focus their attention on the people who are really harming animals — the factory farmers and slaughterers (i.e. “big agriculture”). Zoosexual acts in most cases are not harmful — this is in sharp contrast to the staggering brutality going on behind the closed doors of factories (the suffering of billions of animals who are “in the system”). The fact that places like Missouri have banned ethical zoosexuality and yet allow “generally accepted practices” (i.e. slaughter atrocities) is extremely unfair and unjust. For example, look at Missouri’s law:

http://animallaw.info/statutes/stusmost578_005_188.htm#s7

Notice that the law deliberately excludes “generally accepted” acts from the general animal cruelty law — those “generally accepted” practices are far more unethical than zoosexual acts (the “generally accepted” practices worse than zoosexual acts include slaughtering animals, artificial insemination, performing potentially lethal experiments on them, etc.) It is such bulls*** that those “generally accepted” practices (which should NOT be allowed) ARE allowed by the law, but ethical zoosexuality is prohibited. It should be the other way around: sex with animals should be allowed, and the “generally accepted” practices should be banned.

This is a form of discrimination, and it has been embedded into the law. These are bad laws. The good people (i.e. those who try to stop unethical slaughter, “research”, etc.) are unfairly persecuted by the law and labeled as “ecoterrorists”.) In addition, good (and ethical) zoosexuals are also unfairly persecuted by the law.

Ultimately, much like the “Jim Crow” laws of the South in the early 20th century, there are currently laws on the books in many states which condemn two kinds of good people: ethical zoosexuals (who would never harm an animal), and people who are trying to stop the unethical practices of gigantic slaughterhouses and “research” laboratories (those are the people who are unjustly called “ecoterrorists”). At the same time, the law protects the bad people (i.e. those people who are doing the so-called “generally accepted” practices, like slaughtering animals). This is fundamentally wrong.

The laws of this country need to be changed. There MUST be a reform. The reformation of laws is especially important in places like Missouri, where the good people are punished and the bad people are rewarded. These are the changes that need to occur:

1) REPEAL anti-zoosexuals which unjustly and unfairly prohibit ALL forms of human-animal sexual interactions. Such laws are bigoted, discriminatory, unjust, and prejudicial.
2) REPEAL the so-called “ecoterrorism” laws and which unjustly prohibit people from “interfering” with extremely unethical practices (i.e. the murdering of animals on a massive scale). People should have the RIGHT to interfere with such practices because it is the right thing to do — when massive injustice is occurring (i.e. slaughtering animals, torturing them via experimentation, etc) it is the RIGHT of the citizen to interfere with such practices as a form of protest. Thus, the so-called “ecoterrorist” laws which prevent this protest should be repealed.
3) Zoosexuality should be decriminalized, and current factory farm slaughter atrocities should be criminalized. All forms of animal slaughter should be criminalized

Think about it: it is very unethical to slaughter other humans, so why do people find it morally acceptable to slaughter other animal species? Speciesism has allowed society to “not have a problem” with slaughter — however, people definitely would have a problem if all of a sudden humans were being slaughtered; this hypothetical example shows how humans put themselves on an arrogant, speciesist “pedestal” above other animals — they care more about their own welfare than the welfare of other species.

In addition, zoosexual people (as a class of people) should be protected under the law, and the people who are causing the real harm to animals (i.e. the slaughterers, the artificial inseminators, the hunters, the “researchers”) should be punished by the law. Unfortunately, this is not the case in states like Missouri (which have the opposite of these goals).

It is amazing to me how delusional people are. To me, it is so clear which acts are harmful to animals and which are not. When a human has sex with an animal, it is not intrinsically abusive, not intrinsically cruel, and not “immoral”. Only when other factors are involved (i.e. violence) do such acts become unethical. In addition, it is so clear to me that acts such as slaughter, hunting, and lethal experimentation are harmful to animals and should not be allowed. (Yet the laws in many places like Missouri allow them to be exploited in these ways). At the very least, it can be said without a doubt that acts such as slaughter are far more unethical than a human having sex with an animal. After all, humans are animals, and such inter-species interactions happen in the wild all the time.

