A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS CRIES OUT, "PUT AN END TO THE WAR ONCE AND FOR ALL" - URI AVNERY

Uri Avery is a modern Hebrew prophet and, unfortunately, too often

a lone voice in the wilderness...

IN THIS war, both sides have the same aim: to put an end to the situation that existed before it started.
Once And For All!"To put an end to the launching of rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, Once And For All!"To put an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt, Once And For All!"
So why don't the two sides come together without foreign interference and agree on tit for tat?"
They can't because they don't speak to each other. They can kill each other, but they cannot speak with each other. God forbid."

"THIS IS NOT a war on terror. The war itself is an act of terror.
Neither side has a strategy other than terrorizing the civilian population of the other side."
The Palestinian fighting organizations in Gaza try to impose their will by launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages, hoping that this will break the morale of the population and compel it to end the blockade that turns the Gaza Strip into an "open-air prison".
The Israeli army is bombing the Gaza Strip population and destroying entire neighborhoods, hoping that the inhabitants (those who survive) will shake off the Hamas leadership."
Both hopes are, of course, stupid. History has shown time and again that terrorizing a population causes it to unite behind its leaders and hate the enemy even more. That is happening now on both sides."
So why don't the two sides come together without foreign interference and agree on tit for tat?"They can't because they don't speak to each other. They can kill each other, but they cannot speak with each other. God forbid."
"THIS IS NOT a war on terror. The war itself is an act of terror.Neither side has a strategy other than terrorizing the civilian population of the other side."The Palestinian fighting organizations in Gaza try to impose their will by launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages, hoping that this will break the morale of the population and compel it to end the blockade that turns the Gaza Strip into an "open-air prison".The Israeli army is bombing the Gaza Strip population and destroying entire neighborhoods, hoping that the inhabitants (those who survive) will shake off the Hamas leadership."Both hopes are, of course, stupid. History has shown time and again that terrorizing a population causes it to unite behind its leaders and hate the enemy even more. That is happening now on both sides."

Thank you Uri Avnery.

Please read the rest below...it is a must...

