Showing posts with label animal rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal rights. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Green Party caucus prefers Cynthia McKinney for president

A straw poll Tuesday night showed support for McKinney with a majority of the votes.


feature
Marija Majerle
Ward 2 Councilman Cam Gordon speaks at the Green Party caucus Tuesday night in the Van Cleve Recreation Center.


while Tuesday night meant Republican John McCain secured his party's presidential nomination and the two Democrats duked it out for delegates in Ohio and Texas, locally it meant an opportunity for the Green Party of Minnesota to throw its hat into the presidential race.

About 20 people turned out for the party's Minnesota caucus on Tuesday night at Van Cleve Recreation Center. Straw poll results at that caucus show Cynthia McKinney won the contest handily, claiming 13 of 17 voters.

Perennial presidential hopeful Ralph Nader received one vote according to the poll, but he has said he doesn't want the party's nomination.

There will be a party convention June 7 and 8.

Although Minnesota state law states that nonmajor political parties aren't required to hold a caucus, Green Party spokeswoman Rhoda Gilman said the party conducts itself as a key player.

"We have been a major party before, and our membership deserves (a caucus)," she said.

The party also held its caucus after Super Tuesday in protest of the larger parties trying to extend the presidential campaign, according to the Green Party's Web site.


Responding to criticism that Green Party loyalists are tossing their votes away, Gilman said the party offers a platform that differs from those of the Democratic and Republican parties.

"We give a choice," she said. "Voters don't have a choice with the two big parties."

Minnesota has been favorable to the party in the past, as it became the first minor party in the state's history to get more than one candidate on a statewide ballot in 2006.

Ward 2 Councilman Cam Gordon, a Green Party member, participated in Tuesday's caucus by making an appearance and facilitating parts of it.

Gordon, whose ward includes the University's Minneapolis campus, said his party should be considered legitimate.

"Anything can happen on Election Day," he said.

Party officials came into the night with plans to set new resolutions and goals to be worked on in the upcoming election.

Three resolutions will be passed on to be evaluated by the party at the state level.

First, the caucus attendees suggested the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. In addition, the two would be referred to the United Nations, alongside former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for war crimes.

Second, they proposed there be more voter districts for Minneapolis School Board elections to ensure more voting representatives.

Third, they moved to repeal dove-hunting season.

The party, which achieved prominent status in Minnesota during the 2000 presidential election, grounds itself in grassroots democracy and tackles more issues than people think, Gillman said.

"We're not just an environmental party," she said.

But the party's environmental policy drew at least one person to the event.

First-time caucus-goer Daniel Sadowsky, first-year graduate student in chemistry, was among at least five students in attendance. He said the environment is important to him, and "it's something the two parties aren't addressing responsibly."

He said he is interested in Green priorities. "Whenever I see a Green candidate I usually look at them," he said.

source: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/03/05/72165966

Thursday, February 07, 2008

No getting around it: Elephants are abused


Letters you published Feb. 1 and 5 and Sgt. Tim Davison's views as expressed in Katherine Kersten's Feb. 6 column show a great deal of ignorance about the Circus Reform Amendment issue, on both moral and pragmatic grounds.

Davison seems to indicate that a back-stage pass to the circus would help in some way to inform the issue. This is nonsense, as the cruelty that is at the very heart of the issue itself could have, and likely would have, occurred during the elephants' training, and not backstage during the circus.

I don't think anyone disputes that elephants undergo cruel treatment during training. This means that those opposed to or embarrassed by the amendment must hold one of two positions.

The first position is that cruelty is not a concept which can be applied to animals, so there's no need to protect them from that which they cannot feel. People who hold this position must believe that cruelty and kindness are concepts reserved for people, and not animals.

The other remaining position is that the cruel treatment of elephants is justified by the rewards or gains to our society or children. It's true that some revenue, resulting indirectly from this treatment of the elephants, is used for the benefit of children and our society. However, this assumes that the revenue and benefits require the status quo, which is false, since the same benefits could be obtained by other measures. At a minimum, this argument fails pragmatically, since it's unreasonable to argue that only through whipping helpless elephants can we "help the children."

Let's show our future generations what it is to be kind, and not what it is to abuse and exploit for gain.