People should be encouraged to become vegetarian. Not only is it better for the environment, it shows others that you are not a speciesist and will not support the cruelty of big agriculture. Eating meat is not necessary. The lives of individual animals are more important than the profit being made off them by big companies, and their lives are more important than the superfluous meats that people don’t need to eat.

As I said before, there are a lot of bad laws on the books in states like Missouri, and they need to be repealed. The currently state of laws in places like Missouri is an injustice. I have a feeling that hidden religious values (as well as speciesism and anthropocentrism) are at work in the creation of such irrational and illogical laws.

What would it be like if people lived to be 1000 years old? Upon first thinking of this concept, one would be glad about the ability to live for 1000 years (though on a geological time-scale, 1000 years is still extremely short). If the average person were able to live for 1000 years (presumably through some kind of new revolutionary bio-engineering technique), the average lifespan would be 10 times longer than it is today. Thus, a person would be able to experience 10 times as many things.

However, if a person is able to live for such a long time, the chances increase of some kind of deadly accident happening during that long 1000-year period (for example, a person might die in a car crash at the age of 400, falling short of the maximum age by 600 years). There also is the aging issue — if people were to live to 1000 years, the aging process would need to be stretched out like a rubber band (so, for example, adolescent would end at around age 200, mid-life would be around age 400 to 600, and the elderly period would be age 700 to 1000.)

Also, there could be repercussions about this possibility not yet discovered. For example, there a lot of crap that happens in life; in a period of 10 years, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the economic collapse and the BP oil spill happened. Just imagine what could happen in a 1000-year period; probably lots of wars and hardships. What’s worse — dealing with those hardships for 80-100 years, or dealing with them for 1000 years? Also, change (both in the human environment and natural environment) would probably be fairly extensive during that period, possibly making people more depressed.

One of the things that angers me about our current society is college. I went to college and got a bachelor’s degree just like most people — it was very expensive and very time-consuming. When I began college, I thought it would be worth it. Instead, it turned out to be a total waste of time and money. I now have nearly $30,000 of college loan debt.

Perhaps I wouldn’t have fallen into this “debt trap” if I hadn’t been brainwashed into thinking that college was the “only way” to get ahead. I learned about 2/3 of the way through college that I could’ve decided to take an alternate direction — one in which skills and experience are involved. My college degree does not involve any “skills” or “experience” from the perspective of employers, making me wonder what the point of getting it was in the first place.

Like most college graduates, I have “loan anger” — an anger about being forced to pay huge amounts of money to a corrupt college system. Colleges are greedy businesses — all they want is your money. They can say whatever they want in their propaganda brochures about “enriching” yourself and “challenging” yourself — but the bottom line is that they want your money, because they’re a business.

The college system does not deserve to get any more money from me because the educational experience was not worth the money. In fact, college graduates deserve a refund — in other words, the academic experience was worth far less than the actual price. Making matters worse, federal regulations regarding student loans suck — they are lax and allow colleges to have total control (i.e. extortion) over the price of tuition — which is why college tuition has skyrocketed (it is not regulated enough).

In the future, when college tuition will cost $300,000 per year, people should boycott college at all costs. It isn’t worth the money now and it never will be worth the money and the extremely long period of time required to get a degree. Current colleges, especially expensive “Ivy-League” / Liberal Arts colleges are corrupt and their corruption and extortion must be stopped. College is a scam; don’t fall for it like I did.

