When I read the description of the story, I said to myself, "This must have taken place in a third-world country or something." Luckily, I was right. Thankfully there's not yet a chance that this kind of lawsuit could happen in America, where people may be dumb enough to get away with frivolous lawsuits, but where we're at least smart enough to recognize legal definitions and many of us have passed a sex education course.
A man is being accused of raping a woman over the phone during phone sex.
The story takes place in Tunisia, where a 30-year-old man was engaged in phone sex with a 20-year-old woman. The man never touched the woman, but during the course of phone sex, he admits to have heard the woman scream and that she "reported bleeding." Somehow in the mind of the woman's family lawyer, this constitutes a "rape" because there was a physical result. The woman was taken to the doctor and the medical examination determined that she was "no longer a virgin."
The case is actually going to court! The lawyer representing the woman, Maha al-Metebaa, says that the case needs careful investigation because the allegations are unprecedented. He claims that while a sexual act did not happen due to the lack of physical proximity, it also did happen because there is a physical impact in the nature of the loss of virginity.
I personally do not know what the Tunisian court system can decree as a punishment for rape, but I'm guessing it's not lenient. This is apparently a country that still determines virginity without taking into account the innumerable ways in which a hymen can be broken without penetration, and probably considers non-virginal women as "unmarryable" and otherwise useless.
Someone needs to ship a couple sex education booklets to the citizens of Tunisia - or at least to this braindead lawyer.
At the very least, the woman should be charged with raping herself. After all, any penetration that they would claim broke her hymen and made her no longer a virgin would HAVE to have been committed by herself. Even claiming "coersion" or something, the man is in no way at fault for what she did to herself. A woman going to jail for raping herself is at least slightly less nonsensical than a man going to jail for raping her over the phone.
Your thoughts?
(I can't make this craziness up!)
Read more!
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Employers and Facebook
There's a new lawsuit going on over in England regarding whether or not business employers can investigate potential employees via their Facebook or other "social networking site" webpage.
Before you pick a side or finish hearing the story or my opinion - take a minute to think about your social networking sites (if you have any). What is on your Facebook profile that you would be okay with showing to an employer you're trying to get hired by? What is on your Facebook profile that you wouldn't want your potential new boss seeing? What's on there that you don't even want your family seeing? And we're not just talking about your basic profile information - we're talking about all of the comments left on your page by your friends, whether you think they're appropriate or not for any situation.
Let's continue, shall we?
A coalition including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the NCH want a new law to prevent employers and colleges searching the internet for "digital dirt" on potential recruits.
Studies show one in five employers use the internet to check out candidates and two thirds of those admit their final decision has been influenced by what they found.
Checking networking sites is also common practice for recruitment agencies with research showing more than 60 per cent of British executives are signed up to Facebook or similar.
The children's charities argue that this is akin to nosing through someone's diary and is examining whether existing discrimination laws could be used to prevent the practice.
Now I'm not entirely sure about their argument that looking at networking site information is the same as reading a diary. In my experience, a diary is personal thoughts for yourself only, which is why you hide it under a mattress or beat up a sibling who discovers its secret location. Social networking sites aren't really meant to be solo experiences. And even if you DO use one for such an experience, there are plenty of filters and privacy settings arranged for most social networking sites so you can keep private thoughts private.
Of course, these filters are rarely used by the less-web-savvy users.
John Carr, secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety which is co-ordinating the campaign, said pictures and gossip posted while someone is a teenager should not be used against them years later.
Once again, I'm not in agreement with the argument. Just because there is no foresight about what is being done, that doesn't entitle them to complain when it rears its ugly head down the road. Everything we do is who we are - and while we can certainly attempt to change, we cannot deny our history. How many times can you recall a news story featuring a celebrity (major or minor) who became aghast to discover that old gossip or even photos or video of themselves had been dug up and gotten them into trouble?
The law currently enforces equal opportunities in recruitment and a system that searches social network sites could be unfair because some candidates will have profiles and others will not.
Here's where a real argument lies. It's discrimination to base a hiring decision on a piece of information that doesn't exist for all candidates. I have a Facebook profile, another potential hire might not. But they might have a MySpace page, whereas I do not.
Is each networking site off-limits because of potential discrimination?
Does the balance of each of us having a site mean there's no discrimination?
One could make the argument that both of us have a NAME, so there's no discrimination if an employer uses Google or another search tool to look up information just based on our name - but is a social networking page result equal footing because it was found in an equal-opportunity manner, or does it fall directly under this "not everyone has one" idea of discrimination?
