| Sunday, January 05, 2003 |
I have, for some time, been following news related to the cockfighting ban ballot issue (SQ 687), which was passed just this last November (by nearly 125,000 votes). In fact, I did a radio interview (scroll down for details) on the subject...though I appeared as a general "animal rights" expert. Yesterday there was another article about a judge granting a temporary injunction on the enforcement of the law for yet another county in Oklahoma (the 21st since the November vote).
One argument against the enforcement of the ban is that it failed in more counties than it passed in. Sorry, folks, that doesn't cut it--our government doesn't work that way. If it did, presidential candidates who won fewer states would not go on to win elections. We also read that OK State Senator Frank Shurden (see OkiePundit's entry for more info on him) now proposes a county option to make the ban effective only in the (20) counties where the ban passed. Isn't that like saying that the states which Al Gore won in the last presidential race will recognize him as president while the Bush won states will recognize Bush as president? As for the constitutionality of this ban, which is the claim of these cockfighting plaintiffs filing requests for injunctions, when it was originally accepted as a ballot issue it was approved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, certainly they would not have allowed it if it violated the constitutional rights of its state's citizens (see this Shawnee News Star article). Why now do these judges believe they can overrule that decision by granting injunctions -- even temporary ones -- against the enforcement of the law? And it's not like police are exactly hauling people away left and right--as a matter of fact, the notable sentiment from law enforcement is that they have other more pressing priorities--saying they don't have time to be the 'chicken police.' Of course, I'm not unreasonable either -- I could understand the injunctions if they were to allow gamers sufficient times to divest themselves of gamebirds and fighting paraphenalia, but that is obviously not the point or intention. And in what way is "cockfighting" a free speech issue? Yes, the article says that, but for the life of me I can't figure out why. Another interesting article on the subject. [ ] |
| Available
for purchase from Amazon.com Book and magazine list coming soon!
| |