Here are some quotes from the book “Dolphin Diaries” by Denise L. Herzing:

“[Regarding captive dolphins]: It’s unfortunate that the captive industry has and continues to expose people to the entertainment aspects of dolphins. That is to say, most people I know have a misguided and deep-set belief that dolphins are always happy, that jumping through hoops, doing tricks, and eating dead fish is all quite normal. We one to expect this image of the performing dolphin. In the wild when people see dolphins jump they assume it is playful, happy behavior. From my experience dolphins are usually fighting underwater, resolving conflicts in he course of normal dolphin politics[…] I can assure you that dolphins [do not perform tricks] in the wild. Dolphins do not exist to entertain us. The saddest aspect is that we have failed to present what dolphins really are in our attempts to educate and intentionally have manipulated the image of dolphins for profit.[…]

By encouraging viewing in captivity we take away the opportunity for people to learn “etiquette” skills in the wild, further depowering them and making them accept the view of what a dolphin is in a tank and under human control. Besides confinement by humans and intentional captures and hunts of their families, dolphins face a variety of environmental and man-made threats. Human impacts include pollution, climate change, loss of habitat[…] I have no doubt that dolphins are intelligent, emotional, and thinking beings. Science is often the last to prove such statements because as humans we are often resistant to changing our paradigm or considering such options. Our job as scientists is not to discard phenomena on an “a priori” basis because of a prejudice, but to explore and study phenomena and understand the natural laws and processes that produce such phenomena. Today’s view on nonhuman intelligence is yesterday’s flat earth.

Spending time with wild dolphins, as individuals and as a culture, is probably as close as we can get to an understanding of the dolphin mind. Human politics and human choices are still deeply rooted in the idea that humans are dominant over nature. We are a creative species whose primary talent is surviving and building environments not normally tolerated without technology. In some cases the domination of nature is supported by deeply held [delusional] religious beliefs that humans have the “right” to do what they will with animals, plants, and even the planet. Dominance over the other is the same attitude that early explorers had when they met native cultures in other lands. We must begin to quest our everyday lives and the responsibilities we have to other [nonhuman] beings on the planet.

Paradigm shifts come hard in our culture. We attach ourselves fiercely to our realities. New ideas threaten our way of life, as did the emergence of the ideas of Galileo and others. As the evidence for nonhuman animal thinking we rethink our eating habits, our treatment of pets, our willingness to encourage the captivity of at least higher mammals such as cetaceans, elephants and the great apes. Fierce battles emerge and lines are drawn.[…] As the science, and our understand, of consciousness of nonhuman animal think proceeds and takes on rigor and interdisciplinary perspective, we will see incredible strides in our awareness of the world. Perhaps we are the only species that thinks of itself as “separate” from the natural world [a delusion]. It’s ironic that both the health of the planet, and our individual health and well-being, may be tied profoundly to our treatment of the Earth itself. Enriching the lives of animals and sparing suffering can also increase the well-being of people in every society. Incorporating ourselves into a large community of beings has many positive repercussions.” — Denise L. Herzing, Dolphin Diaries p. 286

Here are some quotes from a book I read called “Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat” written by Hal Herzog in 2010:

“But does riding a horse, playing with a dog, or stroking a cat really cure depression?[…] Janell Miner and Brad Lundahl of the University of Utah analyzed the results of 49 published studies […] In most of the studies, the subjects did measurably benefit from interacting with their nonhuman therapists. And, on average, the degree of their improvement was about the same as depressed people get from taking drugs like Prozac.[…]

Of the 65,000 species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians of the planet, only a handful merit much human concern. Why do we care about the giant panda but not the giant salamander, the eagle but not the vulture, the bluebird but not the sparrow, the jaguar but no the Dayak fruit bat? The ways that we think about animals are often determined by species’ characteristics — how attractive the creatures are, their size, the shape of their head, whether they are furry (good) or slimy (bad), and how closely they resemble humans. Too many legs or not enough legs are negatives.[…] What is it about human psychology that makes it so difficult for us to think consistently about animals? The paradoxes that plague our interactions with other species are due to the fact that much of our thinking is a mire of instinct, learning, language, culture, intuition, and our reliance on mental shortcuts.[…]