The following is from http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/

Once And For All!  26/07/14 IN THIS war, both sides have the same aim: to put an end to the situation that existed before it started. Once And For All! To put an end to the launching of rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, Once And For All! To put an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt, Once And For All! So why don't the two sides come together without foreign interference and agree on tit for tat? They can't because they don't speak to each other. They can kill each other, but they cannot speak with each other. God forbid. THIS IS NOT a war on terror. The war itself is an act of terror. Neither side has a strategy other than terrorizing the civilian population of the other side. The Palestinian fighting organizations in Gaza try to impose their will by launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages, hoping that this will break the morale of the population and compel it to end the blockade that turns the Gaza Strip into an "open-air prison". The Israeli army is bombing the Gaza Strip population and destroying entire neighborhoods, hoping that the inhabitants (those who survive) will shake off the Hamas leadership. Both hopes are, of course, stupid. History has shown time and again that terrorizing a population causes it to unite behind its leaders and hate the enemy even more. That is happening now on both sides. SPEAKING ABOUT the two sides in a war, one can hardly avoid creating the impression of symmetry. But this war is far from symmetric. Israel has one of the largest and most efficient military machines in the world. Hamas and its local allies amount to a few thousand fighters, if that. The closest analogy one can find is the mythical story of David and Goliath. But this time we are Goliath, and they David. The story is generally misunderstood. True, Goliath was a giant and David a small shepherd, but Goliath was armed with old-fashioned weapons – heavy armor, sword and shield - and could hardly move, while David had a new-fangled surprise weapon, the sling, with which he could kill from a distance. Hamas hoped to achieve the same with its rockets, whose reach was a surprise. Also with the number and efficiency of their tunnels, which are reaching into Israel. However, this time Goliath too was inventive, and the Iron Dome missile batteries intercepted practically all the rockets that could have harmed population centers, including my neighborhood in Tel Aviv. By now we know that neither side can compel the other side to capitulate. It's a draw. So why go on killing and destroying? Ah, there's the rub. We can't talk to each other. We need intermediaries. A CARTOON in Haaretz this week shows Israel and Hamas fighting, and a bunch of mediators dancing in a circle around them. They all want to mediate. They are fighting each other because each of them wants to mediate, if possible alone. Egypt, Qatar, the US, the UN, Turkey, Mahmoud Abbas, Tony Blair and several more. Mediators galore. Each wants to gain something from the misery of war. It's a sorry lot. Most of them pitiful, some of them outright disgusting. Take Egypt, ruled by a bloodstained military dictator. He is a full-time collaborator with Israel, as was Hosny Mubarak before him, only more efficient. Since Israel controls all the other land and sea borders of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian border is Gaza's only outlet to the world. But Egypt, the former leader of the Arab world, is now a subcontractor of Israel, more determined than Israel itself to starve the Gaza Strip and kill Hamas. Egyptian TV is full of "journalists" who curse the Palestinians in the most vulgar terms and grovel before their new Pharaoh. But Egypt now insists on being the sole broker of the cease-fire. The UN Secretary General is rushing around. He was chosen for his job by the US because he is not outstandingly clever. Now he looks pitiful. But not more pitiful than John Kerry, a pathetic figure flying hither and thither, trying to convince everyone that the US is still a world power. Gone are the days when Henry Kissinger commanded the leaders of Israel and the Arab countries what to do and what not (especially telling them not to talk to each other, but only to him.) What exactly is the role of Mahmoud Abbas? Nominally, he is the president of the Gaza Strip, too. But he gives the impression of trying to mediate between the de facto Gaza government and the world. He is much closer to Tel Aviv than to Gaza. And so the list goes on. The ridiculous figure of Tony Blair. The European Foreign Ministers trying to get a photo opportunity with their neo-fascist Israeli colleague. Altogether, a disgusting sight. I want to cry out to my government and to the Hamas leaders: For God's sake, forget about the whole sorry lot, talk to each other! THE PALESTINIAN fighting capabilities are surprising everyone, especially the Israeli army. Instead of begging for a ceasefire by now, Hamas is refusing until its demands are met, while Binyamin Netanyahu seems eager to stop before sinking even deeper into the Gaza morass – a nightmare for the army. The last war began with the assassination of the Hamas military commander, Ahmad al-Jaabari. His successor is an old acquaintance, Mohammed Deif, whom Israel has tried to assassinate several times, causing him severe injuries. It now appears that he is far more capable than his predecessor – the web of tunnels, the production of far more effective rockets, the better trained fighters – all this attests to a more competent leader. (This has happened before. We assassinated a Hizbollah leader, Abbas al-Mussawi, and got the far more talented Hassan Nasrallah.) In the end, some kind of cease-fire will come into being. It will not be the end Once And For All. It never is. What will remain? THE HATRED between the two sides has grown. It will remain. The hatred of many Israelis for Israel's Arab citizens has grown considerably, and this cannot be repaired for a long time. Israeli democracy has been hard hit. Neo-Fascist groups, once a fringe, are now accepted in the mainstream. Some cabinet ministers and Knesset members are outright fascist. They are acclaimed now by almost all the world's leaders and repeat parrot-like Netanyahu's most threadbare propaganda slogans. But millions around the world have seen day after day the terrible pictures of devastation and death in the Gaza Strip. These will not be eradicated from their minds by a cease-fire. Israel's already precarious standing in the world will sink even lower. Inside Israel itself, decent people feel more and more uncomfortable. I have heard many utterances by simple people who suddenly talk about emigration. The choking atmosphere inside the country, the awful conformism of all our media (with Haaretz a shining exception), the certainty that war will follow war forever – all this is leading young people to dream about a quiet life with their families in Los Angeles or Berlin. In the Arab world the consequences will be even worse. For the first time, almost all Arab governments have openly embraced Israel in the fight against Hamas. For young Arabs anywhere, this is an act of shameful humiliation. The Arab Spring was an uprising against the corrupt, oppressive and shameless Arab elite. The identification with the plight of the forsaken Palestinian people was an important part of this. What has happened now is, from the point of view of today's young Arabs, worse, much worse. Egyptian generals, Saudi princes, Kuwaiti emirs and their peers throughout the region stand before their younger generation naked and contemptible, while the Hamas fighters look like shining examples. Unfortunately, this reaction may lead to an even more radical Islamism. WHILE STANDING in an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv, I was asked by a nice young man: "OK, assuming that this war is bad, what would you do at 6 o'clock after the war?" (That was the name of a famous World War II Soviet movie.) Well, to start with I would drive away all the mediators and start to talk directly with fighters of the other side. I would agree to put an immediate end to the land, sea and air blockade of the Gaza Strip and allow the Gazans to build a decent port and airport. On all routes, effective controls must ensure that no weapons are let in. I would ask that Hamas, after receiving international guarantees, remove in reasonable stages all rockets and destroy all tunnels under the border. I would certainly release at once all the Shalit-exchange prisoners who were re-arrested at the start of the present crisis. An obligation undertaken under pressure is still an obligation, and cheating by a government is still ugly. I would recognize, and call upon the world to recognize, the Palestinian Unity Government and do nothing to impede free Palestinian presidential and parliamentary elections, under international inspection. I would undertake to respect the results, whatever they may be. I would immediately start honest peace negotiations with the unified Palestinian leadership, on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative. Now that so many Arab governments embrace Israel, there seems to be a unique chance for a peace agreement. In short, put an end to the war Once And For All.

