Big argiculture corps wants to make exposing cruelty illegal

Post Reply New Topic

ROFL Ryan.

Absolutely not. The logic is clear. This is "anti-business" practice that angers the fickle gods as it serves to force the enforcement of such "anti-business" practice as those pesky laws and regulations which must never be enforced lest they get mad and shut down all economic activity, they say.

As true as that might be, that is still spin. Take a look at these initial statements:

"Big Ag Wants To Make It a Crime to Expose Animal Abuse at Factory Farms"

That might be what "Big Ag" has in mind, but that is not what the new law actually says. Rather ...

"Lawmakers in Florida and Iowa have introduced bills to establish criminal penalties for going undercover at agricultural facilities and ... taking pictures."

Question: Would you or would you not want laws prohibiting maids from coming into your own home for the purpose of taking pictures?

My suggestion of CCTV monitoring is one expensive solution here, and Orwell has suggested an alternative:

The new law being proposed does not in any way stop anyone from reporting violations. It simply says someone cannot be deceitful while doing an investigation or obtaining evidence.

I really don't think any place of business/manufacture/etc has a legitimate claim to not having their practices covertly studied and/or documented. In my opinion, they should be monitored TWENTY-FOUR SEVEN.

Let's be honest, here-

This law was shadow-written by mega corporations because undercover documentation of their practices GETS THEM IN TROUBLE because most of them are violating laws in one way or another.

The new law in question most certainly DOES "stop people from reporting violations",
when many of those reports are founded on an undercover person's first-hand observation and documentation.

It doesn't matter if that's not the wording, that's the EFFECT.

Depending on the sector and level of employee, many of them are ignorant of the law,
and they would ALL prefer to stay employed-regulatory agencies don't fly thousands of miles to do a surprise inspection because a John Doe sez bad stuff be happenin'.

Remove the word "covertly" there, and we can agree.


Understood, but how does/would that justify (or make us feel good about) allowing maids to take pictures in our homes?


Nope. Any employee who sees something wrong can still "drop a dime" from the pay phone in the break room.

This is apparently in Texas. The people are speaking in a foreign planguage. i think it is Mexican, so I am not certain weather it is in Texas or not.

Besides that, this is vile and does show what the possible consequences of allowing farms to prevent people from uncovering cruelty.

it is a graphic video so has been flagged for over 18s. so may need to use your youtube account if you have one to view it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6366t4ramD8&feature=player_embedded&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fl.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253D6366t4ramD8%2526feature%253Dplayer_embedded%26h%3De21fd&has_verified=1[/youtube]

Patrick I think its Spanish on the clip, sorry I could only watch a few seconds before becoming repulsed that that sick example of animal cruelty, that's one of many reasons why am a semi-vegetarian (I eat meat sparingly, plus its a Mormon practice).

Not so. That kind of thing is already happening, and preventing employees or anyone else from being deceptive while trying to expose cruelty is not the same thing as "allowing farms to prevent people from uncovering cruelty". Employees or anyone else can still report anything they wish, and there is no law either present or proposed to stop that.

In any case, here is the actual solution proposed by the organization presenting that video:


So, even that organization is obviously not convinced allowing employees or anyone else to be deceptive while trying to expose cruelty is the "most important and powerful action" anyone can take here. And then, of course, what should/would happen to all the animals presently slated for the dinner table if/when the entire world actually did "Choose Vegan"? Would all the vegan people then take those creatures into their care and feed them and so on?

Personally, I think that organization is exploiting the plight of those helpless animals in order to push its own vegan agenda while doing nothing more about the plight of those animals than to discard them into a category called "needless".

Some do do that but that is a massive stereotype. A lot of organisations do care about the animals and so do a lot of people.

Being vegan definitely helps in general towards animals but it is not necessarily the reason that that is why people or organisations post these kinds of videos.

I am sure they do ... and then the truly legitimate ones go do something for the animals rather than suggesting people "Choose Vegan".


If they want me to believe the animals are really a great concern of theirs, let them say nothing at all about not eating animals.

Also: What happens to the animals that do not get eaten when people stop eating animals?

Another question would people here like for the Government to come in and set up hiden cameras in your bedroom, bathroom (shower), etc. without a warrant?

I agree that many should not bring it into it but should also be able to pick and choose the relevant information to them. i'd like to see less organistions making vegan the main aspect actually. the focus should really be on trying to make sure that be can provide welfare for all of the animals possible. they should all have a chance to have a family in my opinion. we should not to have to show the world what happens in factory farming because people should respect life. it is a small minority who are disgraceful human beings for brutally attacking animals

if there are living beings being attacked it is only fair for people to be able to prove in order to try and stop it and hopefully get the workers involved fired. if i was filming myself i would feel the need to get directing involved and protect the animal. i'd also make sure the police would get any video straight away.

to your question, if less people are turning money over to those types of industries which are involved in factory farming, less end up being killed. alternatively, and what i encourage people to do is to give their money to animal product sources to take great care to buy from more ethical sources.

That is a persons home and personal space. This is in a sense an invasion or privacy towards humans, but the reality is we are not dealing with just the lives of humans, we are dealing with animals who cannot report violence.

Twisting the neck off a chicken headed for the dinner table is not an "attack on a living being". Nevertheless ...


What does "fair" have to do with this? The matter of cruelty at the slaughterhouse is not a matter of being "fair" about anything.


Once again: This new law does nothing to support cruelty at the slaughterhouse. Anyone who might happen to observe something like that is welcomed to report it and/or to request an investigation.


Why the workers? As far as I know, they are not the ones with the option (and/or the need) of having Temple Grandin or someone come take a look at possible improvements at the slaughterhouse.

I definitely found parts of that video disturbing, and I am not in any way suggesting nothing should be done about any cruelty that might still be going on at the farms. However, employers do have a right to be protected from illegal/deceptive search.

a) twisting the head of a chicken is an attack. i never said it was not. i do not evne know why you are mentioning it.

b) fair has to do attempting to avoid killing other beings in a cure fashion obviously

c) people can report it obviously but it seems pointless to prevent people from being allowed to film such things. if you own friends or family were attacked and somebodysaw it i would like to believe you would make sure you can aquire proof. reporting it might get nothing done

d) i said the workers ebcause if the workers were attacking the animals, them not working there is a pretty good improvement for the animals.

It would require government, not a private firm to make the divulging of information a crime.

Any nasty things that private firms do, is enabled and implemented by government first and foremost.

Government is the main engine of evil in modern societies.

ruveyn