Day: November 22, 2019

USA: Urge Automakers to Withdraw Support for President Trump’s Dirty Cars Rule

usa-flagge-im-grunge-stil-auf-einem-weißen-hintergrund

ACTION ALERT

 

Urge Automakers to Withdraw Support for President Trump’s Dirty Cars Rule

 

Dear Mark,

Auto manufacturers just turned their back on science.

The hypocrisy is astounding. After decades of trying to create an image of themselves as a “green” automaker—thanks to the popular Prius, one of the first mainstream gasoline-electric hybrids for sale in the United States—it’s appalling to see Toyota working against strong clean car standards.

Toyota recently joined General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, and other automakers to back the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke California’s and 13 other states’ strong clean car standards—tell these automakers they are in the wrong.

Not only would this move prevent the 14 states plus the District of Columbia from protecting their residents from vehicle pollution—and from working to address global warming—it would prevent other states from adopting stronger standards as well.

This must not go unchallenged—it is up to American consumers to fight back against this corporate negligence. Urge the automakers to reverse course and support California’s right to set and other states’ right to adopt strong vehicle emission standards.

The existing emission standards were implemented in 2012 with significant input from stakeholders—including these automakers. Now automakers are throwing in the towel on their commitments to address global warming emissions from cars. And cars emit A LOT: the transportation sector is the largest source of global warming pollution in the United States and cars account for the largest share of this sector.

That’s why we’re joining more than half a dozen other organizations—including environmental, consumer protection, and labor groups—to get as many people as possible to sign our petition. Act now to tell these auto manufacturers to stop putting short-term gains ahead of the public and the climate in their support of the Trump administration’s attack on clean car standards.

Sincerely,

Eyal Li
Campaign Associate
Clean Transportation Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

https://www.ucsusa.org/ 

 

 

 

France: pregnant woman killed by dogs during hunt with hounds,

france-flag

 

 

France: pregnant woman killed by dogs during hunt with hounds

 

Animal rights activists urge halt to hunting season after body found near Villers-Cotterêts

A pregnant woman has been killed by dogs while walking her own dog in a forest in northern France during a hunt with hounds, investigators have said.

The body of the 29-year-old woman was found on Saturday in a forest outside the town of Villers-Cotterêts, about 90km (55 miles) north-east of Paris, the prosecutor’s office in nearby Soissons said.

An autopsy showed that she had died of “bleeding after several dog bites to the upper and lower limbs and the head,” prosecutor Frederic Trinh said on Tuesday. Some of the bites were “postmortem”, he added.

Trinh said that tests had been carried out on 93 dogs, including some hounds from the hunt and five dogs belonging to the woman herself, to try to establish which ones attacked her.

The police have launched an investigation into manslaughter by dog attack.

According to local newspaper Le Courrier Picard, the dogs were hunting deer.

The woman had called her partner while walking her dog to report the presence of “threatening dogs”, the prosecutor’s office said. It was he who later discovered her body.

Brigitte Bardot, president of her eponymous animal welfare foundation, declared herself deeply shocked on hearing of the case and in a letter urged Élisabeth Borne, the French minister for ecological transition, to suspend “immediately all hunt authorisation for this season”.

But the Paris-headquartered French hunting association said that “nothing shows the involvement of hunting hounds in the death of this woman”.

France has more than 30,000 hunt hounds in total and the association stated that “these dogs are trained to hunt a particular animal and obey man in all circumstances”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/19/france-pregnant-woman-killed-by-dogs-during-hunt-with-hounds

 

PETA: wants to appear on court in the name of tortured piglets

 

Can animals sue? The animal rights organization “PETA e.V.” wants to clarify the question before the supreme court.

 

banane rep deutschlandpg

PETA will petition the Federal Constitutional Court on behalf of tortured piglets. The special feature: The piglets themselves are to appear as legal persons, are formally and content complainants.

Neuregelung bei Ferkel-Kastrationen

The fact that animals participate in such a process is a novelty in Germany – and highly controversial.
The Karlsruhe judges could therefore fail the constitutional complaint of pigs on the admissibility. Then it would not come to the material examination.

Background of the constitutional complaint is denounced by animal rights activists as torture practice of castration of pigs.

Ferkel kastrieren 12
Annually, about 20 million male piglets are castrated in Germany shortly after birth in order to avoid the “boar taint” that affects the taste of the meat.
In castration, the piglets are usually cut open without anesthesia, the skin over the scrotum. Then the testicles are squeezed out and the spermatic cord is severed.
The pigs are fully conscious at the procedure.