THERE ARE WAR CRIMES, THERE ARE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY...AND THEN THERE ARE THE DEAD

It is Prison Friday...and well...since Gaza is basically just one large open air prison, I guess I can say this sort of belongs here.  By posting this article I am not making some statement about proportionality, who is to blame for what.  I am not interested in letting anyone off the hook.  I know that saying anything usually ticks off someone.  Of course, as the BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD sang long, long ago, 

"Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

There are things that I know are wrong here and one of those is the occupation itself. 

Beyond that, I am pretty much going to let the following article speak for itself.  

Pretty much all I have to say is today, 

"And then there are the people...who are just... dead."

The following comes from +972.

Israeli, Hamas war crimes becoming increasingly hard to distinguish

Both sides are guilty of violating international law but the source of an attack on a Gaza UN school could be a game changer.

By Lolita Brayman

An attack on a United Nations-run facility in northern Gaza sheltering displaced Palestinians left at least 15 civilians killed and many more wounded on Thursday morning, reports indicate. Israel and Hamas are pointing fingers and negating responsibility for the deadly incident, the circumstances of which remain unclear but are significant in light of the UN Human Rights Council’s recent launch of a commission of inquiry into alleged Israeli war crimes.

The Israeli army is investigating the source of the hit, while UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon condemned the attack and admitted in an official statement that the circumstances remain unclear. Israel denied intentionally targeting the school belonging to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is located in the densely populated northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, but did say that it fired mortars in the area after the army was shot at from a source nearby.

Both the Israeli army and UNRWA spokesperson Chris Gunness confirmed that Hamas rockets were being fired near the UNRWA school, and that sometimes Hamas rockets fall short of their intended Israeli targets. It is also confirmed that the exact location of the UNRWA shelter was known to the Israeli army and that several rockets fell in Beit Hanoun that same day. The army spokesperson also tweeted that the Red Cross was told to evacuate civilians from the UNRWA shelter between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., as they were planning on targeting nearby Hamas rocket launchers. Gunness confirmed via his Twitter account that the precise coordinates of the school were formally given to the army.

