Cockfighting loan

[Guest]

.

[Henry]

wonder how you start a cock fight?  "on your mark, get set....."

[Sengbe Pieh]

Early Animal Rights Poem Discovered: A Mouse's Plea
by Robert Krulwich
April 21, 2010

He was just an ordinary mouse, nothing special. He lived, very briefly, 237 years ago,
in the laboratory of a great chemist, Joseph Priestley. Here he sits, in his cage.


 There were lots of mice in Priestley's lab. He had made his reputation as one of the first scientists to identify oxygen. He studied mice to figure out what happens inside animals as they breathe. This meant he regularly opened them to examine lungs, veins, arteries, to see that blood changed color when it moved through lungs. And since tuberculosis -- or "consumption" -- was the scourge of that era, lung research seemed like a valuable thing to do.

But animals didn't last long in Priestley's lab, especially mice. So many died that his lab assistant, a young woman named Anna Barbauld, decided that Priestley should give his lab animals a little more respect. It was, after all, 1773, just a few years before Lexington, Concord and the Declaration of Independence. On both sides of the Atlantic, "inalienable rights" were a rallying cry, and Anna, a young wife and poet, decided to write a protest poem. She called it "The Mouse's Petition to Dr. Priestley, Found in the Trap where he had been Confined all Night."



 "There's this extraordinary moment," says historian Richard Holmes. It's 1773. "Priestley packs up for the day, and he leaves that next mouse in a cage on his desk for the next morning. He will put it [in a breathing tank] and remove the oxygen, and the mouse will almost certainly die. And Anna Barbauld, who's cleaning up, she just looks at the mouse, and she thinks, wait a minute, wait a minute ... and she sits down and writes a poem."



Holmes says Anna folded what she wrote into a square, jammed it between the bars of the mouse's cage, and left it for Priestley.

It is a poem, he says in a footnote in his prize-winning book The Age of Wonder, in which "a freeborn mouse, cruelly imprisoned in its laboratory cage, appeals for its right to life." It is written from the mouse's point of view.

This is, says Holmes, "perhaps the first animal-rights manifesto ever written."

The question, of course, is what happened next? Do we know if Priestley read the poem? Do we have any idea if he spared the mouse? Holmes says it's "terribly frustrating for a biographer," but there is no evidence, no mention of the mouse anywhere that he can find. This mouse may one day become a poster mouse for animal rights, being the first little mammal to be celebrated in this way. But its fate, alas, is unknown.



Special thanks to Benjamin Arthur for imagining Anna Barbauld's mouse in watercolor, and to actress Anne Bobby for her performance
(including her outburst in our studio -- you can hear her losing it on our radio story, and her obviously broken heart is on display;
just hit the "listen" button). Richard Holmes' book is called The Age of Wonder. It won the Critics Circle Award for Best Nonfiction 2009. 


Listen to the Story  -  Morning Edition  - 4 min 8 sec
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=126051517&m=126155617

The MOUSE's PETITION,*

* To Doctor PRIESTLEY.

Found in the TRAP where he had been confin'd
all Night.

    Parcere subjectis, & debellare superbos.
    VIRGIL

OH ! hear a pensive captive's prayer,
For liberty that sighs ;
And never let thine heart be shut
Against the prisoner's cries.

For here forlorn and sad I sit,
Within the wiry grate ;    

And tremble at th' approaching morn,
Which brings impending fate.

If e'er thy breast with freedom glow'd,
And spurn'd a tyrant's chain,
Let not thy strong oppressive force
A free-born mouse detain.

Oh ! do not stain with guiltless blood
Thy hospitable hearth ;
Nor triumph that thy wiles betray'd
A prize so little worth.

The scatter'd gleanings of a feast
My scanty meals supply ;
But if thine unrelenting heart
That slender boon deny,

The chearful light, the vital air,
Are blessings widely given ;
Let nature's commoners enjoy
The common gifts of heaven.

The well taught philosophic mind
To all compassion gives ;
Casts round the world an equal eye,
And feels for all that lives.