It's a very gray area, and while it might deserve the scrutiny of a lawsuit to make the issue known and get people talking about it - it runs the risk of a decision being made that unfairly benefits one side or the other.
So far, one idea being thrown around is the notion of a "time limit" for surfing these gray-area websites.
Do you have any ideas? What do you think? Discrimination or not?
(The full article)
Read more!
Before you pick a side or finish hearing the story or my opinion - take a minute to think about your social networking sites (if you have any). What is on your Facebook profile that you would be okay with showing to an employer you're trying to get hired by? What is on your Facebook profile that you wouldn't want your potential new boss seeing? What's on there that you don't even want your family seeing? And we're not just talking about your basic profile information - we're talking about all of the comments left on your page by your friends, whether you think they're appropriate or not for any situation.
Let's continue, shall we?
A coalition including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the NCH want a new law to prevent employers and colleges searching the internet for "digital dirt" on potential recruits.
Studies show one in five employers use the internet to check out candidates and two thirds of those admit their final decision has been influenced by what they found.
Checking networking sites is also common practice for recruitment agencies with research showing more than 60 per cent of British executives are signed up to Facebook or similar.
The children's charities argue that this is akin to nosing through someone's diary and is examining whether existing discrimination laws could be used to prevent the practice.
Now I'm not entirely sure about their argument that looking at networking site information is the same as reading a diary. In my experience, a diary is personal thoughts for yourself only, which is why you hide it under a mattress or beat up a sibling who discovers its secret location. Social networking sites aren't really meant to be solo experiences. And even if you DO use one for such an experience, there are plenty of filters and privacy settings arranged for most social networking sites so you can keep private thoughts private.
Of course, these filters are rarely used by the less-web-savvy users.
John Carr, secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety which is co-ordinating the campaign, said pictures and gossip posted while someone is a teenager should not be used against them years later.
Once again, I'm not in agreement with the argument. Just because there is no foresight about what is being done, that doesn't entitle them to complain when it rears its ugly head down the road. Everything we do is who we are - and while we can certainly attempt to change, we cannot deny our history. How many times can you recall a news story featuring a celebrity (major or minor) who became aghast to discover that old gossip or even photos or video of themselves had been dug up and gotten them into trouble?
The law currently enforces equal opportunities in recruitment and a system that searches social network sites could be unfair because some candidates will have profiles and others will not.
Here's where a real argument lies. It's discrimination to base a hiring decision on a piece of information that doesn't exist for all candidates. I have a Facebook profile, another potential hire might not. But they might have a MySpace page, whereas I do not.
Is each networking site off-limits because of potential discrimination?
Does the balance of each of us having a site mean there's no discrimination?
One could make the argument that both of us have a NAME, so there's no discrimination if an employer uses Google or another search tool to look up information just based on our name - but is a social networking page result equal footing because it was found in an equal-opportunity manner, or does it fall directly under this "not everyone has one" idea of discrimination?
It's a very gray area, and while it might deserve the scrutiny of a lawsuit to make the issue known and get people talking about it - it runs the risk of a decision being made that unfairly benefits one side or the other.
So far, one idea being thrown around is the notion of a "time limit" for surfing these gray-area websites.
Do you have any ideas? What do you think? Discrimination or not?
(The full article)
Read more!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Blackwater Steroids
There's a lawsuit going on against Blackwater, this private company serving as security guards in Iraq, where we are still at war. If you read into the article, the lawsuit is about charging the company with war crimes, wrongful death, assault, negligent hiring and emotional distress (to the families of Iraqis killed by Blackwater). Unfortunately, the title and main focal point of the article is the allegation that a quarter of the Blackwater security guards are using steroids.
Really - THAT'S the issue on the table here? Steroid use?
I'm frankly getting a little sick and tired of all the hubbub over steroid usage by people. Even if used for non-medicinal purposes, I don't see why steroid use is getting all of this attention. We've all heard about what it does and the effects of the increased testosterone and muscle growth. So what's the problem here? No seriously, what's the problem??
Their main purpose in Iraq is serving as security guards, protecting American citizens. In a place where there's a war going on. The lead attorney in the case, Susan Burke, says she thinks that "there is a whole corporate culture there that essentially rewards the use of excessive force -- shooting first, asking questions later." Did the dictionary and all my encyclopaedias suddenly change the meanings of "security guards" or "war"? I can't help but remember growing up with the knowledge that security guards use force to keep people and places secure. They shoot first and ask questions later. Otherwise, the things they're protecting get attacked and they get fired. I'm buffaloed as to why the lead attorney is basically saying "there is a whole corporate culture that essentially rewards employees doing their jobs effectively."