The source of the attack seems to be one of the following possible scenarios: 1) A Hamas rocket was launched from Beit Hanoun aimed at Israel and fell short of its target, landing on the UNRWA school; 2) the Israeli army targeted the Hamas rocket launchers in Beit Hanoun and accidentally hit the shelter; or 3) Israeli forces responding to Hamas militant fire shelled the school accidentally by targeting the source of the fire.

In a rather ambiguous tweet, Gunness wrote: “UNRWA tried to coordinate with the Israeli army a window for civilians to leave and it was never granted.” This is vague because it is unclear whether the Israeli army or Hamas refused to grant the opportunity for civilians to evacuate – a very pivotal factor in determining which side would be liable for the violation of international law that resulted in a large number of civilian casualties.

If a Hamas rocket is found to be the cause of this latest tragedy, Hamas could be found liable for crimes against humanity under international humanitarian law and customary international law. By intentionally targeting Israeli civilians with rockets, Hamas is in violation of the strict law of war standard, whereby only military objectives are permitted as military targets. The mens rea (guilty mind) intent is not negated even though their target was not the victim – the Geneva Conventions distinguish civilians from non-combatants but not civilians from civilians.

If the Israeli army is found to be responsible for the deadly attack due to an accident while targeting a rocket launcher, it would not be in violation of targeting civilians because the mark was clearly a legitimate military objective. However, Israel’s precision would come into question and the issue of proportionality must then be addressed as a principle of international customary law. Attacks seen as excessive in relation to concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated are considered unlawful.

Palestinians prepare the body of a baby in Kamal Edwan Hospital’s morgue after an attack on Beit Hanoun elementary school killed at least 17 people, Jabalyia, Gaza Strip, July 24. The school was being used as a shelter by 800 people at the time (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills)

The UN facility itself might be considered a legitimate military target since UNRWA schools have recently housed military objectives: On two separate occasions since the start of Operation Protective Edge, UN aid workers discovered a cache of weapons in UNRWA facilities and returned them to Gaza authorities. However, the Israeli army would not necessarily be absolved of responsibility for the civilians’ deaths even if it was found that proper evacuation procedures and warnings were effectively communicated. In international courts, Israel would still have to prove that the targeted buildings were making an effective contribution to Hamas’ military effort at the time it was attacked.

A similar legal analysis of proportionality would have to be assessed if the source was found to be Israeli artillery fire in response to Hamas militant fire.

It is indisputable that Hamas militants operate in urban and residential areas of the Strip, but whether they are guilty of using human shields is an extremely contested debate. It can be concluded from the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, and the Statute of the International Criminal court that a co-location of civilians and military objectives can amount to the use of human shields. Moreover, historic examples of this war crime have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield them from attacks. Since UNRWA schools previously had hidden military objectives on their premises and then sheltered civilians in these buildings, the attack resembles – from a legal perspective – the use of human shields; however, more evidence would be needed to make this argument.

The tragic UNRWA hit comes a day after the UNHRC condemned Israel for its military operation and issued a commission of inquiry into alleged Israeli war crimes. The 49-member council backed the Palestinian-drafted resolution by 29 votes, with the U.S. being the only state to vote against the resolution. Although the condemnation is a far cry from actual UN judicial action – the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly threatened to seek redress from the International Criminal Court (ICC) – it places a significantly harsh international spotlight on Israel and delegitimizes military action in Gaza.

A Palestinian girl cries after an attack on Beit Hanoun elementary school, as people mourn in Kamal Edwan Hospital, Jabalyia, Gaza Strip, July 24. The school was being used as a shelter by 800 people. The attack killed at least 17 and injured more than 200 of the displaced civilians. (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills)

It is a little-known fact that international law is an ever-evolving field dependent on state actors, who sometimes take advantage of the law’s ambiguity in interpretation. The authenticity of seeking justice via UN courts should be questioned, because the threat alone can be manipulated into a political tool to delegitimize instead of persecute. The ICC in particular has limited authority in imposing international law convictions because many countries, including the U.S., China and Russia, are hesitant to become signatories; however, the court does influence policy making and what conflicts are worthy of media attention. In the Palestinian case, acceding to the Rome Statute – a necessary step for ICC action – would also open the Palestinian Authority to persecution for Hamas’ war crimes. This is a potentially disastrous move for the newly established and unstable Palestinian unity agreement.

