With thanks to Stacey at ‘Our Compass’ as always – very interesting.

Victory for Free Speech as U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Kansas Ag-Gag Law | Our Compass (our-compass.org)

Regards Mark

MAY 2, 2022

Imagine thinking this standard, normalized abuse, is “acceptable” while ignoring how animals feel having to literally experience it …

Source ALDF

The original title, which I took liberty to “modify”, was Victory for Animals and Free Speech as U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Kansas Ag-Gag Law

I changed it because, no, this isn’t a “victory” for animals as it doesn’t benefit animals who all suffer on farms (and labs, entertainment, fur farms, zoos, etcetcetc) regardless of a human court decision. A “victory” for animals would be a vegan world.

And it really wasn’t a “victory” for free speech either as ag-gag should NEVER have been considered much less implemented.

And to be fair, it really wasn’t a victory for “transparency” either, as “transparency” would be the actual anag industry publicizing the torture they inflict on animals versus aggressively trying to illegalize OTHER NON-ANAG PEOPLE from sharing undercover footage of the torture the anag industry effortlessly inflicts on animals.

(I’m not criticizing ALDF, they do excellent work, but many in the tiny minority of vegans who actually care about animals, often view even the meager crumbs of a SCOTUS decision upholding an already-legal-and-required constitutional right, as an “animal victory” in the face of global socially-accepted and celebrated normalized violence and suffering.)

But it’s pathetic how anag cheerleaders can’t get their stories straight, always inviting people to, “COME SEE THE FARMS!!!”, or, “HAVE YOU EVER EVEN VISITED A FARM???” while simultaneously relentlessly pursuing ag-gag to criminalize exposure of THEIR criminally inhuman, abusive acts perpetrated on defenseless, vulnerable animals. So much for “transparency”! (And by the way, I’ve never personally witnessed FGM, seeing someone mutilate a child in person, though, is not going to inspire me to change my mind and support FGM.)

But I wanted to share it anyway as it’s worth noting that a conservative SCOTUS has refused to reconsider a lower court’s decision that ag-gag is INDEED unconstitutional (while of course acknowledging that SCOTUS, along with billions of other humans, still don’t care about animals whatsoever; this wasn’t about animal “rights” or animal “freedoms”, this was about privileged human supremacists who don’t care about human animals OR non-human animals and want to hide their animal cruelty while infringing on the rights of humans).

Oh, and the excuse dejour of – it goes something like – maintaining a disease-free perimeter/area due to “biohazard risks” is based on YOUR actions of confining literally tens/hundreds-of-thousands of animals, not people who are exposing your deviant, shameful behaviour. And your track record sucks as diseases – pandemics – are in the news practically daily. But do pretend that you care about all animals while creating hellishly-zoonotic conditions where suffering, death, and disease thrive….

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for SCOTUS to determine that socially-accepted slavery, rape, and murder inflicted on billions of animals yearly in just the USA, should also be abolished based on the inhuman acts of violently exploiting and destroying animals. In the meantime, however, you can be vegan TODAY rather than wait for others to judicially enforce YOUR ethics.

Oh, and for those who experience moral outrage at my word choices of “slavery, rape, murder”, I don’t like your literal actions – condemning animals to such horrific fates – that inspired my words. You should be more concerned with the violent consequences of your choices versus how I accurately describe them with my word choices.

But people love to define the suffering of others in manners that makes them comfortable causing the suffering of others. SRL

Source Animal Legal Defense Fund/ALDF

In a major victory for animals, workers, and transparency In the animal agriculture industry, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that struck down Kansas’s “Ag-Gag” law for violating the First Amendment. The decision follows a lawsuit filed in 2018 by an Animal Legal Defense Fund-led coalition of animal, environmental, and food safety advocacy groups challenging the law’s constitutionality.

The Kansas law in question made it a crime to engage in activities that are essential to conducting undercover investigations that have in the past revealed horrific treatment of farmed animals and food workers to the public. The appeals court held that Kansas may not silence views critical of industrial animal agriculture. The court’s decision affirmed that videos, articles, advocacy, and public dialogue generated by whistleblowing and undercover investigations of factory farms and slaughterhouses relate to a matter of public concern: The treatment of animals and workers on factory farms and slaughterhouses, and manner in which food is produced. Such speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves that important ruling in place.

The 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision notes: “[T]he text and legislative history of the Act evince Kansas’s desire to limit the ability of [the Animal Legal Defense Fund] and like organizations to engage in true speech critical of animal facilities.. . .. We reject this approach because it elevates form over substance and permits Kansas to do just what the First Amendment prohibits: ‘license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.’”