[Regarding "biophilia"]: Does our innate tendency to be taken by a pair of [cute] oversized eyes affect our attitudes toward the treatment of other species?[…] Our fetish for animals that look like infants comes at a cost. Humans’ love for the cute has produced canine breeds in which full-grown dogs resemble perpetual puppies.[…] [Regarding "biophobia"]: But if people are biophilic towards creatures like puppies and baby seals, they are biophobic towards others — snakes, for instance.[…] Objectively, the fear of snakes among Americans does not make sense. There are only about a dozen snakebite deaths a year in the United States[…] Why are so many Americans afraid of snakes? After all, you are more likely to be killed by a dog than a snake bite.[…] [However], about half of Americans say they are not afraid of snakes, and 400,000 people in the United States keep them as pets. Further, cultures differ in how they treat snakes[…]

The words we use for meat help us avoid thinking about the ethical implications of our diet. It is easier to order a pound of beef from the butcher than a pound of cow.[…] Partisans on both sides of the animal rights debate realize the power of words. In describing the Canadian seal hunt, the government agency that oversees the hunt uses the words “harvest”, “cull”, “management plan”. The language of seal hunt opponents is peppered with hot words: “slaughter”, “massacre”, “atrocity”. What the wildlife managers call the “swimming reflex of dead animals”, the activists refer to as “being skinned alive”.[…] PETA has made millions of Americans aware of the suffering associated with factory farming, hunting, animal research, zoos and circuses; but they have had almost no success in riling up the public about [fish].[…]

[Regarding the execution of crocodile that killed a man]: when I heard about [the incident], the logical part of me though that the execution made no sense. After [the crocodile was shot], Haast’s wife said, ‘the crocodile was just doing what comes naturally to him’. She was right. Still, another part of me, a more primitive part, [thought about retribution]. So did the New York Times editorial writer who described the croc’s death as “emotionally satisfying yet thoroughly irrational”. Was the shooting of the crocodile the right decision? In this situation, should we listen to logic, which says there is no reason to punish a crocodile for acting on its instincts, or to our emotions which cry out for revenge for the death of a child?[…]

[Regarding hypothetical scenario in which a pet dog is killed by a car]: When people are asked if it is permissible for the family to eat their pet, most of them immediately say, ‘NO’. The problem comes when you push them on reasoning — when you ask them to explain exactly why it is wrong to eat an animal that is already dead and obviously incapable of feeling any pain. Most of the time, they simply can’t [justify it]. Hadit calls this “moral dumbfounding”. It’s the Yuck Factor. The act [is perceived as] “disgusting”[…]

[From the chapter "Pet-o-Philia"]: The range of animals that humans have kept as pets is extraordinary — crickets, tigers, pigs, cows, rats, cobras, alligators, giant eels — the list is endless. But when asked what animals they consider pets, most people don’t say eels or crickets. why do they think of? The answer, of course, is dogs and cats[…] The human-pet relationship is going into a new phase. In recent years, pets have come to be regarded as full-fledged family members, a trend that the pet products industry refers to as the humanization of pets. Nowadays, 70% of pet lovers say they sometimes slow their animals to sleep in their bed with them[…] — Hal Herzog, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat

Herzog also describes an experiment (a hypothetical scenario) in which a run-away trolley was going to hit a person unless its course was changed, in which case it would hit a non-human animal. People overwhelmingly supported the “sacrifice the animal” choice, proving that people are arrogant, speciesist and overly anthropocentric in their thinking.

I have only quoted a tiny fraction of the book; the rest can be found (obviously) in the book itself.

Some members of the Sea Shepherd crew; Paul Watson is on the far left

Some notes about this post: The term “speciesism” is a term which means “a bias in favor of one species [usually humans] over another”; it is similar to the terms “racism” and “sexism”, and is commonly used to refer to humans who arrogantly think of themselves as “better” than other animals. The Faroe Islands are a territory of Denmark that lies in the north Atlantic Ocean, between Iceland and Scotland.