If mind, as ancient sages taught,
A never dying flame,
Still shifts thro' matter's varying forms,
In every form the same,

Beware, lest in the worm you crush
A brother's soul you find ;
And tremble lest thy luckless hand
Dislodge a kindred mind.

Or, if this transient gleam of day
Be all of life we share,
Let pity plead within thy breast,
That little all to spare.

So may thy hospitable board
With health and peace be crown'd ;
And every charm of heartfelt ease
Beneath thy roof be found.

So when unseen destruction lurks,
Which men like mice may share,
May some kind angel clear thy path,
And break the hidden snare.

http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/contemps/barbauld/poems1773/mouses_petition.html

[Sengbe Pieh]

Another Kiva Lender who contacted Emprender about the loan to Raul Gerardo gave me permission to post their reply:   

On Tue, 4/20/10, christian  rivera  wrote:


    From: christian rivera <Xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx>
    Subject: cockfight

To: Xxxxx@xxxxxxxx
    Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 9:05 AM

    Kiva Lender,

    We greatly appreciate your concern and thank you for making us notice this big mistake, Kiva lenders are our most effective control than any other on these issues from now on we will take action on it, so this error will not happen hereafter, because in Emprender, we have a strict policy about Social Responsibility, and a very clear ethic code.
     
    Sincerely,
     
    Christian Rivera
    EMPRENDER

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original message:

On Sun, 4/18/10, Xxxxxxx wrote:

> From: Xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Please do not post cockfighting loans on kiva
> To: emprendercentral@msn.com
> Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 9:46 AM
>
> This loan for Raul Gerardo is very disturbing.
>
> http://www.kiva.org/lend/183580
>
> In this country cockfighting is considered animal cruelty,
> just like dog fighting.  It is very upsetting for many
> Kiva lenders to see loans on the site that are promoting
> animal cruelty.
>
> I hope you will set a policy of not posting cock fighting
> loans on Kiva, and will refund this loan now.  Several
> other field partners have agreed not to post cockfighting
> loans so that lenders will continue to support the field
> partner.
>
> Thank you
>
> Kiva Lender

[RichardF]

Local congressman introduces new bill to stop the sale of animal cruelty videos

Los Angeles Times
April 21, 2010 |  6:20 pm

When the Supreme Court struck down, on free-speech grounds, a law making it a federal crime to sell videos depicting animal cruelty, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) had more than a passing interest.

He wrote the law.

On Wednesday, Gallegly responded swiftly to the ruling, introducing a "narrowly tailored" bill aimed at passing constitutional muster. The measure would target so-called animal crush videos, such as those showing women in high heels stomping on puppies and kittens.

The legislation comes a day after the court, in an 8-1 decision, overturned the conviction of a Virginia man prosecuted under Gallegly's "Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act" for selling dog-fighting videos. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 1999 law was too broad and could allow prosecutions for selling hunting videos.

By Wednesday, Gallegly and Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), co-chairmen of the Animal Protection Caucus, had written the new law and, within a couple of hours, lined up 55 of their colleagues, from both parties, as co-sponsors.

"Violence is not a 1st Amendment issue; it is a law enforcement issue," Gallegly said in a letter to colleagues. "You are not allowed to cry ‘fire' in a theater; you are not allowed to possess or distribute child pornography. You shouldn't be able to create and distribute videos that glorify the senseless killing of defenseless animals."

In an interview off the House chamber, Gallegly expressed hope the measure would pass Congress quickly.

Gallegly argued that the measure was needed not only to protect animals, but to guard against "the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world" who "began their killing sprees by cruelly inflicting pain on animals."

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said, "We think this is consistent with the court's ruling." Pacelle worked with Gallegly in drafting the new measure.

Pacelle said that before the 1999 law was enacted, his group found about 3,000 of the videos on the market, selling for up to $300 apiece. After Congress acted, the market all but disappeared, he said.

But after a federal appellate court declared the law unconstitutional in mid-2008, the videos again proliferated on the Internet, he said.