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to disturb the lower court decisions is a victory for farmed animals, factory farm and slaughterhouse workers, and food and public safety — as it leaves intact the public’s constitutional rights over protecting corporate interests and profits. Until there are cameras publicly broadcasting the conditions within factory farms and slaughterhouses, investigations are the country’s only opportunity to see the horrific ‘industry standard’ conditions under which food is made,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “The industry works hard to keep its practices secret, knowing consumers won’t accept the intense confinement and other inhumane treatment of animals, as evidenced by the passing of California’s Proposition 12 and other proposed state legislation.”

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to California’s Proposition 12 ballot initiative, which outlaws the sale of animal products from pigs held in gestation crates, calves held in veal crates, and eggs from hens kept in battery cages. The measure passed after undercover investigation footage exposed the cramped and cruel conditions in which pigs, calves, and chickens spend their lives at industrial animal agricultural facilities.

Source ALDF

“The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision leaves in place important constitutional protections for investigators working with animal rights groups to expose misconduct in the industrial animal agriculture industry,” says Alan Chen, a University of Denver law professor who helped lead the lawsuit against Kansas. “This is a big win for the national campaign against Ag-Gag laws.” Enacted in 1990, the Kansas Ag-Gag law was the oldest in the United States. Kansas is a major agricultural producer with the third-most cows of any state, and until being struck down, its Ag-Gag law had successfully prevented whistleblowers from investigating the conditions that millions of pigs, cows, chickens, and other animals endure.

There have been nine lawsuits challenging state Ag-Gag laws around the country. Earlier lawsuits have resulted in courts striking down similar laws or portions of laws in Iowa, North Carolina, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will soon consider the constitutionality of Iowa’s second law, after striking down Iowa’s first law and recently clearing the way for an Animal Legal Defense Fund-led coalition’s lawsuit challenging Arkansas’ law to proceed. A decision concerning North Carolina’s law is pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is also currently challenging a third Iowa law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The Kansas coalition is comprised of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Center for Food Safety, and state farmed animal organizations Shy 38, Inc. and Hope Sanctuary. The coalition is represented by Public Justice, leading First Amendment scholars, the law firm Foley & Mansfield, and attorneys with the plaintiff organizations, with assistance from Joshua Rosenkranz and the Supreme Court & Appellate practice at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.

Download Your FREE Vegan PDF HERE

Order a FREE vegan kit HERE

Dairy-Free Info HERE

Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE

Click HERE for more Dairy-Free

Fish alternatives can be found HERE

Learn about eggs HERE

Find bacon alternatives HERE and HERE

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE

Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more?
Click HERE to search.

Free PDF of Vegan & Cruelty-Free Products/Companies HERE

Click HERE to find out How to Wear Vegan!

Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend:

PETA HERE

Vegan Outreach HERE

Get your FREE Activist Kit from PETA, including stickers, leaflets, and guide HERE

Have questions? Click HERE

Regards Mark

20 April 2022

In an unprecedented move, a French criminal court has condemned the practice of illegal routine tail docking of pigs and issued a fine of 50,000 euros, including 25,000 suspended, against the owners of a pig farm.

On Wednesday 6 April, the owners of a pig farm in Limoise, France supplying the Herta brand were sentenced a fine of 50,000 euros by the Moulins criminal court. The court considered the systematic docking of animals’ to be an act of abuse. 

Tail docking is the practice of shortening a pig’s tail to prevent tail biting.

Tail biting usually occurs when pigs are bored or stressed due to their poor quality environment, poor health or lack of stimulation. The procedure is normally carried out without pain relief on piglets younger than 7 days. Although banned since 1994, routine tail docking is carried out in 99% of French pig farms.

The farm in question, which holds over 9,000 pigs, was put under the spotlight thanks to undercover footage released by French association L214 revealing terrible conditions in which the pigs were raised. 

This condemnation marks a real turning point! An offense tolerated for 20 years is finally condemned by justice. Tail docking is practiced routinely in almost all farms, with the complacency of state services. France was even called to order by the European Commission in 2020. The message sent today by justice is clear: the regulations concerning the conditions of animal breeding cannot be negotiated. It must apply to all farms, whether the breeding sectors like it or not, and the State is required to apply it.

Brigitte Gothière, co-founder of L214

Read more at source

Press Release from L214

Regards Mark

28 April 2022

ALI

Animal Law Italia urges Italian policymakers to seek a balance between the respect of religious freedom and the essential need to protect animal welfare.

Our member organisation “ALI” (Animal Law Italia) is calling on the Italian Government and Parliament to urgently review the legal framework allowing slaughtering without stunning for religious purposes. The request is supported by a comprehensive paper (see English summary here) written by legal experts and university professors of law and veterinary medicine, with the purpose of better understanding ritual slaughter and raising public awareness on the neglected issue of animal slaughter without stunning. 

The research analyses the current context and the regulatory framework in force in Italy and in Europe, explaining the reasons supporting the proposed regulatory revision according to science, bioethics and consumer protection, accompanied by a feasibility plan. The association also consulted the interested religious communities, whose positions were duly noted and reported in the document.

