Little-Acorn
10-26-2011, 01:04 PM
Yes, the fruitcakes are coming out again this Christmas season.
Just a matter of time, I guess, before they start saying the same thing about horses being ridden, seeing-eye-dogs being used for guidance of the blind, watchdogs, carrier pigeons, and on and on.
And yes, I did modify the poll just a little. :)
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/25/do-seaworlds-whales-have-constitutional-rights-p/
Do SeaWorld's whales have constitutional rights?
Written by
Lori Weisberg
5:07 p.m., Oct. 25, 2011
Polls »Do you think the Constitutional ban on slavery applies to SeaWorld's whales?
1.) Yes
2.) No
3.) Are you out of your mind?
-------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld's orcas have been illegally enslaved for years and should be freed under the Constitution's 13th amendment, asserts a lawsuit that will be filed Wednesday in San Diego.
The legal action, which is being taken by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) following 18 months of preparation, specifically seeks a legal declaration that the five killer whales that perform at SeaWorld's San Diego and Orlando parks are being held as slaves in violation of the 13th amendment's ban on slavery.
Further, the lawsuit asks that they eventually be released into their natural habitat under the supervision of an international team of orca experts.
Joining PETA in the lawsuit are a team of international orca experts and two former SeaWorld trainers, said PETA attorney Jeff Kerr.
Kerr boasts that it's the first lawsuit of its kind to apply the constitutional ban on slavery to animals. SeaWorld counters that it's baseless and "in many ways offensive."
"PETA has once again showed that it prefers publicity stunts to the hard work of caring for, rescuing and helping animals," said a statement from SeaWorld.
The plaintiffs in the suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court, are in fact the five orcas: Corky, Kasatka and Ulises, who call SeaWorld San Diego home, and Tilikum and Katina based at the Orlando park.
Tilikum achieved notoriety last year when Dawn Brancheau, a SeaWorld trainer in Orlando, died after the 12,000-pound orca dragged her into the pool and battered her, as spectators looked on.
"Each of these five wild-captured orcas was forcibly seized from their homes and families and are held captive in concrete boxes that causes them great stress and illness," Kerr said. "They're forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld profit and have been turned into virtual breeding machines to create more performers for SeaWorld shows."
While the PETA lawsuit is certain to attract considerable attention, it's unlikely it will prevail in a court of law, believes San Diego law professor Glenn Smith.
"It certainly is a very unusual and innovative use of the constitution, even though they’re right, the 13th amendment doesn’t specifically mention humans," said Smith, who teaches constitutional law at California Western School of Law. "But when you talk about the original intentions of the framers of the 13th amendment, they were talking about African American slaves.
"I never say never, but this is definitely a stretch of constitutional provision to cover non-humans, so I doubt if present legal authorities would be willing to go that far."
Just a matter of time, I guess, before they start saying the same thing about horses being ridden, seeing-eye-dogs being used for guidance of the blind, watchdogs, carrier pigeons, and on and on.
And yes, I did modify the poll just a little. :)
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/25/do-seaworlds-whales-have-constitutional-rights-p/
Do SeaWorld's whales have constitutional rights?
Written by
Lori Weisberg
5:07 p.m., Oct. 25, 2011
Polls »Do you think the Constitutional ban on slavery applies to SeaWorld's whales?
1.) Yes
2.) No
3.) Are you out of your mind?
-------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld's orcas have been illegally enslaved for years and should be freed under the Constitution's 13th amendment, asserts a lawsuit that will be filed Wednesday in San Diego.
The legal action, which is being taken by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) following 18 months of preparation, specifically seeks a legal declaration that the five killer whales that perform at SeaWorld's San Diego and Orlando parks are being held as slaves in violation of the 13th amendment's ban on slavery.
Further, the lawsuit asks that they eventually be released into their natural habitat under the supervision of an international team of orca experts.
Joining PETA in the lawsuit are a team of international orca experts and two former SeaWorld trainers, said PETA attorney Jeff Kerr.
Kerr boasts that it's the first lawsuit of its kind to apply the constitutional ban on slavery to animals. SeaWorld counters that it's baseless and "in many ways offensive."
"PETA has once again showed that it prefers publicity stunts to the hard work of caring for, rescuing and helping animals," said a statement from SeaWorld.
The plaintiffs in the suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court, are in fact the five orcas: Corky, Kasatka and Ulises, who call SeaWorld San Diego home, and Tilikum and Katina based at the Orlando park.
Tilikum achieved notoriety last year when Dawn Brancheau, a SeaWorld trainer in Orlando, died after the 12,000-pound orca dragged her into the pool and battered her, as spectators looked on.
"Each of these five wild-captured orcas was forcibly seized from their homes and families and are held captive in concrete boxes that causes them great stress and illness," Kerr said. "They're forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld profit and have been turned into virtual breeding machines to create more performers for SeaWorld shows."
While the PETA lawsuit is certain to attract considerable attention, it's unlikely it will prevail in a court of law, believes San Diego law professor Glenn Smith.
"It certainly is a very unusual and innovative use of the constitution, even though they’re right, the 13th amendment doesn’t specifically mention humans," said Smith, who teaches constitutional law at California Western School of Law. "But when you talk about the original intentions of the framers of the 13th amendment, they were talking about African American slaves.
"I never say never, but this is definitely a stretch of constitutional provision to cover non-humans, so I doubt if present legal authorities would be willing to go that far."