United States

Share |

SAVING LIVES OR SPREADING FEAR: THE TERRORISTIC NATURE OF ECO-EXTREMISM

Summary: Much debate has surfaced surrounding so-called “eco-terrorism.” Some commentators argue that such activity is not and should not be called terrorism. This Comment analyzes these extremist activities through the lens of federal terrorism laws and argues that, while these activists’ goals are laudable, their methods are often terroristic. Consequently, those activities that go too far are-and should be-classified as terrorism.

Much debate has surfaced surrounding so-called “eco-terrorism.” Some commentators argue that such activity is not and should not be called terrorism. This Comment analyzes these extremist activities through the lens of federal terrorism laws and argues that, while these activists’ goals are laudable, their methods are often terroristic. Consequently, those activities that go too far are-and should be-classified as terrorism.

HABITAT-BASED CONSERVATION LEGISLATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION

This Comment explores various agreements designed to protect sea turtles at international and local levels as migratory species. Traditional approaches have been unsuccessful at addressing the myriad threats that face sea turtles. The effectiveness of international agreements could be greatly increased through government enforcement of national and local laws that protect species and through increased cooperation and coordination.

TEACHING POSTHUMANIST ETHICS IN LAW SCHOOL: THE RACE, CULTURE, AND GENDER DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT RESISTANCE

This Essay challenges laws’ hegemonic humanist boundaries by analyzing the challenges involved in mainstreaming posthumanist subjects into the legal curricula. Posthumanist subjects in legal education are perceived as marginal and unworthy of serious discussion and scholarship. The author identifies the problems that can arise in introducing posthumanist critical content through her experience of teaching animal law as an optional course and as a part of a compulsory first-year course on property law and in advising on an upper-year student-led conference.

THE REGULATION OF KOSHER SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES: HOW TO SUPPLEMENT RELIGIOUS LAW SO AS TO ENSURE THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

Summary: It is often argued that one of the most humane methods of killing an animal is through the performance of kosher slaughter. Indeed, the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (HMLSA) of 1978 goes so far as to define kosher slaughter, and handling in connection with such slaughter, as humane, and consequently fails to provide any regulation over this method of killing. It is thus concerning that a number of kosher slaughterhouses have, in recent years, been discovered to be using blatantly inhumane practices, which the relevant religious authorities have insisted are completely kosher. This Article examines the Jewish law concerning kosher slaughter and asks how it is possible for a slaughter that has been performed in an inhumane fashion to remain kosher. The answer, it concludes, is that the religious rules provide little guidance on the handling of animals in connection with slaughter. There thus exists a need for either the religious authorities or the law to supplement the existing religious rules with further requirements aimed at ensuring humane-slaughter practices. After analyzing both comparative law on this issue and the relevant First Amendment considerations, this Article argues that there is a need for Congress to remove the HMLSA’s current exemption of handling in connection with kosher slaughter and for regulations to be passed governing this issue. It makes suggestions as to how such regulations could provide for more humane-slaughter practices in a manner that fails to offend either the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It is often argued that one of the most humane methods of killing an animal is through the performance of kosher slaughter. Indeed, the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (HMLSA) of 1978 goes so far as to define kosher slaughter, and handling in connection with such slaughter, as humane, and consequently fails to provide any regulation over this method of killing. It is thus concerning that a number of kosher slaughterhouses have, in recent years, been discovered to be using blatantly inhumane practices, which the relevant religious authorities have insisted are completely kosher.

This Article examines the Jewish law concerning kosher slaughter and asks how it is possible for a slaughter that has been performed in an inhumane fashion to remain kosher. The answer, it concludes, is that the religious rules provide little guidance on the handling of animals in connection with slaughter. There thus exists a need for either the religious authorities or the law to supplement the existing religious rules with further requirements aimed at ensuring humane-slaughter practices. After analyzing both comparative law on this issue and the relevant First Amendment considerations, this Article argues that there is a need for Congress to remove the HMLSA’s current exemption of handling in connection with kosher slaughter and for regulations to be passed governing this issue. It makes suggestions as to how such regulations could provide for more humane-slaughter practices in a manner that fails to offend either the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

NY - Hunting, Interent - § 11-1906. On-line shoots prohibited

Summary: Under this New York law, no person, firm, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association or other business entity shall (1) own or operate a shooting range or gallery located in this state for purposes of the on-line shooting or spearing of targets or animals; or (2) create, maintain or utilize a website via the internet, or a service or business via any other means, from any location within this state for purposes of the on-line shooting or spearing of targets or animals. Per McKinney's ECL § 71-0923, a violation of section 11-1906 is punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

Under this New York law, no person, firm, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association or other business entity shall (1) own or operate a shooting range or gallery located in this state for purposes of the on-line shooting or spearing of targets or animals; or (2) create, maintain or utilize a website via the internet, or a service or business via any other means, from any location within this state for purposes of the on-line shooting or spearing of targets or animals. Per McKinney's ECL § 71-0923, a violation of section 11-1906 is punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars.
Share |