It is just another proposed law - an amendment, if you like - in an extremely long list of laws. This one has etymology stretching right back to 1966 (see: p. 2 of the previously linked document). I am not a fan of any new laws, I barely like any old laws. However I am certainly not afraid of any laws or the law-making process. As I stated before, this particular proposed law is so full of loopholes, it is ludicrous. My personal favourite is Article 2 (a). If people who may be genuinely affected by this proposed law read this thread and learn something of it, well be good. Finally, and don't forget, sometimes laws are just as 'good' as they are 'bad'. This particular law could have the potential to one day stop the inter-European transportation of a pathogen. Perhaps the Great Potato Famine may never have happened if this law was around back then? Or, perhaps this law is part of an evil conspiracy to take over the world - mwah, mwah, mwah. Who knows? Who cares? The real crux of the matter is, if you are faced with a new law that you think may negatively affect you, then do something to oppose the passing of it. Or if the law already exists, then do something to repeal it. Of course, in order for this to occur, one (or one's community) must first be educated about the said law/s. I hope my brief foray here has helped with the latter.
Mark why do you think a bunch of highly trained legal experts would draft laws full of loopholes to the point it is ludicrous? Why bother if that is so? I agree people must first be educated about the proposals in order to do something about it. My point is, no matter what it originally looks like, the use of regulations and sneaky amendments can make what looks innocent at the start into a monster down the track. My contribution here is to alert others to that fact. A law can look very innocent until it is enforced. In the last five years, in Australia anyway, courts have been less inclined to incorporate explanatory notes in interpreting laws than they did previously. They now focus on the letter of the law.
'Highly trained legal experts [read: policy writers] ... bother' because their actions support other 'highly trained legal experts' (read: lawyers) livelihoods. You have worked in policy, Annette, you understand the drill. I am in no way suggesting your input into this particular thread is anything other than very worthy - ditto the points you make re: the thin edge of the wedge are very pertinent. I apologise if it come across this way. What I am suggesting is that if people - any people - are concerned about laws and how they may affect them, then they must educate themselves as to 'the letter of the law'. This, it seems, we can agree on. As an aside, I have been around planning law for long enough to develop the firm opinion that if something is 'good', then no matter how 'bad' the law may be, the 'good' will eventually overcome the 'bad'. Now, I really must get back to reviewing/writing some proposed planning policy/law... Cheers, M.
Those are my general feelings towards laws. I might just be getting rebellious in my old age... To me, this law promotes the 3rd ethic and can also instill a general feeling that seeds can not be owned. After all, one way around this law is to just give seeds away.
Pakanohida. I agree with the statement of #5 above. Education is key. Scientific literacy. Mechanisms to explain scientific concepts via public communication vehicles--press, tv,radio, internet. (People listen to the radio while driving--this is an important source of information. The public is overloaded with information-- most of it is meaningless or amplifies with the person already knows. Learning NEW information seems to be rare. So there must be a way to establish information pathways. This forum is one. Another point is that yes emotion laden messages and references to Hitler really don't accomplish what is needed--which is for a constituency to understand what the problem is and what is the threat to them personally. I think more people need to know exactly what the danger is and why they should pay attention and take action. I think many people still believe that the government has our best interests at heart--they wouldn't do anything to harm us. this is one source of information that I find useful: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/01/12/ge-crops-affect-soil-fertility.aspx Good luck!
Good news out of Oregon, one of the Senators understand! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/jeff-merkley-monsanto-repeal_n_3288209.html
Legislators have to respond to the principles of their constituents, otherwise, they wont get elected. The key words in the Huff Post article are "public outcry". Whatever will drive a public outcry is what we need to know to fight the pollution of our food supply with GMOs, and the pollution of our environment with glyphosate resistant crops. Keep up the good work, Oregon!
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the gun issue in America, which I think my friends in Oz found humorous as I did... ..and equally pathetic.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130519 According to this article Monsanto contributes funds to Oregon State. One way to control research results. Who are 'friends in Oz'. Please explain what you mean by "gun issue in America". I think the issue is being reconsidered after recent events in Massachusetts and Connecticut. It is a little strange that the constitution guarantees the right to own a gun (a deadly weapon) but where I am in Alabama you cannot own a Pitbull (normally a sweet doggie but scary lookin')
Pitbulls are not sweet animals: https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-newsroom-2009-dogsbite-three-year-fatality-study.php If the numbers were closer to other breeds, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Pit bulls: 59% of fatal attacks in the US, the next dog being rottweiler is at 14%. That's a big difference. Pit bulls are bred to be fighting dogs, it's what they do. Individual examples of a "friendly" pit bull might be out there, but as a breed they are far from being sweet.
I know several pitts personally. Yes, they have been taught to fight in this area, but they have to be taught to do that. When they are not trained to fight, I would have to say among the some 50 or so dog breeds I have owned, I would choose a pitt bull, along with chows, border collies, and malamutes as some of the most rewarding dogs I have known. Pitts are super loyal -- and it is this trait that is used to train them to fight. It also is the trait that makes them a memorable dog companion. I guess this is the old 'nature/nurture' argument. I guess its the same argument: people, not guns, kill. I would say also, Its dog trainers, not the dogs themselves, that make attack dogs out of pitt bulls.
https://forums.permaculturenews.org/showthread.php?13603-Guns/page6 Referring to post #60 I am not even taking this off topic about guns when we have a thread for that because I would start ranting about US Patent #6630507 & how it was illegally obtained.
Mystery wheat growing in Oregon https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130611 How? Why? What are the implications? Sneaky GE wheat may threaten US foreign relations re contaminated exports.