JOE KONDRAK, MINNEAPOLIS

Source: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/15415716.html

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Cat Fleas' Journey Into The Vacuum Is A 'One-way Trip'

Homeowners dogged by household fleas need look no farther than the broom closet to solve their problem. Scientists have determined that vacuuming kills fleas in all stages of their lives, with an average of 96 percent success in adult fleas and 100 percent destruction of younger fleas. In fact, the results were so surprisingly definitive that the lead scientist repeated the experiments several times to be sure the findings were correct.

full article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217111010.htm

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Target sells non-Organic at Organic prices

I wrote this letter today for Target. It concerns their lack of discipline selling organic foods, specifically milk. Feel free to modify a copy and send a letter yourself! Keep corporations informed of the need to have a healthy economy means caring for our home ( Earth ).

Kevin Chavis
2406 17th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404

T 612 7290330




September 30, 2007
Robert J. Ulrich
Chairman and CEO
Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403

Dear Robert,

I am rather upset about an article I recently read in the Sunday edition of the Star Tribune. It appears that your Archer Farms brand sells milk that claims to be Organic but is not. You can claim that it was potentially organic, but that would be very hard to buy. The organic food industry is very lucrative, and like any other rapidly expanding market, ripe for corruption. This is a black mark on your company and taints my opinion of the entire Archer Farms brand.

I am fully aware that Archer Farms is a brand. It sounds like a true farm, and does probably mislead masses. The City Pages ran an article about the brand and its ambitious plans. I think it is great that you create store brands that create added value for your store. I was hoping you would go the route of Roundy’s organic store brands, marketing at us eco-conscious consumers. But the organic milk incident does not help your cause.

Honestly, my preference for food shopping starts with the local coops, then Rainbow, and lastly you. The potential for change is there, especially if you focus on relocalizing your store contents. But this latest incident only reifies what organic consumers fear, that major corporations do not care about the standards and only want our money. I am not an anti-capitalist, my priority is fixing our environment through the dollar.

Here’s a way to regain our confidence: go beyond the ho-hum spiffy organic of the corporate market. Ensure that your suppliers are adequately certified. Label the products in a way that consumers can virtually visit the farms as Organic Valley does. And inform the public of the value of organic foods - health, environment, and local agriculture economy. A carbon impact label would also be helpful, as Wal-Mart now keeps track of several items. Visit the Wedge Coop - you get a receipt that shows you the percentage of products you purchased locally!

As savvy as Target has been this century, I am certain you will find a way to strike a balance between profit and the common good. Your actions make a huge impact, whether that is positive or not long-term will be determined by choices made today.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,


Kevin Chavis
------
further sources:

City Pages: The Farm that doesn't exist
Star Trib: Was Target's organic milk just regular?

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Just say no to animal circuses in Minneapolis


Written by Kerry Ashmore
Posted 7/25/2007
Numerous thorny issues cloud the debate over how humans treat animals. One issue coming quickly to Minneapolis, however, has a clear and easy correct answer. We urge Minneapolis City Council members to ban wild animal circus performances in the city.

This will not require all of us to become vegetarians. It won’t ban laboratory research. It won’t be a death sentence for any animal that bites a human. Minneapolis taxpayers would simply be refusing to allow people to make money in the city through capturing and training wild animals, and would be foregoing any money the city and local businesses might make if the circus came to town.

This issue is similar to some other thorny issues, however, in that many people will oppose the ban because they don’t want to believe that circuses are necessarily cruel to animals. To support the ban, they would have to admit that the whole concept of capturing and training wild animals for human entertainment and enrichment is, and always has been, wrong; and that they have been wrong for not doing everything they could to ban the practice decades ago. Who wants to admit to something like that?

Our advice to them: Deal with it.

Yes, we humans have been wrong all along, and this is a baby step toward making things right.

Those who don’t want the ban will be quick to point to violent and illegal acts people have committed in the name of ending animal cruelty, and suggest that seeking to end animal cruelty somehow indicates that one condones such acts. That simply doesn’t pass the common sense test, and those who bring such incidents into the discussion are essentially admitting that they can’t come up with a reasonable defense for the way animals are treated in a circus setting. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, because there is no reasonable defense for it.

