There are days when this blogging business is like shooting fish in a barrel. On second thought, we better not talk about shooting any fish in this story because, well, that might violate their rights.
The American Spectator has the story of animal activists gone wild:
An Australian academic, Dr. John Hadley of the University of Western Sydney, has broken new legal ground by suggesting the setting up of courts to protect property rights for animals.
No. Really? An academic came up with this concept? Who ever would have suspected.
Certain difficulties seem to lie in the way, however. How will Counsel take instructions from clients? How will questions of undue influence be avoided in the case of less intelligent creatures? (Wombats and the like are not generally distinguished by their brain-power.) Who will have locus standi in cases of sheep owned by farmers? Should the creatures concerned decide to bequeath their property, how are wills going to be witnessed and proved valid?
Another problem: koalas are said to be permanently drunk on the alcohol fumes from the eucalyptus-leaves that form their diet. Here again forensic difficulties may arise.
There is nothing more magnificent in nature than seeing a kangaroo gracefully bounding across the Australian outback. And nothing more asinine than seeing an animal activist chasing behind to inform it of its rights.
Source: The American Spectator
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (15)
The liberals are playing "Avatar" pretending Earth is Pandora. civilization is the evil mining company and the liberals themselves are the blue monkeys.
They are forcing a fantasy into law
Someone needs to shove a rabid, hungry, hungover Tasmanian devil down this "academic's" pants and give him a lesson on "animal rights" and "animal wrongs". If this gains any traction (which I doubt it will), it will be a first step in a backdoor campaign to allow the sick f*cks to start legally marrying and having sex with animals. Hell, they're usually too ugly and smell so bad that one of their own species would never have sex with them, so they have to get laid somehow. (And blow-up dolls and vibrators are made from petroleum-based products, so they're out of the question.)
This means that soon animals will get the vote...and you just know that a group of Democrats will be called upon to determine "the intent of the voters"...
After reading "Set Up and Sold Out", I'm starting to wonder....you're not far off...Makes me think of Zippo, the bird, riding around on Gyppo, the dog!
This is just a scam; the persons "protecting" the property rights of the animals will wind up with the property.
max,
Ding! We have a winner!
Granting animals property rights will actually transfer those "rights" to the government or "green activists" who can then take vast tracts of land from their rightful human owners in the name of "animal rights"
It's ironic that the same people who have contempt for human property rights have discovered that mammals, birds and fish have them.
It's like the new "Animal Ethics" courses being taught in Universities.
WordPress automatically throws any comment with possibly objectionable words into moderation. But I can't see any reason for your first comment to have been put in that category. I've read it about five times now and can't see anything objectionable.
Except for the objectional nature of the article itself, which is what I spoke to in my post, there was nothing in my post that was, I agree. Can you release it?
That said, I have seen much on this and other sites that would be considered to be objectionable.
It was the words "kangaroo court" used together that caused the problem. It is now non-politically correct to use the two words together since kangaroos feel it denigrates their ancesteral name by doing so.
Now that 'roos have rights we will have to be careful in the future. We don't want humiliate them by using their name in conjunction with another word to describe a bunch of assholes wearing black robes. From now on lets describe it as the "limpdicked lizard court". Since the limpdicked lizards have been extinct about a 1000 years they shouldn't care.
Limpdicked lizards are extinct? I thought they had thousands of them still. In Washington, D.C. And a small gaggle at MSNBC.
So, now the term "Kangaroo Court" is no longer an insult? Well, that's been becoming real for years now....liberal judges, making rulings, filing briefs and subjecting biased, non-intellectual, non-factual opinions on the masses.
The question is, WHO gets to interview the animals....what if there is a dispute during cross? Does the kangaroo court judge call the lawyers or the animals to his chamber? What the hell do the lawyers know? Did they really have a discussion with the animal?
This is, as are all liberal policies and ideas, an absolute freaking joke. There is not one liberal policy (or idea for that matter) that has EVER been right or work... The outcome of this is surely to be another farce, like the environmental cause. You can bet your life that this is just one more chink to push the agenda further and further left. They will use this in the supreme courts as precedent, if allowed to occur, for more liberal stupidity within our courts....
Meanwhile millions of dollars are being wasted on the farce.
Why is this comment awaiting moderation? Never seen this before, here Mr Editor...what gives?
It's approved now. Sometimes the spam filter issues a false positive for unexplainable reasons. I usually check it pretty quickly, but had just gotten up this morning.