International law and the media have a hard time distinguishing between legality and legitimacy. In a recent INSS report, Pnina Sharvit Baruch, a former legal advisor for the Israeli army, explained: “Issues touching on the legality of Israel’s actions are not synonymous with issues concerning the legitimacy of these actions in the international arena, and legal actions may still be deemed illegitimate.” The UNHRC commission is an example of this difference: Israel’s legitimacy was questioned, no actual judicial action was proscribed, and the very next day both sides violated international law, resulting in more casualties.

At the end of the day, international law might just be adding more fuel to the fire and feeding the media frenzy by blurring the lines between legality and legitimization, and Hamas and Israeli war crimes. The debate over fault in the UNRWA attack will hopefully draw attention to the political consequences of UN condemnations and its shortcomings in creating a facilitative environment for a ceasefire to materialize.

ALEC, MONSANTO, CARGILL TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE IN MISSOURI WITH SO CALLED "RIGHT TO FARM AMENDMENT"

I was not going to do Scission today, but then a friend just told me about an amendment on the ballot here in Missouri.  It is referred to as the "right to farm" amendment.  It has about as much to do with the right to farm as "right to work" has to do with the right to work....and it is Global Capital in my backyard.

The ballot language for the proposed Right To Farm amendment (Amendment One) to the Missouri Constitution seems harmless enough: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?”

Sounds, okay, but who knew Missouri citizens didn't have the right to farm anyway?

The bill's supporters claim the measure will protect small farmers from the likes of animal rights groups.

The Linn County Leader notes though all is not so clear:

Those who oppose the proposed Right To Farm amendment counter that far from protecting small family farms, the measure gives free rein to large corporate producers like Smithfield Foods to continue expanding without fear of ‘nuisance lawsuits’ over odors, flies, and runoff that are bound to be present when livestock are confined in the kinds of numbers only a large corporate operation can handle.

Did I forget to mention that here in Missouri we have some big problems with huge corporate hog farms and the like, with Monsanto gmo seeds, patents,  and the like?    The Amendment will give rights to large corporations to expand factory farms into rural areas without any regard to the health and well-being of the local residents.

Richard Halinski makes writes in a letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, 

It is important to note that a co-sponsor of “right to farm” was Rep. Jason Smith, whose family owns Smith’s Kennels, a puppy mill in Missouri. This bill was introduced after Proposition B was approved by Missouri voters; it's not hard to see Amendment 1 is simply payback for Proposition B.

That is small potatoes compared to what is actually going on here. You ain't heard nothing yet. 

In fact, nothing says “Owned by Monsanto” like this proposed amendment. This proposed Constitutional Amendment will ensure that CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) proliferate, and lay the ground for no holds barred transgenic manipulation and proliferation of ALL genetically engineered organisms in our State.

Truth Farmer comments,

In light of Monsanto being headquartered in St Louis as they are, and Monsanto’s  roughly 90% control of the total crops in genetically modified corn and soy, having sold their GMO pig, and moving ever forward in patenting and mutating all life on the planet, that scares the heck out of me!

Would this proposed Amendment destroy any chance of our ever having a right to know if we are eating GMO products or not? It sure could be argued that letting people know what they are consuming would prohibit farmers from using some “modern” “technology” in their ag endeavors.

This bill is NOT good for farmers. It will greatly increase further consolidation of agriculture, increase proliferation of genetically modified patented life forms, and destroy local control of the spread of the consolidating (ie. Family Farm Destroying) CAFO’s.

There is only one segment of the population that this is “good” for. The Biotech and Mega Farm Corporations.