Some local people will lose some money if the ban is passed. Circus people stay in local hotels, eat in local restaurants and spend money in local stores. Our wise and resourceful officials can replace the circus with other events that don’t cause us to support unconscionable acts toward beings who, because of human intervention, are no longer able to defend themselves.

Humans, with complete freedom of movement and superior reasoning capability, grow weary of "life on the road," and with good reason. Circus animals are caged and moved from town to town, forced to perform unnatural acts and then caged and moved to yet another town for yet another performance. The best efforts of the most kind-hearted people in the world cannot make this process humane. It is cruel by its nature.

It’s unlikely that the circus people think that what they’re doing is inhumane. It’s only when city after city after city closes its doors that they will ask, "Why?" and perhaps begin to have second thoughts about the way animals have to be treated if they are to provide money-making entertainment to humans.

When and if our society becomes truly civilized, such entertainment will be banned entirely. Those animal-protection laws don’t exist now, and there isn’t a legal way to stop circus use of animals.

Minneapolis, however, has a chance to take one simple, straightforward action, and become the 29th American city to close its doors to wild animal circuses. It’s an action Minneapolis council members should take without delay, without regret and without dissent.


source: http://nenorthnews.com/Opinion.asp?view=574&paperID=1&month=

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The New Environmentalists: How to Make the Green Movement Less White

By Van Jones, ColorLines

In response to mounting ecological crises, the United States is going through its most important economic transformation since the New Deal. Unfortunately, the vital process of change along more eco-friendly lines is moving ahead with practically zero participation from people of color.

Hundreds of mayors and several governors are bucking the Bush administration and committing themselves to the carbon-cutting principles of the Kyoto treaty on climate change. The U.S. Congress is debating an energy bill this year that could be a watershed for alternative energy sources.

What's more, regular people are way ahead of these leaders. U.S polls show super-majorities want strong action on the climate crisis and other environmental perils. And consumers are reshaping markets by demanding hybrid cars, bio-fuels, solar panels, organic food and more. As a result, the "lifestyles of health and sustainability" sector of the U.S. economy has ballooned into a $240 billion gold mine. And total sales are growing on a near-vertical axis.

The Economist magazine calls it "The Greening of America." Indeed, we are witnessing the slow death of the Earth-devouring, suicidal version of capitalism. We're even seeing the birth of some form of "eco-capitalism." To be sure, a more "ecologically sound" market system will not be a utopia. But at least it will buy our species a few extra decades or centuries on this planet.

That's the good news. Here is the bad news.

The celebrated "lifestyles" sector is probably the most racially segregated part of the U.S. economy; at present, it is almost exclusively the province of affluent white people. Few entrepreneurs of color are positioned to reap the benefits of the government's push to green the economy.

We are seeing a major debate about the direction of the U.S. economy -- in which communities of color apparently have nothing to say. Our near-silence on such key issues has no precedent, at least not since before the Civil War.

How can this be? Black, Latino, Asian and Native American communities suffer the most from the environmental ills of our industrial society. Our folks desperately need the new economic activity, investments and opportunities that this major transition is beginning to generate.

To put it bluntly, people of color have much more directly at stake in the greening of America than white college students do. Why are they marching for carbon caps, while most of us just yawn and change the channel?

When these new formations and networks emerge, all racial justice activists will become, in some sense, environmental justice activists.

More people of color have not yet grabbed the microphone for three reasons: our long-standing pattern of viewing environmental issues as luxury concerns; the mainstream media's "whites only" coverage of the green phenomenon; and serious structural impediments to action within the racial justice movement itself.

First of all, too often we have said: "We are overwhelmed with violence, bad housing, failing schools, excessive incarceration, poor healthcare and joblessness. We can't afford to worry about spotted owls, redwood trees and polar bears."

But Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath taught us that the coming ecological disasters will hit the poor first and worst. More of us are beginning to see that there can be no separation between our concern for vulnerable people and our concern for a vulnerable planet.

Secondly, any U.S. magazine's "Special Green Issue" typically will not show many people of color, despite the incredible achievements of numerous environmentalists of color across the country. Many racial justice activists see this kind of coverage, shrug our shoulders and understandably assume that green equals white.