Seriously, Blackwater's major claim to fame (other than lawsuits) is that during four years of this War in Iraq, none of their protectees have been killed. That's a 100% success rate. Honestly, how can you argue with a 100% success rate? This is no half-assed "win some, lose some" company you're dealing with - this is a "win all, never lose!" company.
Do you know which security guards DON'T have a 100% success rate? The frickin' Secret Service! Of course, they've been in business a lot longer - but they only have a small handful of protectees at a time.
Am I saying that President Kennedy might not have been shot and killed if there were a few more steroid-using members on the force? Hard to say. Keener eye-muscles might have led to identifying the potential shooter (or shooters, if you're a conspiracy nut) and subsequent beatdown and death of said person(s).
What gets me even more irate is that this is a WAR ZONE, not the motherloving Olympics! While we can penalize a biathlete for using steroids and claim it's unfair towards those idiots who ski and shoot things with their own exercise and training alone (even though we also penalize them for using debilitating drugs like marijuana that gives the others an advantage), why are we penalizing security guards in a war zone? Are the Iraqi troops complaining because it's harder to kill Americans with these guards all buffed up with enhancement drugs?
If there's one guy you want on a 'roid rage, it's the guy with a gun who's protecting your ass from terrorists.
That's certainly who I'd hire if I were an idiot who decided to travel to Iraq in the middle of a war. Wouldn't you?
(The article that sparked this rant)
Read more!
Really - THAT'S the issue on the table here? Steroid use?
I'm frankly getting a little sick and tired of all the hubbub over steroid usage by people. Even if used for non-medicinal purposes, I don't see why steroid use is getting all of this attention. We've all heard about what it does and the effects of the increased testosterone and muscle growth. So what's the problem here? No seriously, what's the problem??
Their main purpose in Iraq is serving as security guards, protecting American citizens. In a place where there's a war going on. The lead attorney in the case, Susan Burke, says she thinks that "there is a whole corporate culture there that essentially rewards the use of excessive force -- shooting first, asking questions later." Did the dictionary and all my encyclopaedias suddenly change the meanings of "security guards" or "war"? I can't help but remember growing up with the knowledge that security guards use force to keep people and places secure. They shoot first and ask questions later. Otherwise, the things they're protecting get attacked and they get fired. I'm buffaloed as to why the lead attorney is basically saying "there is a whole corporate culture that essentially rewards employees doing their jobs effectively."
Seriously, Blackwater's major claim to fame (other than lawsuits) is that during four years of this War in Iraq, none of their protectees have been killed. That's a 100% success rate. Honestly, how can you argue with a 100% success rate? This is no half-assed "win some, lose some" company you're dealing with - this is a "win all, never lose!" company.
Do you know which security guards DON'T have a 100% success rate? The frickin' Secret Service! Of course, they've been in business a lot longer - but they only have a small handful of protectees at a time.
Am I saying that President Kennedy might not have been shot and killed if there were a few more steroid-using members on the force? Hard to say. Keener eye-muscles might have led to identifying the potential shooter (or shooters, if you're a conspiracy nut) and subsequent beatdown and death of said person(s).
What gets me even more irate is that this is a WAR ZONE, not the motherloving Olympics! While we can penalize a biathlete for using steroids and claim it's unfair towards those idiots who ski and shoot things with their own exercise and training alone (even though we also penalize them for using debilitating drugs like marijuana that gives the others an advantage), why are we penalizing security guards in a war zone? Are the Iraqi troops complaining because it's harder to kill Americans with these guards all buffed up with enhancement drugs?
If there's one guy you want on a 'roid rage, it's the guy with a gun who's protecting your ass from terrorists.
That's certainly who I'd hire if I were an idiot who decided to travel to Iraq in the middle of a war. Wouldn't you?
(The article that sparked this rant)
Read more!
Thursday, October 04, 2007
How NOT to Sue a Church
The Rev. Luis Alfredo Rios, a priest at St. Thomas the Apostle Church, might not always be on his game. That's a given. But it was when Angel Llavona decided to take his opinions to the next level that things apparently started getting out of hand. He called up the reverend on his church line and left the following message:
"Father Rios, this is Angel Llavona. I attended mass on Sunday and I have seen poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records."
Feeling offended, or perhaps wanting to hear opinions from the rest of his audience, Rios decided to play the message for his Sunday mass, adding:
"This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That's why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That's why we didn't get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?"