Like many who live in cities and urban areas (and even rural areas) of the state, I didn't know much of anything about this bill.  In Kansas City, interestingly, the supposedly progressive, inner city Democratic political  organization, Freedom Inc., endorses the bill.  In fact, it was a member of the group, a Democrat, who cast the deciding vote to put the bill on the ballot.  The group has put out much material encouraging those living in urban Kansas City to support the amendment.  Many likely will having no idea what they are voting for.

Democracy in action.  You betya.

Moving on.

The primary beneficiary of right to farm amendments would be large corporately-controlled, industrial operations. At the very least, a constitutional “right to farm” would lead to endless, costly litigation which corporate agriculture believes they could win. The corporations’ commitment is to their stockholders, not to consumers, farmers, or rural communities. Corporate agriculture does not provide food for the 20 percent of American children who live in “food insecure” homes or hungry people developing countries, many of whom have been driven from their subsistence farms by agricultural industrialization. 

Oh well.

Missouri, of course, isn't the only farm state with such shenanigans going on.  A quick look at Google by Margot Ford McMillen at Rural Routes found,

...three states with efforts for constitutional amendments similar to Missouri’s proposals. Another few keystrokes and I found the source of the language. It came from ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. And on the ALEC website, a few more clicks took me to the list of legislative members from Missouri.

In November 2012, North Dakota, a state besieged with fracking (and, yes, ALEC has policies and sample legislation favoring that subject also) passed a “right to farm” amendment into the constitution. Its language is eerily like the proposal in Missouri: The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.

While you might think this guarantees farmers against the frackers, please note the seriously vague and troubling words “modern,” “technology,” and the confusing phrase “no law shall be enacted …” So, in North Dakota, no county, township, parish, city or any governmental body will be able to pass a law or ordinance to protect themselves from chemicals, GMOs, CAFOs or any other kind of industrial farming scheme.

Not only will farmers be affected. This amendment can have serious repercussions for consumers: North Dakota, one of our chief wheat-raising states, will not be able to refuse to plant untested (and untrusted) GMO wheat under this Constitutional clause.

The same sort of language is being considered in Montana, another primary wheat-raising state, and in Indiana, one of the buckles on the corn belt. 

It is true, much of the drive behind the amendments has come from big corporations. Members of Missouri Farmers Care include Cargill—one of the nation’s largest processors of beef, pork, and turkey—and Monsanto (MON), as well as a long list of state agricultural industry associations.  It is also a fact, that  in 1996, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, came up with model legislation that would expand existing right-to-farm laws to grant wide-ranging legal rights to farms of all sizes. ALEC’s bill, intended as a template for state politicians, voided local farm ordinances and made it harder to lodge complaints about animal mistreatment, pollution, and noise.

With friends like Monsanto, Cargill and Alec, hey, this amendment has got to be good...NOT.

Missouri's Right to Farm amendment is, in fact, modeled after the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) model bill given to legislators across the country. (Jason Smith, former state representative, was co-chair of ALEC in Missouri.) ALEC serves corporate interests and major funding comes from the Koch brothers. The recent action of the Missouri Legislature in passing HB 650, which limits the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded to plaintiffs against the Doe Run Company (responsible for years of lead pollution in Herculaneum, Mo.), is another example of Missouri legislators  serving corporate interests as they talk about jobs. Doe Run knew of the pollution and continues to ruin the health of the people who live near its smelter, now located in Peru.

Jake Davis, a farmer and co-owner of Root Cellar, a local food grocer, said Amendment 1 is wrong for the local farmers in Missouri.  He told KOMU:

Even though this amendment has been labeled 'the freedom to farm amendment,' really this has very little to do with small family farmers. It has a lot more to do with big agribusiness and corporations looking for blanket immunity to take action that might otherwise be regulated by state statue or local ordinances.