The new, three-page bill would prohibit the interstate sale of images of animals being "intentionally crushed, burned, drowned or impaled" unless they have "religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historic or artistic value." Violations would be punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000 or both. The bill says the prohibition would not apply to hunting videos.

But Andrew Tauber, a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer Brown who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of free-speech argument against the law, said the new measure would "still face serious constitutional challenge."

"Statutes and policies that discriminate against speech based on its content, as this bill would do, are …presumptively unconstitutional," he said.

Gallegly took up the issue in 1999 after the Ventura County district attorney ran into problems trying to prosecute a Thousand Oaks man selling over the Internet a video depicting animal cruelty.

-- Richard Simon

[A Nonny Mouse]

Awesome!  Mr. Gallegly is OUR Congressman here in Ventura...


and has been for 23 years.   

[RichardF]

Indeed!!! 

I'm adding the related story from his website.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 21, 2010
Contact: Tom Pfeifer, (202) 225-5811

Moran, Gallegly & 54 Others Respond to Supreme Court Ruling on Animal Cruelty

Chairs of Animal Protection Caucus Introduce Bill Making Crush Videos Illegal

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Co-chairs of the Animal Protection Caucus Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced, along with 54 other cosponsors, a bipartisan bill authored by Gallegly and designed to overcome the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down federal law barring the sale of so-called “crush videos,” which graphically depict the abuse and killing of animals.

Gallegly’s original bill passed the House in 1999 on a bipartisan vote of 372-42 and in the Senate by unanimous consent. President Clinton signed it into law. For 10 years, it shut down the crush video industry.

“Violence is not a First Amendment issue; it is a law enforcement issue,” Gallegly said. “Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski tortured or killed animals before killing people. The FBI, U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early warning signs of potential violence by youths. This law is one step toward ending this cycle of violence.”

“The Supreme Court decision is a blow to the effort to prevent animal cruelty and a victory for the profiteers behind the ‘crush’ video industry, which glorifies the killing of defenseless animals,” said Moran. “For 10 years, federal law had worked to dramatically reduce the proliferation of these videos. Now, Congress must act to restore these commonsense protections against animal cruelty.”

The more narrowly focused legislation would prevent video depictions of drowning, impaling, burning and crushing of animals, while addressing constitutional concerns outlined by the court.

“Animal abuse and profiting from these actions are wrong,” said Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH), a member of the Animal Protection Caucus and original cosponsor of the bill. “We must close the loopholes to crack down and end the trade in crush videos. Today, we are unequivocally restating, with a narrowly tailored measure, that it is unacceptable to videotape and sell extreme, cruel, and illegal depictions of the torturing, maiming, or mutilation of animals.”

“When the law banning animal cruelty videos was passed in 1999, the videos depicting the crushing of small animals virtually disappeared from the market,” said Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), another original cosponsor. “The implication by Chief Justice Roberts that the law should be circumscribed to require that the depicted conduct be ‘cruel’ will be addressed by this new bill.”

“Animal cruelty is not something to celebrate and circulate online,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), an original cosponsor and Animal Protection Caucus member. “On the heels of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, we’re taking immediate and bipartisan action to protect animals without infringing on the right to free speech. The bottom line is that we need to protect animals from being tortured or killed in a manner that is criminal or morally reprehensible. No one should be allowed to profit from so-called crush videos or other images of animal cruelty.”

“While I am disappointed in its ruling, I have the highest respect for the Supreme Court,” Gallegly said. “They left the door ajar for us to continue to outlaw these heinous actions and we intend to do so.”

“I refuse to stand by while people profit from the mutilation and torture of helpless puppies, kittens and other animals.” said Moran. “I look forward to continuing to working with Congressman Gallegly to respond to this decision while preserving the constitutional freedoms all Americans hold dear.”

[Patricia SF]

I don't know if anyone else watched Law and Order SVU last night, but last night's episode about meat packing plants/slaughter houses, segued (briefly but forcefully) into the world of cockfighting. 