After all, Llavona, a teacher at a high school in Des Plaines, did indeed serve as a volunteer with the parish's religious education program from September of 2005 to April of 2006. And while I could certainly attempt to make a few altar-boy-related jokes, I will refuse to do so - since I'm totally in favor of the church on this one. Especially because of what Llavona decided to do about being publicly outed as a jerk who complained to the preacher.
He sued. Not only did he sue Rev. Rios, he's also suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford - because somehow in his mind, the diocese is legally responsible for anything that any of their priests decide to do. So what, pray tell (no pun intended), is he suing for?
Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered "immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation." Llavona says the humiliation forced him to change parishes. He is seeking a minimum of $50,000 in damages.
That's when I became enraged, reading the article. While I'm the first one in line to say that the Catholic Church is loaded with parishoner money and is always willing to part with chunks of it to keep things settled, especially out-of-court, there are things you sue over and things that you do NOT sue over. Getting molested as a child? Go ahead and sue. Being kicked out for discriminatory reasons? Maybe you can get away with it - the case is in the details. Being a jerk and then getting called out for being a jerk? Suck it up and move on, buddy!
That in mind, this guy COULD have had a case - he just chose the WRONG case. He's decided to wimp out and beg for "you made me feel bad" money, which he should never get a penny for. You don't get to act like a jerk and then sue for monetary compensation when your actions are made known and everyone knows you're a jerk. If the guy had punched the priest in the face over the sermon's failures, and all the priest did (rather than sue for assault and battery) was tell the congregation, "Oh, my black eye? Angel Llavona punched me because he thought my sermon sucked" - Llavona would STILL have no case over the fact that he decided to switch parishes and was ratted out for being a jerk.
What Llavona COULD have argued was that he called the Reverend on his church line, expecting the privacy associated with the confidentiality laws applying between religious leaders and followers. Although it was in no way a "confession" (the usual conversation those laws apply to) - the law might be swayed on his side in a case of breaking confidentiality.
The only other thing that gets me irked about this (which has no legal grounds) is that it seems like the priest was commenting that he (and the congregation) had the power to send Llavona to hell. That just seems a little blasphemous in my mind. I'm pretty sure that in the Catholic faith, it's God who makes that decision, not an angry priest or a congregation. The afterlife is not determined through a democratic process. Also, it's contradictory that a priest is supposed to hear confessions and offer absolution for sins, and this one aired those sins and treated them as unforgivable.
Nevertheless - Llavona, you should be asking for an apology, not a sum of money. You suffered no monetary damages through these actions, which were all your fault for being a jackass anyway. What you should really be doing is making a case to the Catholic Diocese about removing a priest who would do un-priestly things like what Reverend Luis Alfredo Rios did.
Even so, I'm going to side with Rios and the Catholic Church on this impending lawsuit of uselessness and avarice.
Of course, I'm Jewish. So take this all with a grain of salt. And a margarita. L'chaim!
(The article about the lawsuit)
Read more!
"Father Rios, this is Angel Llavona. I attended mass on Sunday and I have seen poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records."
Feeling offended, or perhaps wanting to hear opinions from the rest of his audience, Rios decided to play the message for his Sunday mass, adding:
"This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That's why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That's why we didn't get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?"
After all, Llavona, a teacher at a high school in Des Plaines, did indeed serve as a volunteer with the parish's religious education program from September of 2005 to April of 2006. And while I could certainly attempt to make a few altar-boy-related jokes, I will refuse to do so - since I'm totally in favor of the church on this one. Especially because of what Llavona decided to do about being publicly outed as a jerk who complained to the preacher.
He sued. Not only did he sue Rev. Rios, he's also suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford - because somehow in his mind, the diocese is legally responsible for anything that any of their priests decide to do. So what, pray tell (no pun intended), is he suing for?
Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered "immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation." Llavona says the humiliation forced him to change parishes. He is seeking a minimum of $50,000 in damages.
That's when I became enraged, reading the article. While I'm the first one in line to say that the Catholic Church is loaded with parishoner money and is always willing to part with chunks of it to keep things settled, especially out-of-court, there are things you sue over and things that you do NOT sue over. Getting molested as a child? Go ahead and sue. Being kicked out for discriminatory reasons? Maybe you can get away with it - the case is in the details. Being a jerk and then getting called out for being a jerk? Suck it up and move on, buddy!