The pledge is supported by an open letter that is accepting signatures by academics and veterinarians and a petition to the Italian policymakers.

Ritual slaughter has been considered a fundamental issue by animal welfare advocates for decades. During the last few years, different solutions have emerged throughout Europe, such as “reversibile slaughter” in Belgium, allowing a dramatic reduction of suffering for slaughtered animals, yet respecting the freedom of religion, as the Court of Justice of the European Union evaluated in December 2020.

The jurists and veterinarians therefore ask that the Italian policymakers make the use of pre-cut reversible stunning in ritual slaughter mandatory, as an effective compromise solution between the necessary protection of freedom of religion and a better consideration of the interests of consumers and the protection of animal welfare. This does not mean that other technical solutions could not also be explored in the future, as soon as they have been scientifically validated.

Animal Law Italia is confident that a dialogue can be established with religious communities, in order to quickly identify a shared solution capable of safeguarding the welfare of animals during ritual slaughters.

The review of the Italian regulatory framework for ritual slaughter is urgently needed, in light of the growing consideration towards better treatment of food-producing animals. The recent amendment of the Italian Constitution, which now includes animal protection amongst its fundamental principles, requires a comprehensive reform of all the previous legislation concerning animals.

Alessandro Ricciuti, lawyer and chairperson of Animal Law Italia

Read more at source

Animal Law Italia

Regards Mark

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Activists who have disrupted three Minnesota Timberwolves games in two NBA arenas over the past two weeks are demanding that Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor relinquish his role as governor and contribute $11.3 million to various entities on behalf of animal welfare.

The activists, members of the organization Direct Action Everywhere, are targeting Taylor for his ownership of Rembrandt Farms, a large-scale factory farm that produces tens of millions of eggs each year. Rembrandt’s facility experienced an outbreak of bird influenza in March.

“To have Taylor and other extremely powerful factory farming businessmen getting these taxpayer bailouts flies in the face of the values of ordinary Americans,” Direct Action Everywhere media contact and activist Matt Johnson said. “Taylor should set a powerful example by stepping away from NBA ownership and refusing to take any subsidies related to the HPAI outbreak, and donate funds previously received to help repair some of the harm of the most destructive industry on the planet.”

To combat the highly pathogenic avian influenza epidemic, the company killed more than 5 million birds with a method called ventilation shutdown plus at one of its primary facilities in Iowa. Under the method, air flow into the industrial sheds where the birds reside is closed off. Activists deem the practice inhumane.

Protester Alicia Saturio glued her hands to the court during live play in the Timberwolves’ play-in game against the LA Clippers on April 12 at Target Center in Minneapolis, the first of the three incidents. Security quickly lifted her from the court and ejected her.

“I was nervous,” Saturio told ESPN. “I had never super-glued myself to anything. I wasn’t sure how the fans were going to respond. I most certainly didn’t want any of the players to be hurt, so I made sure to do it when they were down at the other end of the court.”

In Game 1 of Minnesota’s first-round playoff series against the Memphis Grizzlies, activist Zoe Rosenberg chained herself to a basket stanchion near Taylor’s seat during the game at FedExForum in Memphis. She was quickly unchained by police and carried out of the arena. Rosenberg faces charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Johnson attended Game 3 at Target Center with the intention of disrupting play. He was apprehended and tackled by security before he could reach the floor. He was placed under arrest and banned from Target Center for one year.

In Game 4 of the series in Minneapolis, activist Sasha Zemmel rushed the court just in front of Taylor, interrupting live play. She was dressed in an NBA official’s uniform. Her intention was to approach Taylor, whose net worth was estimated at $2.5 billion by Forbes magazine in 2020, and call a “technical foul” on the Timberwolves and Rembrandt Farms owner.

Security personnel immediately tackled her to the floor and removed her before she could make the gesture. The referee’s jersey number was 5.3 to represent the 5.3 million birds killed at Rembrandt. Zemmel faces charges of disorderly conduct and fifth-degree assault.

“I didn’t even know what that was,” Timberwolves young star Anthony Edwards said following Minnesota’s Game 4 win. “Y’all got to stop running on the floor in Minnesota. Do that in Memphis. We don’t need it.”

Direct Action Everywhere performs public acts of civil disobedience as well as what it calls rescue missions at farm factories. Though the recent actions are in response to the killings at Rembrandt, the group more broadly opposes factory farming.

The organization has filed a complaint to local and state authorities in Iowa alleging that Rembrandt’s conduct violated state law. It demands that Taylor expedite the pending sale of the team to Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez, who have agreed to terms. Direct Action Everywhere also is demanding that Taylor Corp., parent company of Rembrandt, donate the $11.3 million it received in federal funds to aid in a 2015 outbreak to public health and animal welfare organizations.

Neither the Timberwolves nor representatives of Taylor provided comments by the time of publication.

Regards Mark

Animal welfare activists want Minnesota Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor to relinquish role as governor (espn.co.uk)