[Sengbe Pieh]

Dear Animal Advocates,

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared an important federal anti-cruelty law known as the “Crush Act” (18 U.S. Code Section 48) unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The Crush Act banned the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty where such acts are illegal. The Court made it clear that its major concern was the broadness of the law’s language, which could make the law applicable in many circumstances not intended by its authors.

While the ASPCA is disappointed with the Court’s decision, we are moving forward! Representative Elton Gallegly of California has acted quickly and introduced a bill to amend the law. H.R. 5092 will make the Crush Act’s language more specific and resolve the over-breadth concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

Passage of H.R. 5092 will help prevent a revitalization of the crush video industry. The original Crush Act was passed with little opposition—help us ensure that this revision passes, too.

What You Can Do
Please tell your U.S. representative that you support H.R. 5092, and that he or she should co-sponsor the bill and help move it quickly through the legislative process. Visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online to email your representative now.

Thank you for helping us fight animal suffering and exploitation.

[David2051]

Thanks for that link Geoff!

[Patricia SF]

Someone from the environmental group team posted this article on the team's message board.

Article from ANDA (the News Agency of Animal Rights) on the KIVA loans that violate the rights of animals and this www.kiva.org/lend/183580 in particular.

Here's the loan:  www.kiva.org/lend/183580

Here's the link to the article:  www.anda.jor.br/?p=58981

Here's the article translated from Portuguese to English via Google Translator:

"The idea is good and original. Kiva uses the global reach of the Internet to get loans to small traders in the third world who need help to start your business. When I discovered the website four years ago, liked the idea and became one of many creditors. You choose a small dealer of your choice, transfer credit for it and when the total is reached you receive an email warning. The money is refunded as a credit if the beneficiary makes the payments and the cycle begins again.

"But as I was exploring the best website I realized that the Kiva makes loans to people who exploit animals and it came into conflict with the fact that animals are not human property and they should not be exploited by anyone and on behalf of no cause, even the seemingly 'philanthropic.' Compassion, ethics and solidarity should be basic principles in the proposed aid. Ever the exploration must be embedded as part of a supposed solution.

"I decided to withdraw my money from Kiva, when I realized that one of its beneficiaries was a man in Bolivia, but the activity for which he needed the loan (each dealer gets a page with a profile, which outlines what to do and how much money has already achieved), it creates 'fighting cocks', i.e. a person who provides animals for cockfights. The text describing this activity is a strong advocacy of violent activity:

"Its main job is as a taxi driver. He is single and his desire to improve their lives is evidenced by the fact that it also creates gamecocks. Cockfights (...) were created by humans for your enjoyment. The origin of these struggles are in Asia (...). In ancient Rome, fighting cocks was used to inspire courage. Later this practice was brought to the Americas by the Spaniards. Read more on the Kiva website.

"I found it odd that the text had been released to appear on the Kiva website. Mistakes happen, so I decided to write for them, alerting them to the fact. This was the answer I received:

"'We just forbid loans for business activities that are illegal in the country of origin or loans that even legal, violate the main UN conventions. We trust that our partners in the field make their decisions because they are familiar with the communities and cultures where their entrepreneurs live and work. While a loan may seem offensive to one person, it can be completely normal in another cultural context.'"

"I was absolutely amazed with this policy in relation to the questionable ethics, so I'm relieved to have me this NGO coupled with a somewhat limited vision of social justice. In fact, I regretted one day have supported this organization, the only contact I made with that, gave me an answer impersonal and totally ignored my concern.

"I had the impression it is an entity with the same approach when a company receives a complaint, if not like, find another. Animal welfare does not seem to be on the agenda of Kiva. Because it is a firm global action, using the old excuse of cultural contexts to ignore the suffering of others does not cola. Then someone would be acceptable to provide equipment financing for genitally mutilated women in a country where it is culturally accepted?

"Justice must be universal and go beyond what is technically legal. It has to be applied to all living beings on this planet and nature which keeps the body alive in operation. The prospect vegan does not include this one-sided exceptionalist the human element in the Earth Mother. So I invite all vegans who are reading this text in their search very carefully the policy of an NGO before giving its support to any institution. You could be supporting animal exploitation per table."