That in mind, this guy COULD have had a case - he just chose the WRONG case. He's decided to wimp out and beg for "you made me feel bad" money, which he should never get a penny for. You don't get to act like a jerk and then sue for monetary compensation when your actions are made known and everyone knows you're a jerk. If the guy had punched the priest in the face over the sermon's failures, and all the priest did (rather than sue for assault and battery) was tell the congregation, "Oh, my black eye? Angel Llavona punched me because he thought my sermon sucked" - Llavona would STILL have no case over the fact that he decided to switch parishes and was ratted out for being a jerk.
What Llavona COULD have argued was that he called the Reverend on his church line, expecting the privacy associated with the confidentiality laws applying between religious leaders and followers. Although it was in no way a "confession" (the usual conversation those laws apply to) - the law might be swayed on his side in a case of breaking confidentiality.
The only other thing that gets me irked about this (which has no legal grounds) is that it seems like the priest was commenting that he (and the congregation) had the power to send Llavona to hell. That just seems a little blasphemous in my mind. I'm pretty sure that in the Catholic faith, it's God who makes that decision, not an angry priest or a congregation. The afterlife is not determined through a democratic process. Also, it's contradictory that a priest is supposed to hear confessions and offer absolution for sins, and this one aired those sins and treated them as unforgivable.
Nevertheless - Llavona, you should be asking for an apology, not a sum of money. You suffered no monetary damages through these actions, which were all your fault for being a jackass anyway. What you should really be doing is making a case to the Catholic Diocese about removing a priest who would do un-priestly things like what Reverend Luis Alfredo Rios did.
Even so, I'm going to side with Rios and the Catholic Church on this impending lawsuit of uselessness and avarice.
Of course, I'm Jewish. So take this all with a grain of salt. And a margarita. L'chaim!
(The article about the lawsuit)
Read more!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Kia Vaughn Withdraws - No Money Shot
Surprise, surprise. I called it. Kia Vaughn (aka "the ho") has officially withdrawn her lawsuits of defamation and slander that she brought up against Don Imus and CBS Radio (among others) on the exact day that Imus negotiated a $20 million deal and got his radio show back. That move alone won her the official title of "ho" in my book, since she did a notoriously dispicable thing just for the money.
As I expected, it was pretty damned obvious she didn't have a leg to stand on in the court case, let alone the notion of having to defend that the things said were lies in the first place.
I mean, first off, she was never targeted by any of the statements. Nobody seems to recall anything other than the two words that sparked the controversy in the first place, but the one that came right before "nappy-headed hos" just happened to be the word "some". Got that? "Some," not "Kia Vaughn" or any targeted member of the team. Had he said "all" instead, she might have grounds to file, since she would invariably be a member of the "all" collective - but it is in no way possible to claim that she is without-a-doubt a member of the "some" collective that Imus was referring to.
Plus, again, it's only defamation and slander if someone actually believes it.
The part of this story's ending (for now) is the statement being made on Kia Vaughn's side of the now-dropped case. Kia Vaughn had no comment. Her lawyer didn't even have a comment. But Kia Vaughn's lawyer's spokesperson had a comment to make? He basically said that Vaughn has chosen to "focus" her attention to her journalism major at Rutgers and her position on the basketball team. "Her strong commitments to both have influenced her decision to withdraw the lawsuit at this time," the statement said.
I think she realized that nobody wants to play on a team with - or hire as a journalist - a ho.
(One story covering the withdrawal)
Read more!
As I expected, it was pretty damned obvious she didn't have a leg to stand on in the court case, let alone the notion of having to defend that the things said were lies in the first place.
I mean, first off, she was never targeted by any of the statements. Nobody seems to recall anything other than the two words that sparked the controversy in the first place, but the one that came right before "nappy-headed hos" just happened to be the word "some". Got that? "Some," not "Kia Vaughn" or any targeted member of the team. Had he said "all" instead, she might have grounds to file, since she would invariably be a member of the "all" collective - but it is in no way possible to claim that she is without-a-doubt a member of the "some" collective that Imus was referring to.
Plus, again, it's only defamation and slander if someone actually believes it.
The part of this story's ending (for now) is the statement being made on Kia Vaughn's side of the now-dropped case. Kia Vaughn had no comment. Her lawyer didn't even have a comment. But Kia Vaughn's lawyer's spokesperson had a comment to make? He basically said that Vaughn has chosen to "focus" her attention to her journalism major at Rutgers and her position on the basketball team. "Her strong commitments to both have influenced her decision to withdraw the lawsuit at this time," the statement said.
I think she realized that nobody wants to play on a team with - or hire as a journalist - a ho.
(One story covering the withdrawal)
Read more!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.
The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago
The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.
In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."
It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.
As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.
Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.
The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago
The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.
In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."
It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.
As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.
Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
