Free speech and what it was meant for

The Saline Courier - - OPINION -

We are see­ing many things that once would have been called crazy in this coun­try, but the United States is not alone.

In In­dia, bovine vig­i­lante groups take the law into their own hands and lynch peo­ple they be­lieve hate eaten beef. Hindu preach­ers have taken the idea that peo­ple should not slaugh­ter and eat cows to a whole new level.

Last year at a na­tional meet­ing of Hindu or­ga­ni­za­tions in In­dia, a pop­u­lar preacher, Sad­hvi Saraswati, told the crowd that those who con­sumed beef should be publicly hanged. The peo­ple gathered there cheered this idea.

At that same meet­ing an an­i­mal rights ac­tivist named Chetan Sharma claimed killing cat­tle to eat them was caus­ing global warm­ing.

“The cow is also the rea­son for global warm­ing. When she is slaugh­tered, some­thing called EPW is re­leased, which is di­rectly re­spon­si­ble for global warm­ing. It’s what is called emo­tional pain waves,” Sharma said.

In Germany, law­mak­ers are con­sid­er­ing rais­ing taxes on meat from seven per­cent to 19 per­cent to dis­cour­age peo­ple from eat­ing meat. This is be­ing done in the name of fight­ing cli­mate change.

Germany’s Green leg­is­la­tors point to a 2012 United Na­tions re­port that con­cluded the earth’s cat­tle pop­u­la­tion gen­er­ates more car­bon diox­ide than au­to­mo­biles, planes, and all other forms of trans­port.

Ger­man slaugh­ter­houses killed 29.4 mil­lion pigs, cows, sheep, goats and horses dur­ing the first six months of 2019. Dur­ing this pe­riod, Germany pro­duced 3.9 mil­lion tons of meat, led by pork — the main in­gre­di­ent in Ger­man sausages, ac­cord­ing to Germany’s Fed­eral Sta­tis­tics Of­fice,

Germany’s Green party has vowed to ban in­dus­trial farm­ing to re­duce global warm­ing — if their party ever comes to power. So far, Ger­mans — who are fa­mous for their love of their sausages — have not seen fit to do that.

Th­ese anti-meat peo­ple want to force their be­liefs down other peo­ple’s throats. Cli­mate change is just an­other thing they use as an ex­cuse to con­trol oth­ers.

Not to be out­done here in the USA, the jour­nal of a New York Univer­sity’s Women’s and Gen­der Stud­ies pro­gram has pub­lished a pa­per that in­sists that milk­ing cows is “sex­ual abuse.”

“Ready­ing the Rape Rack: Fem­i­nism and the Ex­ploita­tion of Non-hu­man Re­pro­duc­tive Sys­tems” was pub­lished by the Col­lege at Brock­port State Univer­sity of New York.

An in­tern for Brock­port’s Women’s Stud­ies Depart­ment, said she saw it as her duty to write about the “un­der-re­searched fem­i­nist as­pects of an­i­mal agri­cul­ture.”

The re­port’s au­thor wrote: “Through­out our lives, we are of­fered an ide­al­ized im­age of dairy cows where th­ese an­i­mals graze on beau­ti­ful pas­tures, have room to sow and play, and are com­forted in spa­cious ar­eas in which to sleep. We are pre­sented with images of a life well lived, but when it comes to the deaths of those same an­i­mals, the pic­ture per­fect story comes to a grim re­al­ity.

“The out­dated stereo­type about women be­ing care­tak­ers and most im­por­tantly child bear­ers re­mains con­sis­tent in the dairy in­dus­try, es­pe­cially when we take into ac­count the means through which th­ese an­i­mals are ex­ploited. A few brief ex­am­ples in­clude rape or sex­ual as­sault, non­con­sen­sual hor­mone treat­ments, and emo­tional trauma re­lated to preg­nancy. Dairy cows are forcibly im­preg­nated, or raped, in or­der to con­stantly pro­duce milk for hu­mans to con­sume.”

My grand­fa­ther raised cat­tle and my fa­ther raised horses and a few cat­tle. Grow­ing up, I punched a few cows my­self. (For you green­horns, that does not mean hit a cow with my fist.)

Cat­tle are not the smartest an­i­mals on the planet. Left to themselves, they will wan­der off and get lost, trap their heads in fences, and get into other trou­bles.

The idea of cows hav­ing “emo­tional trauma” re­ceiv­ing “non­con­sen­sual” hor­mone treat­ments is ridicu­lous. Cows don’t have hu­man feel­ings or emo­tions.

There is a word for what is be­ing done in this re­port — an­thro­po­mor­phism. It comes from the Greek word “an­thro” which means hu­man­iz­ing and the word “po­mor­phism” which means other forms. Com­bin­ing those words means hu­man­iz­ing other life forms.

A lot of peo­ple do that to their pets. Just ask my dog. I do it to her all the time.

Here is the bot­tom line: If you live in a free so­ci­ety, oth­ers should not be al­lowed to force their ideas and be­liefs on you.

If you want to eat dirt or beets — I can’t imag­ine why any­one would want to con­sume ei­ther — that is your choice. No­body has the right to force any­body else to eat beets or any­thing else.

If I want to eat or not eat steak it is my choice. It is of­fen­sive to me when peo­ple say they know what is bet­ter for me than I do and they are go­ing to force their su­pe­rior knowl­edge on me using use cli­mate change as their ex­cuse.

Sure, free speech means oth­ers can tell you the facts as they see it. It does not mean they should be able to force what they see as “right” on me or any­one else.

JIM HAR­RIS CON­SER­VA­TIVE Corner

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.