I need some inconsistency

An amalgamation of content: the aim not to politicise, but exercise. I'll think aloud about politics, technology, current news, as well as being a gay boy and what that really entails.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Whale rights?

I point everyone to Bag and Baggage today to notice the decision that Whales don't have the right to sue GW Bush for destroying their method of communication for the tradeoff of slightly less deficient sonar systems.
"[A]ny human-made noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce (mask) the ability of marine mammals to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, echolocation sounds of ondontocetes, and environmental sounds such as surf noise. . . . [V]ery strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration, and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. "

Tell me again, what is a 'minor' hemorrahage - I didn't know that internal bleeding could ever be thought of as minor. I guess I'm wrong. Fuck the whales.

It is obvious that an animal cannot function as a plaintiff in the same manner as a juridically competent human being. But we see no reason why Article III prevents Congress from authorizing a suit in the name of an animal, any more than it prevents suits brought in the name of artificial persons such as corporations, partnerships or trusts, and even ships, or of juridically incompetent persons such as infants, juveniles, and mental incompetents.

I couldn't agree more.
Link to PDF decision piece from the Ninth Circuit case.
bgbg - original link


Post a Comment

<< Home