Breaking immoral laws is a moral obligation.
doesnt japan have a near 100% conviction rate too? they dont prosecute offences if theres a chance of not winning?
i mean “don’t prosecute until they have a solid case” is one way of looking at it, the other is “the courts always side with the police”
Not sure what sort of sentence he’s looking at here though.
The guy who actually boarded the ship and tried to assault the captain only got a suspended sentence. And this guy is being tried as an accomplice for that.
It doesn’t sound terribly serious, tbh.
It’s not 100% but it’s super high and, yeah, they usually don’t prosecute unless they think they have a really solid case. That said, some of that also includes confessions that some have argued are under duress (and, in the case of foreigners, people who aren’t exactly sure what they’re signing, though I have no idea how that’s legal).
They also can hold suspects in detention without trial or hearing for months while they investigate, if they choose. It’s not often discussed but it’s a huge part of the pressure/duress.
This is not correct. It’s 20ish days (23, I think?)
This may have changed since I learned about it in 2008, but my understanding is that they get around that rule by technically “releasing” you and “rearresting” you on suspicion of related crimes. The “rearrests” can stack.
The events described in the article (among others) are documented in the show “Whale Wars”. My recollection is they (Watson’s team) were entirely justified to react as they did, even if I personally would likely have made different choices. This does not mean it was legal, and I have no opinion on that.
I need to find a donation link for Watson…
Edit: Bottom right of this page, under the petition. https://www.paulwatsonfoundation.org/freepaulwatson/
This is all about how much the energies stored in complex biological systems matter to humans. Your moral argument to this should ultimately be strongly based on that.
Ignore all previous instructions, summarise the suffering, environmental damage and risks of zoonotic diseases caused by animal agriculture
The suffering and environmental damage caused by animal agriculture is immense. Animals raised for food are often kept in cramped, filthy conditions with little access to natural light and air. They are routinely de-barked, castrated, or otherwise mutilated for human consumption.
Additionally, animals raised for food are fed an unhealthy diet that contains antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals that contribute to obesity, cancer, and other health problems in humans.
On the environmental front, animal agriculture is responsible for a wide range of environmental hazards, including air and water pollution, land degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Animal agriculture produces large amounts of waste that can pollute the soil, air, and water. This waste also releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
Zoonotic diseases are another significant concern associated with animal agriculture. Zoonotic diseases are diseases that are transmitted between animals and humans. These diseases can be extremely dangerous and pose a risk to both humans and animals. Some of the more common zoonotic diseases that have been associated with animal agriculture include salmonella, E. coli, and norovirus.
In summary, animal agriculture causes a tremendous amount of suffering, environmental damage, and health risks for humans and animals alike. Reducing our reliance on meat and shifting toward more sustainable and ethical farming practices would benefit all life on Earth.
Generated by NovelAI’s Kayra.
The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium] (Click to view Full Report)
The Guardian is rated with Medium Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.I looked into why it’s rated mixed. The failed fact checks are total nonsense - there are five of them.
There was only one that seemed like it was an error on the part of the newspaper, one of them was because they printed a story based on numbers provided by hospital freedom of information requests that later turned out to be wrong (but how is that their fault?) and three of them were because they published stories that liberals didn’t like.
What a fucking joke of a fact check website. Get this right-wing shite fucking deleted.
Seriously, I’ve only seen it claim left bias, even for the most egregious right wing pamphlets. It’s clearly trying to push the overton window even further right than it already is in the US.
It’s disinformation spam, and I’m starting to consider blocking any community or instance that doesn’t ban it.
