Kathleen Stachowski Other Nations
Black lipstick, white makeup, goth kitten. You missed the opportunity to get your dark groove on with a “pure black, tail-less, pierced, gothic kitten” accessory. Thank heavens.
Pennsylvania’s state Superior Court upheld the conviction of a groomer “…in last year’s infamous gothic-kitten case, ruling that ‘common sense’ – not specificity – governs Pennsylvania’s animal cruelty law.” Really? That was her defense? “But the law doesn’t SAY I can’t punch holes into kittens!!!”
One such kitten (“Snarly Monster”), whose ears and neck were pierced with large-gauge posts and whose tail went missing for a fashion statement, was being hawked on the internet for $400 minimum, according to an original article dating from December of 2008.
“Certainly, putting a rubber band around the tail of a kitten to cut off the circulation of blood to cause the tail to fall off or the action of a putting a large needle, used to inject cattle, into the ear or neck of a 3-pound kitten would qualify as atrocious,” (judge) Ford Elliot wrote. “The court is very mindful that animals are living creatures that feel pain and experience suffering.”
Woo hoo! This is extremely good news, because now, when we bring up the heinous cruelty of battery cages, gestation crates, ammonia burns, foie gras production, slaughter houses, trapping, vivisection, and all the other ways in which institutional, industrial cruelty manifests itself, we know that the court will be on our side, right? Because it recognizes that “animals are living creatures that (sic) feel pain and experience suffering,” right?