I personally consider Paul Watson one of the best human beings to ever walk on the Earth. Why? Because he is an animal rights supporter who has done what few animal rights supporters dare to do: save animals in defiance of ignorant, appalling laws which permit animal killing.

Paul Watson is an anti-hunter, and I applaud him for that. He is also an anti-speciesist and a member of the Sea Shepherds group, a conservation organization that patrols oceanic environments in order to stop ignorant people from killing animals (usually whales). If I was given a survey which said “what do you think of Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherds?” I would say “I strongly support them”.

There is a common problem around the world: let me explain. First, there are the ignorant, speciesist, anthropocentric people who arrogantly believe that killing animals is OK because (according to them) humans are “above” other animals (this is bull****). These ignorant people often become lawmakers, and that is why so many laws around the world (such as the laws of the Faroe Islands) are so pro-hunting and pro-speciesism.

Then there are the minority: the animal rights activists who will do anything to stop the barbaric slaughter of innocent whales and other creatures. These people (the animal rights activists) are the correct ones and they are the ethical ones. But unfortunately, in many cases, the law is not on their side (This REALLY pisses me off). It is tragic that in so many cases, the police and authorities of a given location are fighting for the animal killers, not against them. (This is the case in the Faroe Islands, where the arrogant, ignorant authorities of that location do whatever they can to permit the ruthless slaughter of whales).

So that pretty much sums it up: it is a David vs. Goliath type situation. The David (the small, ethical minority) must fight against Goliath (the evil, unethical majority). And in this case, “Goliath” also refers to the atrocious authorities who are on the side of the animal killers. These authorities have embedded ignorant and arrogant speciesism and anthropocentrism into their f***ed up legal system. Their legal system do not treat creatures equally — they prohibit humans from killing other humans (which is fine), but they do NOT prohibit humans from killing other animals, like whales. And that is EXACTLY why the world so desperately needs people like Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherds — since the odds of the immoral laws being repealed are so small, the Sea Shepherds use the last resort: saving animals in defiance of the law, which is wonderful. It is similar to the Rosa Parks incident: sometimes it’s OK to defy the law if the law is discriminatory and unethical.

Here is a quote regarding the Sea Shepherd’s most recent intervention in the Faroe Islands:

“In the Faroe Islands, unlike the Antarctic campaign, the oceangoing conservation [Sea Shepherd] outfit is not hectoring a faceless, corporate, government-subsidized commercial whaling outfit with massive factory ships that kill whales in the name of “research.” On this grouping of 18 small islands in the North Atlantic, a Danish protectorate situated between Iceland and Scotland, the people kill pilot whales by hand, on the shore, as part of a traditional hunt called the “Grind,” (pronounced “grinned”) which residents say is thousands of years old.

The Grind is not pretty, and “Viking Shores” pulls no punches. The Faroese send boats out into the ocean to find pilot whales, which are cetaceans not as large as the fin or minke whales hunted by the Japanese, but are slightly bigger than dolphins. Then they herd the mammals toward one of several dozen beaches on the islands, where residents lie in wait. As the powerful creatures beach themselves in panic, hunters wade into them with long curved hooks and slaughter the whole pod in a bloody frenzy. The Faroese eat a lot of pilot whale.”–http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-whale-wars-paul-watson-faroes-killing-friday-online-debate-20120426,0,5093696.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fscience%2Fenvironment+(L.A.+Times+-+Environment)

Some people have called Paul Watson an “ecoterrorist”, which makes me incredibly angry because that assertion is not true. The REAL “ecoterrorists” are the people like those in the Faroe Islands who go out of their way to deliberately slaughter hundreds and hundreds of whales. The people who kill animals are the REAL “ecoterrorists” because they are disrupting the environment with their arrogance and speciesism. They fail to realize that whales can feel pain just like humans.