Kastration für Ferkel -Schritt 2_n

Castration without anesthesia repeatedly postponed

Already in 2013, the Animal Welfare Act was amended so that the castration without anesthesia should only be allowed until the end of December 2018, but then shortly before the expiry of this deadline on 29 November 2018, the Parliament decided on the initiative of the Federal Government to extend the deadline by another two years extend.
The background of the extension: The farmers came the ban too early, they wanted the “regulated exit from the anesthetic castration”, it was then called by the German Farmers Association.
The “compromise” of the federal government finally envisaged that from 2020 on it should be allowed to pet owners to stun their piglets with the anesthetic gas isoflurane itself.
Against this practice and the statutory extension of the deadline Peta now turns with the constitutional complaint.

20170217_ferkelkastra1_gal

If the Federal Constitutional Court accepts the complaint, animals are granted rights that affect the entire society.

“The German law and the handling of animals in our society are blatantly contradictory to each other: Despite the animal welfare law and the constitutionally set goal of animal welfare every day countless animals are tortured and maltreated,” says Harald Ullmann, second chairman of Peta Germany eV in a statement of the association.

Pigs should be able to demand rights

“In order for the current legislation to be finally enforced, it is essential that animals are treated as legal entities and that they have the opportunity to sue for the enforcement of their rights in court.”

Under the Basic Law, the Federal Constitutional Court decides on “constitutional complaints” that can be raised by “anyone who claims to have been violated by an authority in one of its fundamental rights”.
Are pigs “somebody”? The question sounds philosophical.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, however, will deal with this question, since the answer to this question decides whether pigs – and other animals – may sue in Karlsruhe itself, ie are entitled to appeal or not.

Blutendes Ferkel_n

Animal welfare is state goal

Christian Arleth, a lawyer at the animal rights organization Peta, says: “It should be clear that the term ‘everyone’ should be interpreted broadly.” Strictly speaking, women would no longer be able to appeal.

The fact that the pigs have the right to act as a complainant, derive the lawyers from Peta eV from the existing legal system: “The ability to have their own fundamental rights and demand depends on whether a person from the legal system as “capable of interest and of itself worthy of protection “, says Christian Arleth.

Ferkel unter cupierenpg

This is the case with the piglets. “The animals are already protected by a criminal law standard in the Animal Protection Law for their own sake.
There is the principle of freedom from suffering and pain for every single animal “, from which the subjective legal protection for the animals themselves and thus the ability to demand these rights themselves can be deduced.

BEACHTEN: NPG-LIZENZ

Animal welfare is enshrined as a state goal in Article 20a of the Basic Law.

Elsewhere, animals have already been granted rights as “non-human persons”.
For example, the orangutan lady Sandra, who has been living in a zoo in Argentina for 20 years, was acquitted by a court in Buenos Aires of her “unjustified captivity”.
Although she was not biologically identical with humans, but was emotionally and happier in freedom, animal rights activists had argued at that time.

The court had followed this view.

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/tierschutz-ferkel-vor-dem-verfassungsgericht/25241990.html

My comment: In our humorous German animal protection law states: “Nobody is allowed to inflict pain, suffering or harm on an animal for no reasonable reason.”
Food is a reasonable reason, that’s how we made it, so we can torture animals.
Such peculiarities don`t apply to humans! killing is punished, no matter for what motives or reasons a person is killed.

In this respect, it is very important to put animal rights equal to human rights.
The basic question that the Federal Court must clarify is: are animals subjects of rights? Because they can not defend themselves, are we denying them the right of the legal entity?

No civilized person today would put the question of whether a 6-month-old or a mentally handicapped child are legal entities.
Because according to law these persons, despite their restriction to defend themselves, are legal entities, they are recognized as persons.

The animal welfare does not address animal rights; just dictate how people should treat animals. In other words, the creation of the Animal Welfare Act essentially affects humans, not animals, because humans decide (justice) how humans (actors) have to deal with animals.
The victims ones do not have much of it. An abused dog may often return to his torturer. He paid a fine for violating the law, but not the animal rights. The “thing” dog stays with him in this case.
Because animals are still considered as thing.

But if the court decides that pigs are an “anyone” then not only anesthesia-free castration will be banned but also the rape of female cows. And a lot of other crimes we practice every day on countless animals with the fascist law of the superior race.

ALL Animals are persons who should be protected like humans, and if they can not do it themselves (like little babies or senile people) their lawyers will do that.

Basta! And thank you PETA, we are with you!

My best regards to all, Venus