But this is a mistake. When did we start trusting the corporate media to fairly calculate our interests in any major topic or development in U.S. society? When have our activists and advocates ever accepted their frame and parameters in determining what is important or what we should do? It should not surprise anyone that the mainstream media does not reflect our deep and profound interests in the greening of the economy. And it is high time for us to make our own assessment and create our own strategy for shaping the process in accordance with our interests.

Finally, at least among committed activists, there is a deeper reason that we have not mobilized at the appropriate scale. And that reason can be found within the structure of our racial justice movement itself. Our present deployment of resources simply does not let us meet the challenges and opportunities that the green revolution is generating, simply because it is nobody's job to take them on.

Because no racial justice organization can tackle every issue and champion every cause, our groups have evolved a fairly strict division of labor. A single organization will ordinarily focus on just one issue -- criminal justice, immigrant rights, economic justice, violence prevention, educational equity, school reform, reproductive justice, what have you. Out of deference to each other (and to stay within funders' guidelines), our organizations bend over backwards to keep within their chosen issue areas and to stay off each other's "turfs."

One important issue area is called "environmental justice." The environmental justice movement emerged in the 1980s to challenge toxic pollution in the neighborhoods of low-income people and people of color. Made up of hundreds of mostly small, tough and scrappy organizations, this movement has won many local and national victories over the past two decades. The "EJ" movement's (often pint-sized) dynamos have shut down scofflaw polluters, power plants and incinerators. They have cut toxic emissions and improved public health in innumerable communities. And their leaders have elevated the concept of "environmental racism" to mainstream prominence.

Because of this movement's success and visibility, most racial justice activists today presume that anything related to the environment falls under the purview of our existing environmental justice organizations. Therefore when we hear all this "green talk," we tend to either assume it doesn't have anything to do with our communities or that someone else already has the mandate and the capacity to deal with it. This assumption is another reason that other racial justice leaders tend to ignore "all of this green stuff."

Well, such an approach might have served us in years past, but not today.

Today's environmental justice movement was designed to protect our interests in a toxic, pollution-based economy. It was not designed to promote our interests in a mushrooming, $250 billion green economy. Nor was any other racial justice movement or network. It is wildly unrealistic to assume that the already over-stretched and under-funded EJ groups can somehow meet this colossal, historic challenge on their own. It is unfair to expect them to do so.

So we stand now at the dawn of a new economy. But no part of the racial justice movement is charged with the task of ensuring that the new laws and new industries do right by low-income people and people of color.

We must change this. If we do not get involved, we will end up with eco-apartheid -- a society with ecological haves and have-nots. Imagine a world in which wealthy people have clean air, fresh water, healthy food and no-cost energy, thanks to solar panels, organic agriculture and green technology. Meanwhile, poor neighborhoods continue to choke in the fumes of the last century's pollution-based industries.

To put it bluntly, people of color have much more directly at stake in the greening of America than white college students do.

We must say no to a future in which our peoples get hit "first and worst" by the coming ecological catastrophes and benefit "last and least" from the emerging ecological advances.

This next environmental revolution -- call it the "Green for All" revolution -- will require especially sophisticated and skilled leadership.

We will have to continue to fight corporate polluters. And we would also be wise to consider and explore partnerships with eco-capitalists, who are willing to grow their businesses in a cleaner and greener way. We will continue saying no to the economic oppression of the dying economy. But we must also learn how to say "yes" to economic opportunity of the emerging economy. As a part of a new economic strategy, we should help interested communities and workers to create their own green collectives and co-ops (as did the Green Workers' Cooperative in the South Bronx).

We will continue fighting for equal protection from the worst of the pollution-based economy. And we will also add demands for equal access and equal opportunity in the clean and green economy.

We will also need tighter formations -- united fronts that can work explicitly for racial justice and inclusion. These networks and coalitions will advance independent slogans, such as Majora Carter's demand to "green the ghetto" or the Ella Baker Center's call for "green-collar jobs, not jails" for urban youth. And they will be more comfortable for many people of color than many of the present "green wave" spaces.

When these new formations and networks emerge, all racial justice activists will become, in some sense, environmental justice activists. But by that point, the environmental justice movement itself will be transformed into a massive movement, focused on a new paradigm of economic development, fighting to birth a green economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty.