A fundamental problem with the way people in the Faroe Islands annually slaughter whales is the fact that they fail to realize that humans are animals. This failure is demonstrated in the first episode of Whale Wars: Viking Shores, in which an ignorant Faroese person shouts “It’s just a whale!” at the Sea Shepherds. This is an example of the ignorance and speciesism that has permeated places such as the Faroe Islands.

Think about this for a minute: people in the Faroe Islands would never accept the slaughter of humans, as is the case in most (if not all) political regions. However, if the killing is done on beings who happen to not belong to the Homo sapien species (i.e. whales), then all of a sudden the people of the Faroe Islands don’t have a problem with it. This is blatant, ignorant, arrogant speciesism. It is an obvious bias in favor of the human species over other species.

As I already explained, Paul Watson is an anti-speciesist (just like me), and the Sea Shepherd organization is an anti-speciesist organization, which is a good thing. The Sea Shepherd group is clearly in the right, and the people of the Faroe Islands are clearly in the wrong. Why? Because the Sea Shepherd people understand the fact that the differences between humans, whales and other animals are very small. They understand the philosophy common to vegetarians, vegans, Buddhists and Jains: that every creature has an intrinsic right to live, and that no human has the right to take that life away. The people of the Sea Shepherd also understand that other animals (especially intelligent animals like whales) have emotions and feel pain and suffer just like humans. And most importantly of all, the people of the Sea Shepherd organization understand (correctly) that killing animals just for their meat is extremely unethical and unnecessary. (And they recognize the truth, which is that humans are animals).

Above left: two killed pilot whales (barbaric carnage). Above right: unethical people kill beached whales in the Faroe Islands, causing the water to turn blood red. (Remember: carnage is carnage, no matter how “humane” people claim it to be. The unnecessary slaughter of living beings will NEVER be ethical).

When I saw the first episode of Whale Wars: Viking Shores, I was shocked and offended by the comments made by the people of the Faroe Islands. One by one, the Faroe Islands people described their weak “arguments” in favor of whale killing. Let me discuss some them. Firstly, they use the flimsy “argument” that they should do it because of “tradition”; this is the same bull**** way of thinking that is used by people who cut off shark fins. It is extremely important to understand that “tradition” is NEVER a justification for any action in which sentient beings are harmed.

Secondly, they make the “argument” that it is “OK” to kill whales because they kill them “quickly”, so their suffering is shortened. This argument is invalid for this reason: if people in the Faroe Islands were slaughtering other humans and doing it “humanely”, the police would immediately arrest them, no questions asked. The police would not say, “Oh, it’s OK to slaughter humans because they’re being slaughtered humanely“. No, they would not say that; people (not just in the Faroe Islands but pretty much anywhere) would never accept the slaughter of humans, no matter how “humane” it was. Now, let’s focus on whale slaughter. Those same authorities in the Faroe Islands (the same authorities who would immediately condemn human slaughter) are the same people who ignorantly allow the slaughter of whales because the claim it is “humane”. This is proof of a speciesist double standard, in which the lives of humans are valued more than the lives of whales. (This is NOT the way it should be; humans should be considered EQUAL to whales and other animals). In addition, the notion that the whales are slaughtered “humanely” is dubious to begin with because of its anecdotal and unscientific nature. These ignorant people need to realize that killing whales is wrong not matter how “humane” the kill is. The aversion people have to killing other humans should also be applied to whales and other animals.

Thirdly, they argue that it is “OK” to kill whales because people in the U.S. and elsewhere eat chickens and cows. Yes, it is true that people eat chickens and cows, but I am against this. I am a vegetarian, and vegetarians understand that it is unethical to kill ANY animal. Thus, when it comes to vegetarianism, this is a completely invalid point. It only applies to meat eaters who eat meat (i.e. hamburgers), yet condemn whale killing (those people are hypocritical). In the case of those people, the “argument” would apply. But if a person is a vegetarian or vegan (which is the way everyone should be), then the “chicken and cow” argument is irrelevant.

