Action Against Domestic Terrorism
It was with delight that I read that the owner of Sonoma Foie Gras is suing the domestic terrorists who attacked their business, vandalized a Sonoma Restaurant, and broke into the homes of the owners of both businesses to vandalize and threaten their families. The domestic terrorists stole 4 ducks from the farm after which one of the ducks died. Great "animal protectors." The question is, if the concern of the terrorist group, Animal Protection and Rescue League, is the mistreatment of animals, why do they not utilize the legal resources at their, and everyone's disposal. Might it be because the animals are not their real concern? Perhaps, they simply wish to impose their beliefs on the rest of us by threatening businesses and terrifying families. If their contention that it is wrong to eat animals because animals are alive, then we would have no business eating vegetables because plants are also alive. Humans must therefore subsist on minerals, alone. And where might their concern be for human children, right there inOfficials with Sonoma Foie Gras ... contend [in their lawsuit] they are the victims of an "activist agenda" to coerce Americans into adopting animal-free lifestyles. Robert Julian, an attorney for the company, called the animal groups' lawsuit an "end run" around the San Joaquin Animal Control Department.
Here's a sample of the terrorist's "thinking:"
[The group's leader] accused company officials of covering up conditions at the farm, saying he and other activists had no choice but to trespass an estimated dozen times in the past year. [emph. mine, ed.]
Sure. If one is trying to force someone else out of business, and all legal means have been pursued and no wrongdoing found; I guess one does "have no choice" but to seek illegal means to further one's goals.
Bryan Pease, president of the Animal Protection League and a defendant in the foie gras company's lawsuit, said the activists' goal is to close Sonoma Foie Gras.
As for the opinion of the legal authorities:
Robert Julian [an attorney for the company] said animal control officers visited the farm Nov. 14 at the request of activists. According to documents provided by the company, officers found the farm in "very good condition. All ducks healthy." "These folks don't like the answer," Julian said. "If anything has changed in the interim they should have gone back to the Animal Control Department. They haven't done that."
Again I must say, if these "activist"/terrorists are truly interested in the welfare of the animals and not in simply making others behave as they want us to, why do they not come out into the light, utilize the legal means at hand, and prove their case before the world? Why do they persist in using the most despicable means simply to hurt people and call it "defending animals?"
FYI: See the two related stories in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat of Sunday, November 9, 2003.
Posted by on 11/10/03 at 02:11 PMThank you for the heads up, Robert. I missed those.
Posted by Claire on 11/11/03 at 05:57 AMexcuse me, but are you aware of how foie gras is produced? you must not be, or else you wouldn’t be in support of it, or questioning why one of the ducks died. the duck died b/c its liver was ready to explode and its neck was practically broken.
hate to offend you, but i counted 3 absolute lies and wrong facts that you stated in your post. i also have a counter argument for every single one of your (poor) points.
i’m sorry, and i don’t know who you are, but you really need to get your facts straight before you bash a group of people who base their lives on a belief - a belief that is full of love and humanity. maybe you should try to encorporate some of that into your own heart and life.Posted by on 05/05/04 at 12:50 PM
Next entry: Cahleefohrneeah History
Previous entry: Snark On!