Van Jones is executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, California.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/58613/

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Crispin Sartwell: We pet the dog, and then we eat the cow

Our idea of moral behavior toward animals varies by species.

The Michael Vick dogfighting case, and all of the attention on dogfighting and its attendant practices, show one thing very clearly: As a society, we have no idea what we think about animals.

I watched cable news recently, and almost every anchor interviewed an official of the Humane Society, and all expressed horror, especially that Vick's indictment had accused him and his fellow defendants of executing dogs in ways apparently designed to be as cruel as possible: drowning, strangling, electrocution. One official compared the practice to child pornography.

Then I went into town for some lunch, driving past all of the franchises peddling ground cow for human consumption.

If killing dogs is the equivalent of child pornography, while eating cows is simply a way to put off mowing the lawn, we seem to be conflicted -- or reeking with hypocrisy and confusion.

We have a set of intuitions, driven partly by our interactions with pets, that many animals can experience pain in a morally significant way, that they can suffer, or be used and degraded. Perhaps they have somewhat less of a claim on us than human beings do, but they make a claim.

But another set of intuitions is driven by our dietary habits or our experience of thumping squirrels and armadillos on the road: that an animal is little more than an inanimate object, and can be used in whatever way a human being sees fit.

In practice, the moral claims of animals vary by species and track our sense of the animal's proximity -- cognitive, emotional, physical -- to ourselves. We become truly sentimental: We write memoirs with our dogs, talk baby-talk to them, let them lick our faces. But about other species we are as hard-nosed as possible. Essentially, we do whatever we feel like to them whenever we want.

If we really believed cruelty to animals debased humans who participate, we'd have to accept that our massive, industrial-scale systems of cruelty to cows deeply debase all humanity.

Crispin Sartwell teaches philosophy at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. He wrote this article for The Philadelphia Inquirer.






Thursday, May 03, 2007

Earth Voice Food Choice

Our world is facing huge problems, from environmental and health issues, to wars and resource mismanagement. These problems seem unsolvable and affect us all on a deep emotional level. Suprisingly, there are actually solutions. All of us can contribute – everyday – without expensive campaigns, demonstrations or lawsuits.

Most people can agree that our world is run by money. The billions of people of the Earth spend money every day. What most are not aware of is that with every dollar they spend they cast a vote. Our monetary vote is a powerful tool to speak directly to industry and corporations. If we don’t want polluted lakes and rivers, but keep buying toxic food we cast a vote for a toxic world. This is just one example of how we all can start speaking out without waiting for politicians or government to “fix it” for us. Voting with our dollars goes right to the source. If we don’t buy it, they won’t make it. We have this power.

The effects of our individual food choices are far-reaching. Our everyday food choices directly affect global warming, water pollution, and topsoil depletion as well as obesity, cancers, and heart attacks. Buying and consuming more whole, organically grown plant foods is one of the most powerful, yet simplest actions we could do everyday to help our health and the health of our world.

The production of animal food products is responsible for causing many of the planet’s most catastrophic environmental problems and depleting natural resources at an unprecedented rate. The animal and chemical agriculture industries are the primary polluters of our planet’s water and soil. They accelerate desertification, forest loss, global warming and the depletion of water, soil and ozone. Chemicals and animal agriculture are major causes of species extinction, like the vanishing bees. Furthermore, the livestock industry is consuming most of America’s grain supply, which could be used to help solve world hunger problems.

Animal products such as meat, poultry, fish and dairy are also heavy contributors to most of the diseases afflicting Americans. Heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, some forms of cancer, obesity, and other less life-threatening diseases are all influenced by the excess consumption of animal foods. Treating these diseases is costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in health care and health insurance. Notwithstanding advice from experts, the United States government continues to spend billions of tax dollars to subsidize these industries.

In contrast, a diet of organically grown plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds produced without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, enhance personal and environmental health. Plant foods contain vitamins, nutrients, protein, fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, essential fatty acids and many other beneficial compounds designed by nature to promote health and prevent disease. Plant foods are heroes for health. Plants are the only living things on Earth that have the ability to take the sun, the air, the water and the soil, and make food and oxygen for most of the living beings on our planet.