It is worth noting that one of the Faroe Islands people condemned a vegetarian Sea Shepherd by saying “Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian”. That is such ignorant bulls**t. Not only that, but it is also an extremely weak argument; what I would call a “low blow”. Why? Because you can say lots of things about Adolph Hitler that are true: Adolph Hitler had hair. Does that make people with hair bad? No. Adolph Hitler was a heterosexual. Does that make heterosexual people bad? No. Adolph Hitler was an artist and a painter. Does that make artists bad? NO! This Adolph Hitler comment said by a Faroese person is an example of just how desperate they are to synthesize “justifications” for their unethical ways; they truly are “grasping at straws” and use tactics reminiscent of a schoolyard bully. So what if Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian — it has absolutely no relevance to anything. (It is important to note that in the first episode of Whale Wars: Viking Shores, it was quite clear that the Faroe Islands people were bullying the Sea Shepherd people, for example by deliberately eating whale meat in front of them to make them angry. Fortunately, the Sea Shepherd people kept their cool. Even though they kept their cool, I wish the Sea Shepherd people had stood up for themselves more; they should’ve argued against the ignorance of the Faroese more).

When I was watching the first episode of Whale Wars: Viking Shores the part that made me the most angry was when the Faroe Islands police (the assholes) confiscated the Sea Shepherds’ sonar gear. This gear was going to be deployed in the water surrounding the Faroe Islands in order to prevent whales from coming near the islands, and it would’ve been a brilliant victory for the environmentalists and animal rights activists. But nope, the ignorant Faroe Islands authorities just had to confiscate their gear because they’re a bunch of f***ing assholes.

I strongly encourage anyone who is reading this to become vegetarian (if you haven’t already). That way, those ignorant Faroe Islands people won’t be able to throw their “chicken and cow” argument at you. It is important to remember that I have no animosity against the actual people of the Faroe Islands; however, I DO have extreme animosity towards the ignorant, anthropocentric philosophies which have permeated their brains like a virus, and I DO have animosity towards their animal slaughtering. I absolutely hate speciesism, and I hate “human exceptionalism”.

Fourthly, the Faroe Islands people make the claim that Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd people are “ecoterrorists”, which is complete bull****. As I’ve said before, the REAL “ecoterrorists” are the people who kill whales. The Sea Shepherd is doing the right thing, NOT the wrong thing: they are enforcing wildlife conservation because the ignorant authorities have failed to. This does NOT make the Sea Shepherds people “ecoterrorists”.

Another “argument” the Faroese make is that Paul Watson’s group is just a “floating circus” who wants media attention. This statement really pisses me off because it’s not true. The Sea Shepherds are not doing what they do for show, they are doing what they do because it is the right thing to do. They are also doing what they do because they are filling a “niche” (a “void”) — a whale protection “niche” which the Faroe Islands authorities and politicians have utterly failed to occupy. Yes, there are camera crews following them (the Sea Shepherd crew), but that is just to spread awareness via television of the atrocities being committed by the people of the Faroe Islands. People need to be aware of the REAL “circus” — the atrocious “circus” of barbaric whale killing in the Faroe Islands (and elsewhere).

I also want to point out something else: one of the Faroe Islands whale killers said “don’t come between us and the whales” to the Sea Shepherd people. I find this comment extremely offensive because he [the person who said the comment] acts as though the whales are the property of the Faroese people, which is bull****. The whales belong to no one, and the Sea Shepherd people understand this value.

In regards to ANYONE who is slaughtering animals, whether it be people in the Faroe Islands killing whales or people at a large factory killing millions of chickens/cows, I say to myself: “how would the slaughterers feel if THEY were the ones being slaughtered?” This is a “golden rule”-type thought (i.e. do to others as you would want done to yourself). Maybe if that thought crept into the minds of the slaughterers, they would stop slaughtering. In other words, if the people who slaughter animals understood that non-human animals are basically in the same category as humans (especially in terms of the pain they feel), they would stop slaughtering. But they don’t think this because of the ignorant, arrogant, speciesist cultural beliefs which has permeated their brains.

