Enough of wienermobiles and hot dog eating contests, its back to the peacock basher, the Makaha woman who beat a peacock to death with a baseball bat, as gosh darn it, it was keeping her awake at night! Yesterday she plead not guilty and her attorney argues "These people go through sleep deprivation, and that has an affect on people. They're irritable, and it affects their lives." This is the rationale for the beating (like yeah, I was irritable, the peacock was p*ssing me off, so I beat it to death, what is the problem? Is there a problem here officer?), but their legal defense is that the state pays $60,000 a year to rid neighborhoods of wild chickens and culls or eradicate chickens, goats and cattle. Apparently a law allows this culling of pests, vermin and insects; the defense argues the peacock was a pest so the Makaha woman should be allowed to bash the peacock to death with a baseball bat, just as the state is allowed to kill all these other animals.
But the prosecutor's office argues that taking a baseball bat to a peacock is outside the law, and that a person commits a crime if he or she does the following to an animal "tortures, cruelly beats, causes substantial bodily injury".
Ok, so what about what goes on at the slaughterhouses, state sanctioned factories of torture (whoa, torture is bit of an understatement I think), and where substantial bodily injury to animals occurs(like isn't using a chain saw to cut up someone's body causing substantial bodily injury?). Oh, of course, I forgot, how silly and naive of me, slaughterhouses don't come under these rules, they are exempt. They are "factories" where "food" is made for people, like what, are you insane for thinking that there shouldn't be slaughterhouses? Only a hopeless idealist would think like that right?
Love Life! Love animals, don't eat them.
Mark Fergusson
(Note: portions of this post are from the Honolulu Advertiser article entitled "Slayer of peacock pleads not guilty" by Bloise Aguiar.)