ANIMAL RIGHTS TERRORISTS
Animal Rightists write laws using the term “abuse” to further their agenda. As an attorney, I’ll explain how any dog owner could be found guilty of animal abuse.
ANIMAL RIGHTS ABUSE!
And How AR Groups Use Animal Abuse Laws
Christopher Cardozo, Esq. © TheDogPlace.org / Sept. 2009
Here’s an example of how AR groups twist words. PetPac was attacked by Judie Mancuso, which was instrumental in defeating California’s worst anti-pet, anti-animal legislation (AB 1634) and now CA animal owners have to fight SB 250, an even greater threat.
Therefore, Judi Mancuso, representing Animal Rights, broadcasts information that a key member of PetPAC was named in one of the many suits filed by the state. Yet PetPAC was neither named nor is it involved in any legal suits. Rather, the lawsuit involves the alleged use of telemarketing by other groups that are named if you read the whole thing. Most will only glance at it and be left thinking it is PetPAC so it is a clever smear by the Animal Rightists to diminish successful opposition to Animal Rights laws.
Example: AB1122 allows a rescue to “sell” a dog but limits private breeders. If a breeder displays a dog, they could be guilty of attempting to sell it. Most such bills are premised on "alleged abuse" but in most cases, there is no actual abuse. The Animal Rights groups draft these laws so the term "abuse" is written into the law itself. For example, murder would be inherently wrong, and that is termed ‘malum in se’ [a wrong in itself] but a law which makes something prohibited that is not necessarily wrong, is called ‘malum prohibitum’ [wrong because government prohibits it as wrong.]
That huge difference is exactly what the Animal Rights faction uses. Groups like HSUS say that tail docking, ear cropping, having more than X number of dogs, owning X breed, selling an animal, showing a dog in public = "ABUSE" and if the law is worded that way, people who engage in any of the enumerated activities are guilty of abuse. That’s all it takes.
We may wonder how these things happen but it’s very simple, based on how words are used or written into the law. When HSUS and their cadre of supporters decided to end pet ownership, their number one reason was that animals are NOT property under the law. The AR laws are all premised upon animals not being legal property, so they can insert the term "abuse" because they liken animals to the same status [in the law] as your children!
When perfectly legal conduct is outlawed as "abuse" [malum prohibitum’] all animal owners have a problem. When you can have extensive cosmetic surgery but cropping a dog's ears is abuse, we all face a problem!
For example: Animal Law Cases and Materials, Third Edition (by Sonia Waisman, Pamela Frasch, and Bruce Wagman) queries If indeed the property status of animals were to be abolished, what would be the legal and practical effects on the commercial use of animals; What would happen to the animals themselves--should they be put in sanctuaries, sterilized, or permitted to move toward extinction?
As you can see, if animals were no longer considered as property, then you could not “own” them, just as you can’t own a child but you can certainly go to jail for abusing a child. That is why Animal Rights want the term guardian to be used. That characterizes animals in the law as ‘children’ rather than as “property” so the legal status of animals as property is removed and their legal status become akin to that of children.
By humanizing our property and trampling the inherent rights that stem from property ownership by passing laws that denote perfectly legal acts as "abuse", Animal Rights activists get "trigger" bills passed that will set precedent for other charges.
When perfectly legal conduct is outlawed as "abuse" [malum prohibitum’] all animal owners have a problem. When owning X number of intact (not surgically sterilized) animals triggers an "abuse" violation, dog breeders have a problem. If someone is acquitted of an "abuse" charge but another law triggers forfeiture or seizure, it’s a ridiculous problem. Why have any Civil Rights at all if a District Attorney who supports Animal “Rights” can circumvent the Court with some slanted interpretation of an obscure law? If a D.A. has been subverted or brainwashed by Animal Rights groups and fails to understand the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, we have a problem.
Animal Rightists are able to get away with this nonsense because many of us are selfish, caring only about the one or two animals in OUR living room. Animal Rights groups know this and will use any angle they can, knowing that most owners will NOT CARE about any animals but their own! But breeders do care and speaking from a legal viewpoint, all animal owners must realize that innocent owners are easily snared by Animal Rights tactics. No one will tolerate animal abuse but many breeders have become ploys of the Animal Rights agenda by attacking commercial kennels, “unethical" breeders, "backyard" breeders, etc. etc.
Animal Rights activists get pet owners, dog show fanciers, even business owners, to take opposing sides against themselves! Many of us have fallen into this trap because we think we are all good and others are bad. That is just what the AR groups want. Animal Rights groups like HSUS and PETA can afford marketing specialists who trick us (and the public) into denigrating other kennels, breeders, or groups as “bad”.
There are only two sides to the legal right to own, breed, and keep animals. One side stands up for ownership. The other side is Animal Rights Trickery, designed to take us apart via divisiveness. Animal Rightists count on the fact that we will ignore “animal rights” and “animal abuse” laws because we think they don’t affect us. Guess what? They most certainly DO and WILL affect YOU:
* When they file forcible entry warrants allowing night time entry for barking
* When they seize your animals because you can’t afford an attorney
* When you lose your civil or property rights over “environmental issues”
* When you must remodel your home to qualify as a home breeder
* When you are charged with "abuse" for owning a cropped/docked breed
* When you are cited under an obscure "abuse" law in the local code?
STOP. STOP. STOP. Stop thinking you are “good” and others are “guilty.” We are all guilty of falling into the Animal Rights Trap but you can save your right to own a pet of your choice by simply opposing every law proposed by HSUS or any Animal Rights group.
There are laws that can be used against them, including the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. There are more than 60 million animal owners and we should not be whining, we should be fighting for our animals! Get smart. Out-think Animal Rights for what it is - evil masquerading as animal welfare. Support animal welfare and fight Animal Rights. There’s a big difference.