Opines the West Plains Daily Quill,

The “Right to Farm” amendment will make it easier for corporate farms to make a profit by forcing the public to pay for environmental and health damage. Now it may only be factory farms that raise animals in horrible conditions that are protected. Protected because these conditions are hidden from view because our legislature passed an “ag-gag” bill making it a crime to reveal those inhumane practices. It may soon be factory farm corporations that destroy water supplies by exporting our ground water. The only restriction on water use is “Reasonable use requires that other users and landowners not be overly impacted in an adverse manner.” But the “Right to Farm” constitutional amendment would overrule this guideline and change what's reasonable and put a corporate farm's needs before those of real people. Family farms are not under threat except by corporate factory farms. “Right to Farm” will make it harder for citizens to get corporate factory farms to be good citizens.

Amendment 1 will not give farmers protection from Monsanto lawsuits. It won’t protect farmers from multinational, billion-dollar ag corporations. In fact, the amendment will    provide an almost impenetrable wall of protection for corporate agri-business to do whatever it wants, however it wants, wherever it wants.  The amendment will  help shield large industrial dairies, feedlots, and slaughterhouses from environmental and food safety regulations—and curb lawsuits from people who get sick from the rivers of noxious animal waste they produce.

One small Missouri farmer, Frank L. Martin III, speaking for many others recently wrote:

What cannot be dismissed is the fear that purchasers of Monsanto seed must sign a contract dictating how it can be used. A license to use seed as we wish? Freedom to farm?

I am not as concerned about Amendment 1 protecting Monsanto’s practices as I am about it allowing corporate farming companies free rein to operate as they wish.

For example, I don’t want wake up one morning to find a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) upstream or uphill from my farm.

CAFOs aren’t good neighbors to family farmers.

One example of corporate farming is Smithfield Foods, Inc. which was sold to the Chinese company Shuanghui last year.

Even before it was sold it was a menace to family farmers and not just because they can’t compete with it successfully. It is huge. It owns companies that produce foods we know from our supermarkets. There are too many to list.

Smithfield raises 15 million pigs on its own. It processes 27 million total, producing 6 billion pounds of pork per year.

In 1997, Smithfield was fined $12.6 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for 6,900 violations of clean water regulations. As an example, its slaughterhouses dumped huge amounts of waste into a river, polluting it. The damage to the river itself and area water supplies was immense.

The company didn’t do enough to guard against such a spill.

In 1999, Smithfield settled with North Carolina after it failed to contain water after Hurricane Floyd flooded its lagoons. It agreed to pay $50 million over 25 years as a fine and $1.3 million to clean up its mess.

I don’t want Smithfield, or any other mega-corporations, especially those owned by the Chinese, from building a factory farm next to mine. I don’t want hog waste flowing from my shower heads and kitchen faucets.

And remember, Smithfield is but one of many industrial farmers. There are an estimated 500 large hog operations in the river valley Smithfield polluted alone.

I also don’t want Roundup or some other herbicide or insecticide sprayed over my home and farm by air.

How could these things happen? Amendment 1 protects the farming practices of corporate farmers absolutely.

All farming and ranching practices are guaranteed forever? The right to build factory farms--including those with thousands of hogs confined next to family farms? Spraying poison over our homes and farms that can also drift over towns? Protected absolutely and forever? Do we want that?

Factory farms could flaunt present regulations concerning the air we breathe and the water we drink. The amendment seems to clear the way to do legally what they already do illegally.

I don't usually get involved in electoral issues, but this one is close to home, and this one is actually a good example of why I don't.  Representative democracy or whatever you want to call what we have here in the USA is a joke and a lie.  This proposed amendment and the subterfuge being used to pass it is a good example.  

As the Kansas City Star writes:

 The uninitiated voter reading that ballot language will understandably be confused. Is farming in Missouri in trouble?

It is not. Agriculture in Missouri is a profitable industry. Amendment 1 is a concerted effort to shield factory farms and concentrated agricultural feeding operations from regulations to protect livestock, consumers and the environment.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article603633.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article603633.html#storylink=cpy

The following is from Wolf Creek Family Farm.