Compared to animal foods, plant foods are less polluting to the environment and conserve natural resources. If plant foods were consumed more and animal foods less, hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved on health care costs.

The animal and chemical agriculture industries, through the Department of Agriculture (USDA), supply enormous volumes of chemical laden, animal foods to children in schools. “The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is our government’s largest feeding program. It is based on an outdated model that teaches children little about the cause and effect of their food choices. Our health and our planet are suffering the effects of an economically driven food program that needs to be updated to twenty-first century nutrition standards. The manner in which our children view food, the development of their eating habits, their health and the condition of the world they will inherit, are directly linked to the NSLP.

Earth Voice Food Choice is a multimedia Manual and DVD designed to educate teachers, parents, students and government officials how to present, inform and inspire people to eat more unrefined, organically grown plant foods and fewer chemically processed animal and junk foods. The Project is designed to initiate a positive shift in human awareness and in the hearts and minds of children, parents, teachers, and people in government. The possibilities for beneficial change are monumental.

Earth Voice Food Choice is a “How to” manual for anyone who wants to initiate a healthy food and education project in their schools, homes, camps, or institutions. This Manual contains over 350 documented facts; history of the USDA; proven field tested strategies for implementing the project in schools; tips how to present to students; actions students can take to inspire government to support the concept of healthier foods in schools; kitchen preparation ideas for food personnel; institutional size recipes that fit within the RDA’s and the USDA’s meal pattern requirements and draw off existing and available USDA commodities; delicious recipes for home use; handouts for students and parents, letters of introduction, news articles, announcements and everything else people will need to implement a successful project. (200 Pages, 8.5” x 11” Manual with 100 Recipes.)

Earth Voice Food Choice DVD takes you on a ride through outer space in search of a planet that has the three things humans need for survival: air, water and soil. Fly into the atmosphere of Earth and witness the profound beauty of our world and the animals we share it with. Watch hundreds of beautiful pictures of the natural world and learn about Earth’s life support systems. Experience how humans have destroyed much of our natural resources. Learn how animal and chemical agriculture are negatively affecting health, environment, economy and world hunger. Travel into the interior of the human body and learn how to prevent disease. Meet the super heroes for health and the power of consuming and producing more organic plant foods. Learn how to make mindful food choices, vote with our monetary purchases and become part of the solution. This DVD is great for classroom and auditorium presentations and for home use. (39 minutes, plus 57 minutes of bonus features.)

For more information, to see clips of the DVD or pages of the Manual, and to order these materials, please visit www.earthvoicefoodchoice.com or contact him at 928-301-4552 or email toddwinant@esedona.net. You may also write to Earth Voice Food Choice, 730 Sunshine Lane, Sedona, AZ 86340

by Todd Winant

Todd Winant, founder of the Earth Voice Food Choice Project is the co-author of EarthSave's Healthy School Lunch Action Guide (now out of print). His new project addresses the detrimental effects of America’s current National School Lunch Program and offers logical suggestions for its improvement.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Resolution on Circus Animals in Minneapolis


I am proud to have been a part of getting this resolution passed. It means less animal cruelty for the sake of entertainment. All beings deserve to live quality lives. I hope the full city council approves this soon.

-Kevin

Resolution as follows:

5th Congressional District Green Party
March 17, 2007
Drafted by Eric Makela, Co-Founder, Green Party Animals
(612) 782-2118


WHEREAS, Circuses featuring wild animals are held every year in Minneapolis;

WHEREAS, the Green Party's endorsed Minneapolis City Council member, Cam
Gordon, actively supports a propos
ed ordinance which would ban circuses that
feature wild animals,


WHEREAS, circuses that don't use animals are available for hire b
y
organizations that normally hire circuses with animals;

WHEREAS, the Green Party of Minnesota's Platform states, "Animals used for
entertainment such as racing, gambling, zoos, circuses and the film industry
are subject to abuses that are often hidden from the public. Forcing
non-human animals to live lives that are unnatural or unhealthy to th
eir
species for the sake of entertainment is unjust." (Sec N, Item 3);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the 5th Congressional District Green Party of
Minnesota supports a proposed ban on wild-animal circuses that will be
introduced before the Minneapolis City Council.

-END-
Locations of visitors to this page