The following quote represents what the Faroe Islands people have failed to understand:

“First it was necessary to civilize man in relation to man. Now it is necessary to civilize man in relation to nature and the animals.” — Victor Hugo

I’ve said it before and I will say it again:

1) People who arrest and try to stop the Sea Shepherd group are arrogant, ignorant, irrational, delusional and speciesist. It is UNJUST to arrest people who are trying to save lives (in this case, non-human lives).
2) The people of the Sea Shepherd group are the ethical ones, and the whale slaughterers of the Faroe Islands are the UNethical ones
3) It is NEVER OK for anyone to deliberately kill animals (especially animals like whales which are intelligent).
4) Deliberately killing animals is intrinsically immoral. (And remember, when I say “animals”, I’m including humans in that category because humans ARE animals).
5) It is shocking that in places like the Faroe Islands, the law is heavily on the side of the unethical animal murderers. The laws in places like Faroe Islands SHOULD be protecting whales; instead, their bad laws allow people to kill them.
6) People like Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherds group are NOT “ecoterrorists”. The REAL “ecoterrorists” are the people who kill whales and other animals.

My only criticism of the Sea Shepherd group would be that they don’t actively protect sharks enough (in other words, too much of their attention is focused on whales and not enough attention is focused on sharks). This is something the Sea Shepherd organization needs to be aware of (especially considering the fact that 100 million sharks are killed every year by humans. The Sea of Cortez in Mexico is becoming a site for great white shark slaughter.)

There ought to be at least 10 Sea Shepherd organizations. If there were 10 Sea Shepherd organizations, they could team up and would have a lot more man-power to fight against the extremely unethical practices of the Faroe Islands people. Right now, there are not enough “eco-warriors” to protect whales and other marine life. If there were multiple Sea Shepherd organizations, they would be able to make a very strong, tactical assault on the whale-killing assholes. It’s a shame that there’s only one Sea Shepherd organization. But one is better than none. So I say to Paul Watson “keep up the good work”, but I do hope that there will be more Sea Shepherd-like groups in the future.

It is clear that in situations like the one in the Faroe Islands, the playing field is extremely unbalanced; the humans who want to kill the whales have a HUGE advantage over the whales. There is nothing which can justify this kind of ruthless, bloody, barbaric, unethical slaughter. The Sea Shepherd people tried to make the playing field more fair by putting sonar devices in the water to keep the whales away from the Faroe Islands, but they were unable to do this because of the f***ed-up Faroe Islands police confiscated the devices from them.

Before ending this post, it is important to note that everything I’ve said about the Faroe Islands whale murderers could be applied to ANY group that kills large groups of animals. For example, the Japanese fisherman who kill whales in the Southern Sea are just as unethical as the people in the Faroe Islands. The only reason I focused on the Faroe Islands (a chain of islands north of Scotland) in this post is because they are the subject of the most recent Whale Wars intervention. ANY group of people who deliberately slaughters animals for ANY purpose is unethical and in the wrong. They occur on different scales — what the Faroese people and Japanese people do is exponentially smaller than the actions of the meat industry (i.e. killing billions of cows/pigs/etc), but killing is killing, no matter how small or large the scale is. Yes, the big corporate animal slaughterers who slaughter billions of cows/pigs/etc are more unethical than the whalers in the sense that the quantity of lives they end is much larger, but that does not excuse the animal cruelty that animals have endured at the hands of Faroese people, Japanese people, and others.

There is nothing wrong with the Sea Shepherd organization; the fact that they sabotage the unethical plans of animal killers is a good thing. Those unethical people deserve to be sabotaged because of their immoral behavior.