Vote NO on Missouri Amendment 1 – “Right to Harm” not “Right to Farm”

Po

ste

Right to Farm should not include the Right to Harm

Several of you have asked about our opinion on Missouri Amendment 1, the “Right to Farm” amendment.  We know it sounds like something we would be supporting, but it’s exactly the opposite.  We are encouraging all of you to vote NO on Missouri Amendment 1.

At first glance, the wording of the amendment (and what will be on the ballot) sounds encouraging: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the  right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching  practices shall not be infringed?”  This does not tell you the true content of the amendment. Voters are simply asked to vote “yes” or “no” on the above language, which sounds like a good thing.

However, let’s look at the actual amendment, which contains two Resolutions, nos. 11 and 7.  Here is the verbatim wording from those Resolutions (I’ve bolded the passages that are most concerning to us):

Resolution 7:  “That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern livestock production and ranching practices.“

Resolution 11:  “That agriculture, which provides food, energy, and security, is thefoundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector ofMissouri’s economy, it shall be the right of persons to raise livestock in a humane mannerwithout the state imposing an undue economic burden on animal owners. No lawcriminalizing the welfare of any livestock shall be valid unless based upon generallyaccepted scientific principles and enacted by the general assembly.”

There are no definitions provided in the language of these bills; “agricultural technology” usually means the biotech industry, including genetically modified plants and animals (they’ve already come up with spider goats… what’s next?).  “Modern livestock production” generally includes confined operations, including chickens in warehouses, pigs in farrowing crates, cattle in feedlots.

This does NOT protect family farms.  This does NOT protect sustainable farmers or those who believe in the welfare of their animals.  This allows corporate and large farms to use all the GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers they want without anyone being able to say anything against it.  This allows CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) to operate freely without the ability for anyone to argue against their practices or try to enact laws that restrict their harmful practices without getting a multitude of the scientific community to back them (And, if the state decided to have cats and dogs fall under the livestock category, puppy mills would be protected, too).  This protects producers of GMO technology (i.e. Monsanto, Syngenta, etc.) and destroys the ability of sustainable and organic growers to protect themselves against what they call “agricultural technology.”  This leads to air pollution, water pollution, and so much more.

This could allow the government to later mandate practices that are completely out of line with our growing ideals, like requiring the irradiation of our produce before we offer it for sale.  It could prevent our ability to save seed or preserve livestock bloodlines.  We would have no recourse against genetically altered crops that infiltrate our fields.  It will further jeopardize the ability of small farms to compete in an open market and lead to more of them going bankrupt.

The rights of Missouri farmers are already, inherently, protected.  It’s the corporations and big ag special interests that are taking that away from us.  This, from the Joplin Globe:

Darvin Bentlage, a Barton County farmer, made a compelling case in this newspaper that what’s threatening small, independent family farms is big ag — corporate ag — which is what some critics think this amendment is designed to protect.

“I remember our right to farm when we didn’t have to sign a grower’s contract to buy seed, a document telling us what we could and couldn’t do with what we grew on our farm,” Bentlage argued. “I remember when family farmers could load their own feeder pigs in their truck and go to the local auction and sell their livestock in an open and competitive market. So who’s taken this right to farm away from us? It is the same corporate factory farm supporters, corporations and organizations that have pushed this constitutional amendment through the Missouri Legislature.”

The ballot question asks, “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranging practices shall not be infringed?”

Infringed by whom? What practices? And who qualifies as a farmer in Missouri?

Smithfield Foods, for example, owner of Premium Standard Farms? How about Tyson Foods? Both of those are Fortune 500 companies that count their revenue in the billions.

Which Tyson practice “shall not be infringed,” the one that left more than 100,000 dead fish in Clear Creek this spring?

It’s Missouri that may need protection from big ag.

We can’t state it any more plainly.  Please, please, please, pass the word to your friends and neighbors.  Vote NO on Missouri Amendment 1.  The right to farm should not include the right to harm.

Karin and Arcenio Velez

Share this: