Ethan Frome Essays (585 words) - Ethan Frome, Children Of Passions

Ethan Frome Ethan Frome, the main character in the book entitled Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton, has many complex problems going on at the same time. His family has died and he has a wife that is continually sick, and the only form of happiness he has is from his wife's cousin Mattie. This, however, at times, proves to be hard because of his wife's interference. Nothing seems to be going in Ethan's favor. The main theme of the book is failure, and this is shown through marrying his wife, not being able to stand up to his wife, and his involvement concerning the "smash up." The first way failure is shown in the book is through the marriage of Ethan and his wife. He married her because she had tried to help his mother recover from an illness and once his mother died he could not bear the thought of being alone. His wife was seven years his senior and always seemed to have some kind of illness. It seemed that all she ever did was complain, and he resented this because it stifled his growing soul. Since his wife was continuously ill, and her cousin needed a place to stay, they took her in to help around the house. Ethan took an immediate liking to her cousin, Mattie, because she brought a bright light upon his dismal day. He seemed to have found someone that cared for him, was always happy, and could share his youth, unlike his sickly wife who always nagged him. He longed to be with Mattie, however he had to be loyal to his wife. Being married to the wrong person proved to be Ethan's first failure. Ethan's second failure was not being able to stand up for himself against his wife. Zeena claimed that a new doctor said that she was extremely sick, and needed more help around the house. She told him, without any discussion, that Mattie had to go. Ethan could not find the words to make her alter her decision. His wife also decided that Mattie had to leave the next day itself and Ethan could not do anything about it. " Now she [his wife] had mastered him [Ethan]...." provides proof of this. Ethan just could not find the right things to say and it was because of not being able to stand up to his wife that he was going to lose the only thing that made him happy, Mattie. Ethan's last failure was the way he modified his and Mattie's lives regarding the "smash up." He so desperately wanted to run away with Mattie, but he could not because his practical sense told him it was not feasible to do so. Mattie wanted so desperately to be with Ethan, that she suggested in order to stay together forever was to die together. It was Ethan's job to steer the sled into the tree, so that it looked like an accidental death instead of suicide. Instead of hitting the tree head on, he swerved and it did not kill either of them. Instead, it just injured them, and these injuries stayed with them forever. In this way Ethan had his last failure in not exceeding to die with his love, instead he had to live with the guilt from his wife, the injured Mattie, and broken dreams. In these three way of marrying the wrong person, not being able to stand up to his wife, and incidents that come from the smash up, proves that the main theme of the book is failure. It appeared that everything Ethan tried to do worked against his favor. With all the incidents that happened, it seemed inevitable that his life would always be a string of failure.

The concept “Lifting the veil of incorporation” essay

The concept â€Å"Lifting the veil of incorporation† essay The concept â€Å"Lifting the veil of incorporation† essay The concept â€Å"Lifting the veil of incorporation† essayBy using real life examples, discuss and explain why the concept of  «Lifting the Veil of Incorporation » is of imperative importance.Legal entity is separate, independent from its founders (the ability to own property, enter into commitments and act as a plaintiff, defendant in court). Immanent feature of independent nature of the legal entity defines limited liability of its founders: they are not liable for the obligations of a legal entity (ie, under the veil). Development and complication of civil law led to the need of development of a list of exceptions to this principle, mainly to counteract the abuse of law. This doctrine is known as the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation or piercing the veil of incorporation and is present in the corporate law of many countries, including France, Germany, the UK and the USA. English law is one of the most developed in this sphere. Basic principles of the indepen dence of the legal person were laid at the end of 19th century and since then they have been constantly actively developed and refined.In the UK, the concept of joint stock company, which is separate from its shareholders, was first introduced to the law by the Act of 1844 (Maltby 1998). Companies received limited liability later in 1855 (Cameron 2013). In 1862, there was adopted the first Companies Act (Pulbrook 1865), which has become a progenitor of Companies Act of 2006 (The National Archives 2007).Under the current law, companies are separate legal entities, and the responsibility of their participants may be limited (Bishop , Kleinberger 2008). That means that the company is not liable for the obligations of its members and directors, and members, as well as director – for the obligations of a limited liability company.There are few legislative exceptions to this rule. Thus, the insolvency law provides certain cases, when the director of the company or other responsibl e person may be compelled by a court to contribute to the assets of the company as a punishment for his illegal actions (Wormser 2001). In addition to regulations, rules established by case law are an important part of English law.  Content and origin of the doctrineThe doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation admits the fundamental possibility of imposing liability for companys obligations to its controlling person. There can be an opposite situation, when the penalty for a person or entity is drawn to the assets the company under control. Sometimes shareholder himself requires piercing the veil of incorporation. This usually it concerns not obligations, but the rights of company, which shareholder wishes to have.Lifting the veil, in fact, means that for the purposes of the dispute (and only for this purpose), the Court acknowledges that the company is not separate entity from the controlling person, and attributes obligations and (or) rights of company to this person (Macmi llan 2000). However, lifting the veil is allowed only in certain exceptional circumstances, which are discussed below.Perhaps for the first time at a high judicial level the issue of removing the corporate veil was discussed in 1897 in the classical case of Salomon v A. Salomon Co Ltd from (Vast Blue Sky 2011). Majority owned 20001 share of the company, and his wife and children owed six more (under the law of time, company had to have at least seven shareholders). Despite the fact that the majority shareholder was in full control of the company (shoe factory), which later went bankrupt, the House of Lords, acting as a court of last resort, refused liquidator to entrust the shareholder liable for the debts of the company. The court took quite a formalistic position, stating that all the requirements of the law regarding the establishment of a limited liability company had been met, and the court had no right to add any additional requirements (Mann 2012).Present state of the issueS peaking about more modern precedents, we should remember the case of DHN Food Distributors v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (Kershaw 2002) in 1976. It was quite unusual in the sense that it controlling person of the company demanded lifting the veil. The parent company wanted to take the place of its sub-company. In this case, a piece of land in London was a subject for the compulsory buy for public needs. The land was formally owned by the company, which was part of DHN group holding company that owned grocery stores. Warehouse of DHN store was just on that land, and, by agreement with the sub-company, DHN had a right of perpetual lease. Its withdrawal led to the cessation of DHN business, and it could claim for damages if it owned the land. DHN applied to the court for lifting the veil of incorporation, referring to the fact that it completely controlled its sub-company. Namely, (1) it participated in the capital of the sub-company of 100%, (2) the directors of both compan ies were the same people, and (3) sub-company was used exclusively for holding land and did not conduct any independent activity. The Court agreed with the arguments of the plaintiff and the lifted the veil, allowing DHN receive compensation for withdrawal of the land instead of its sub-company (Dine 2005).Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council from 1978 was a very similar case, which ended with an opposite result (Talbot 2008). Commercial property in Glasgow, where there was a wedding dress shop, was forcibly bought for public use (highway construction). Since the case took place in Scotland, the trial courts were not British but Scottish, and the House of Lords became final authority. If the court recognized that the property belonged to the same person, leading retail business, that person would receive additional compensation for the deprivation of business. However, the plaintiff, who really controlled the whole business, organized asset ownership in a too complicated way. His share in the company, which owned real estate was 50%, while the share in the company leading business 99.9% (the remaining shares were owned by the wife of the plaintiff). Those circumstances did not allow the courts, following the logic of DHN case (it was not formal precedent for the courts of Scotland), pronounce judgment for plaintiff (Talbot 2008).In the important case of Adams v Cape Industries in 1990 (Thompson 1991), the Appeals Court considered the issue of lifting the veil of incorporation for jurisdictional purposes, ie for the purpose of determining the competent court. British company sold asbestos in the United States (before 1970) through its affiliated corporations in the United States. Subsequently, the workers of American factory sued a number of defendants including the British company for damages caused to the health of the plaintiffs when working with asbestos. Lawsuit for millions of dollars was satisfied by Texas court. However, the English court refused to enforce the decision of the American court, finding that the British company, which is not active in the USA, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the US court. And the reasons for lifting the veil (ie to make British company responsible for the obligations of American sub-company) were absent, because the affiliate in the United States was not a facade of the British company.In the same case, there was discussed the possibility of prosecution parent company to the liability for the obligations of its subsidiary on several other grounds, when the subsidiary is recognized as an agent of the parent company. Indeed, parent company is responsible for transactions made in his interest by the agent. However, you must prove the actual existence of the agency relationship, which, according to the Court, in this case has not been made. Control of one company over another does not mean the presence of the agency relationship between them. The court in this case distinguishes lifting the v eil of incorporation and imposing responsibility for subsidiary. In the latter case there is no need of deprivation status of a separate legal entity, ie the corporate veil remains in place.The present state of the doctrine of lifting the veil in England can be found in pretty exotic case of the High Court of England and Wales Hashem v Shayif in 2008 (Bainbridge 2010). It was between a citizen of Saudi Arabia and one of his wives under sharia law about real estate in England. Although the dispute relates generally to family law, it also touches issues of corporate law. The family property legally belonged to a legal entity a company in Jersey. The question was whether the wife after divorce could take that property, as if it belonged to her husband directly. The court eventually found that she could not. The main role was played by the fact that her husband owned only 30% stake in the company, and 70% were issued for his children (Mann 2012).This case describes in detail the ground s for applying the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation. Judge James Manby formulated the following items of the case law applicable to this case (Bainbridge 2010).Ownership and control are not sufficient criteria to remove the corporate veil.The Court can not remove the corporate veil only because it is in the interests of justice.Corporate veil can be removed only if there is impropriety.Impropriety itself is not enough. It should be associated with the use of the corporate structure to avoid or conceal liability.In order to remove the corporate veil, it is necessary to prove the presence of control, and the presence of impropriety, that is, the use of the company as a facade to hide violation of law (Gevurtz 2006).The problem of transition contractual obligationsDoctrine of lifting the veil received further development in the case Antonio Gramsci v Stepanovs (2011) (Nyombi 2014). The principle of lifting the veil of incorporation is often used for transition tort liabili ty from the company to its owner. In those cases there was an issue of transferring contractual obligations the same way. English courts have traditionally carefully treated the principle of privity of contract, according to which no one other than the parties of the contract have rights or obligations under this contract. Can a private nature of the contract be removed together with corporate veil? The courts in these two cases gave the opposite answers to this question, and ultimately it had to be addressed in the UK highest court (Nyombi 2014).The essence Antonio Gramsci v Stepanovs is the following. Latvian businessman S., being one of the directors of the Latvian Shipping Company leased the ships of his company through an offshore company, which was controlled by him and other directors of the shipping company. The offshore company accumulated profit. Subsequently, the Latvian Shipping Company initiated a lawsuit to recover lost profit. Freight agreement between shipowners and offshore companies contained prorogation clause that disputes had to be considered by the courts of England. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court to apply the doctrine of lifting corporate veil and bring to justice not only offshore companies, but also the entrepreneur based on solidarity.Judge Michael Burton determined that the removal of the corporate veil provides an opportunity to recognize an individual responsible for contractual obligations of the company he controlled. As a result, the judge found that the Latvian businessman is a party of contract signed by offshore company. The court found it possible to consider a claim for the entrepreneur, though he didn’t sign prorogation agreement (Palmiter 2006).Criminal legal contextAbove we discussed the principle of lifting the veil of incorporation only in the context of civil proceedings. Criminal cases have their own specifics. In the case of R v Seager (Bishop    Kleinberger 2012) (2009) the dispute was about whet her to consider the entire income of the company illegal and subject to confiscation income of its director, if the latter ran the company in spite of an injunction. Judge of Appellate Court Richard Aikens formulated the following specifics.In the context of criminal cases, courts have identified at least three situations when the corporate veil can be lifted. First, if the offender is trying to hide behind the corporate facade, or a veil to hide his crime and benefits from it. Secondly, if the offender commits an act on behalf of the company, which constitutes criminal offenses leading to his conviction. Third, if the transaction or commercial structures are device, cloak or sham, ie it an attempt to disguise the true nature of the transaction or structure to defraud third parties or the courts (Kershaw 2002).ConclusionDevelopment of civil law led to development of a list of exceptions to the principle that legal entity is separate and independent from its founders. This doctrine i s called lifting the veil of incorporation. It is present in the corporate law of many countries, including the UK, the USA, France, and Germany. English law is one of the most developed in this sphere. Basic principles of the independence of the legal person were laid at the end of 19th century and since then they have been constantly actively developed and refined.In the paper, we considered real life examples from the history of law and the cases of recent past. They show that the concept of  «lifting the veil of incorporation » is of imperative importance. And it is used not only in civil law, but can have criminal legal context too.

Comparison and Contrast on American Funeral and Wedding Essay - 1

Comparison and Contrast on American Funeral and Wedding - Essay Example This paper illustrates that there are no joyous celebrations on the day of the funeral and the much diversity of color that characterizes a wedding day is usually replaced by black as the most dominantly conspicuous color. The American way of celebrating both life and death does not differ much with the way it is done by other societies. To offer an insight into the American culture in terms of funeral and wedding celebrations, two authors in their literary works cover this in an elaborate way. Rebecca Mead in her book, One perfect day, gives an introspective insight into the American society’s wedding. On the other hand, Jessica Mitford also gives an in-depth analysis of the American society’s funeral in her book The American way of Death. In this study, American weddings are discussed first. Nature dictates that weddings are done before funerals. In the book about American weddings, Rebecca gives an interesting and formal perspective to weddings as a one-day celebrati on which has implications on the lives of those involved. America consists of all the three economic classes; the poor, the middle class, and the rich. It should be noted that all the classes have their way of doing things. The way in which one decides to celebrate his or her wedding is largely decided upon by the economic class of the individual. Celebrities give more attention to style and publicity in their weddings. Their weddings are characterized by media and paparazzi coverage. They invite personalities who are of significance taking into account the fact that the prominence of the people in the guest list plays a role in determining the attention the wedding gets. This is a fact that in their case is of more importance than the essence of the wedding itself. Most celebrities fall into the rich and popular category; the way they do their celebrations is replicated all over the upper class of the American society. Business people, in their weddings, invite the rich and powerfu l in the business world and in so doing, they build and strengthen their business contacts. Â  To most of them, such social gatherings are an extension of business and christened, ‘‘business in the lawn.’’

How do stereotypes affect the perception of male masculinity in the Research Paper

How do stereotypes affect the perception of male masculinity in the workplace - Research Paper Example This kind of profiling ranges from the unequal pay package to the court system. The paper will examine the impact of the male masculinity in the workplace mostly from the effects it has on both genders and accordingly where possible look at the ways that the stereotyping can be rectified in order to bring out the equality in every other workplace. Furthermore as the paper is examining the stereotype from mainly the female angle it should be put into consideration that even the male employees in a workplace also suffer from the kind of discrimination from their other male counterparts in relation to career and association. HOW STEREOTYPES AFFECT PERCEPTION OF MALE MASCULINITY IN A WORKPLACE Stereotyping When it comes to the workplace, gender stereotype can be an awfully traumatizing experience that any person should not undergo. By stereotyping a particular group of people or even having a perception of a particular group of people implies that the persons is being mistreated on the b asis of a predetermined philosophy that in most cases will not be true (Wood, 2012). By stereotyping a particular society it means that we are making a discernment based on objective scrutiny about that particular group of people. Stereotyping can be made on a persons presumption based on their age, race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. In the workplace the stereotyping exists although measures have been put in place to dissuade the discrimination especially based on the gender of individuals. In the societies, the equitable and fairness work place policies indicate that people are moving away from the notions of gender discrimination into a better and fair society (Paludi, 2012). Furthermore in the past years, laws have been put into place to discourage and prohibit gender discrimination. Male Masculinity Masculinity varies from each and everyone and when various people or societies get into contact with each other their own notion of masculinity has the potential of crea ting conflicts among themselves. By possessing characteristics and qualities typical of any male person it will be qualified to say that that is a perception of having the masculinity. The expression masculinity might be used to portray any human being, animal or even an object that has capability and eminence to be masculine and therefore is not limited to man alone. However Chrisler & McCreary (2010) claim that the usage of the term is mostly to associated with the male qualities in the society. The perception of masculinity was first used in the early 19th century just when the industrial revolution had just began. Swift transformation and advancement of technology has ensured that the standards of living have improved and become well and with this, the description of the term masculinity has also changed. Currently in the present workplace masculinity is definitely an aspect that has to be taken into consideration by directors and also by staff. This is mainly because it plays a critical and unique position in the way people interrelate with one another and outline the system (Hinsdale, Johnson, & Validated Instruction Associates Inc Albion 2010).   In the earliest impression of male masculinity, the concept of maleness and masculinity was that men did not work for the reason that they enjoyed it but somewhat; they did the work for the sole purpose of being called men. After that era men began believing that the worst that possibly

Supply Chain Integration Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Supply Chain Integration - Essay Example The study "Supply Chain Integration" will help to understand than the coordination of information for the common benefit of businesses in the supply chain is more effectively accomplished via the internet. The internet in supply chain integration is important for the sharing of information relative to supply and demand in a more timely manner and as such signifies the significance that information and knowledge have in the creation of â€Å"value†. It is useful for efficiently facilitating the means for adopting â€Å"an integrated approach throughout the supply chain† and allows for the more effective balancing of â€Å"autonomy and control† among the individual supply chain partners. GE’s online business network is indicative of the significance of using the internet for integrating supply chain management. GE’s online trading process is a significant improvement on the prior process which involves prolonged â€Å"labor intensive contract biding and award processes†. By using the internet, businesses are able to reach out to new markets by providing reduced costs for entrants, less â€Å"complexity with more flexibility† and more importantly offer a far more efficient method for doing business. Another development in international business behavior necessitating integrating the supply chain via the internet and via tB2B is the tendency to outsource and the formation of tactical partnerships among industries. The internet provides a forum by which supply chain integration is accomplished at minimal cost with optimal success.... The internet in supply chain integration is important for the sharing of information relative to supply and demand in a more timely manner and as such signifies the significance that information and knowledge has in the creation of â€Å"value† (Graham & Hardaker, 2000, p. 287). Graham and Hardaker (2000) maintain that the internet is useful for efficiently facilitating the means for adopting â€Å"an integrated approach throughout the supply chain† and allows for the more effective balancing of â€Å"autonomy and control† among the individual supply chain partners (p. 287). GE’s online business network is indicative of the significance of using the internet for integrating supply chain management (Graham & Hardaker, 2000). GE maintains an online trading process network which facilitates the transaction of approximately US$1 billion in business among over 1,400 suppliers located around the world. GE’s online trading process is a significant improvem ent on the prior process which involves prolonged â€Å"labour intensive contract biding and award processes† (Graham & Hardaker, 2000, p. 287). By using the internet, businesses are able to reach out to new markets by providing reduced costs for entrants, less â€Å"complexity with more flexibility† and more importantly offer a far more efficient method for doing business (Graham & Hardaker, 2000, p. 287). Another development in international business behaviour necessitating integrating the supply chain via the internet and via tB2B is the tendency to outsource and the formation of tactical partnerships among industries. These kinds of developments obviate the need for information and

Animal Rights For Farm Animals Sociology Essay

Animal Rights For Farm Animals Sociology Essay The paucity of legal scholarship and teaching in the area of animals and the law is puzzling, particularly given the general interest in, and intense debate about, the treatment of animals by humans over the last 30 years. The lack of interest in Australia is ironic, as it was the work of the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, in the highly influential book Animal Liberation, which can be said to have reinvigorated much of the modern debate about the status of animals.  [1]  By contrast with the Australian uninterest, countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands have moved to ban the cruel practice of keeping pregnant sows in sow stalls, Australias most recent Model Pig Code provided for a minor increase in stall size and a generous 10 year phase in period for a 6 week limit on the use of sow stalls. Moreover, the deplorable practice of keeping hens in battery cages continues to be legal in all Australian jurisdictions while the EU has banned the use of all battery cages by January 2012. Further to this, the United States legal academy has been actively exploring legal issues relating to animals for a number of years. The Lewis and Clark Law School, in Portland, Oregon, has established the National Center for Animal Law and publishes an annual journal, Animal Law.  [2]  Approximately 40 law schools in the United States offer courses on animals and the law.  [3]  The legal profession in the United States has been no less active. A large number of State Bar Associations have established animal law sections or committees. Activist attorneys established the independent Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) in 1981. The ALDF not only provides free legal advice and assistance to prosecutors in cruelty cases, but also maintains a national database of cruelty cases, and provides support for lawsuits that test the boundaries of animal law.  [4]  Certainly, Australias poor animal welfare standards in comparison are a fundamental flaw of Australian animal protection laws. Nevertheless, even if the State and Territory Governments decide to implement ambitious welfare standards, as the legislation stands, these standards would go substantially unenforced. As such, this essay attempts to explore the current legal system governing our animals and in the process it will bring to light the deficiencies that currently exist. The focus of which will be on the treatment of factory farmed animals and how Australia continues to lag behind the rest of the world in developing a legal system that effectively shuts out animal cruelty. The notion of animal law is one that is highly complex yet ironically extremely underdeveloped. This in turn has led to mass confusion about the treatment of animals by various bodies. According to voiceless, over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic increase in our understanding of animal intelligence and behaviour and a broad acceptance that animals are sentient beings that have a right to live free of suffering. This has led to the recognition that the existing legal system has failed to provide animals with access to justice.  Ã‚  To address this failure, two streams of law have been developed that aim to use legal mechanisms to improve the lives of animals.  [5]   1. Animal welfare laws may be defined as those laws that seek to promote the interests of animals, within a legal framework that characterises them as property. In essence, animal welfare law sanctions exploitation of animals but seeks to define acceptable limits to that exploitation by prohibiting unnecessary pain and suffering.  [6]   Some examples of activities considered necessary under Australias current animal welfare laws include:  [7]   Confining millions of pigs, chickens and other farm animals in concrete and steel sheds (modern factory farms) with no access to the outdoors, little to no access to bedding material and  little to no meaningful contact with their young; Denying anaesthetic during painful procedures such as tail docking, castration and teeth clipping; and Using a range of methods from baits and traps to guns and bows and arrows (in some states) to kill millions of wild animals defined as feral or game every year. It is under this area of law that Australia is clearly lacking in its commitment to the protection of animal welfare. Ultimately, such necessary activities are permitted on the basis of efficiency and economics. This is further reinforced by Francione who argues that most animal welfare legislation is based on an understanding of animals as commodities (evidenced by the significant exemptions and qualifications typical of such laws, including the use of animals for food and for scientific research).  [8]  However, the imposition of cruelty for economic reasons alone is unjustified and essentially this needs to be reformed. For Singer, a utilitarian, the qualified protection provided by animal welfare legislation reflects a failure to give equal consideration to the interests of animals. In turn, this failure reflects speciesism an irrational, discriminatory and morally unjustifiable preference for the interests of humans over animals.  [9]   Public consideration of the issue of cruelty to animals tends to focus on the treatment of companion animals and animals used in research. Wolfson and Sullivan argue that this focus also underpins law-making and legal scholarship.  [10]  Yet, they point out, it is farmed animals that account for almost all animals killed by humans (in the order of 98 in every 100 killed).  [11]  This is once again a clear failure in the development of an effective body of law. The protection of animal welfare and rights is clearly a mirage of hope. This is primarily based on the notion that anti-cruelty legislation has been called upon because of the impact that humans are having on farmed animals, yet our legal bodies continue to ignore such blatant actions and focus on an area of law that appeases society without actually effectively addressing the issue at hand. Ultimately, as will be discussed later, this creates a false sense of security amongst humans that our governments are effectivel y targeting animal welfare rights. In the United States these animals are invisible to the law. At federal level, farmed animals are exempted from anti-cruelty legislation.  [12]  States are also increasingly incorporating customary farming exemptions. If industry participants can establish that particular treatment of a type of animal is commonplace and accepted industry practice, no criminal liability can arise based on that treatment, regardless of how cruel the treatment might actually be. The end result is a profit-driven industry, with a proven record of sustained infliction of cruelty on animals, which is largely self-regulated on issues of animal welfare.  [13]  Further to this, legislation in Australia exempts farming from cruelty offences, and although most jurisdictions have adopted codes of conduct for the treatment of farmed animals, these are not always compulsory, and are not subject to wide public scrutiny. Thus, the issue of profit making industries again go es to the core of animal welfare rights. The failure to understand animal welfare rights over economic progression will inevitably ensure that this remains a perpetual problem. Until society puts animal welfare ahead of profits then Australia will remain in a contained cyclical downfall with respect to the protection of animals. It is at this point where the implementation of animal rights law may help to aid the development of animal protection in the future. 2. Animal rights law may be defined as an area of law which seeks to question animals well-entrenched status as property, with a view to securing fundamental rights for (at least some) animals.  [14]  The quest for animal rights is not a pursuit for the same rights that humans should have. Essentially, animal rights lawyers argue that animals should not be treated by the law as mere things. This area of the law is based on the assumption that unless animals have rights, they will continue to be treated by society as resources to satisfy human wants and needs.  [15]   Thus it is the development of this area of law that is essential to the proper development of animal welfare laws. The development of these two areas ultimately complements one another with the hope of eradicating the issues that arise under the first type of legal system. That is, the protection of animals from unnecessary pain and suffering only. Singer may regard animal welfare legislation as a positive development, but would argue that to be effective such legislation needs to consider the interests of animals and humans equally. It is here where animal rights law begins to reflect such an ideological stance, and as already discussed, this is a major step in the development of an effective body of law that deals with animals and humans. Whilst the need for legal advocates is an urgent one, animal law, as already discussed is a relatively new body of law that is still in its infant stages of development. In the United States, animal law has been developing at an increasing rate over the last thirty years. However in Australia, there are still only a handful of advocates (committees, universities and organisations) actively debating these issues. A 2006 survey conducted in connection with the Federal Governments Australian Animal Welfare Strategy found that participants had a shallow understanding of animal welfare issues and that there appeared to be assumptions by the general public about animal welfare and the existence and enforcement of legislation to protect animals from mistreatment.  [16]  Thus, this clear lack of transparency and education with respect to the law inevitably inhibits the ability of animal law to grow as a serious body of law. In recent years, increased scrutiny and criticism of intensive factory farms have changed the way that animal industries market their products. No more hiding beneath a veil of secrecy hoping that issues such as sow stalls, battery cages and meat chicken growing and processing wont be discussed and debated. The social justice movement of animal protection is rapidly picking up momentum and animal industries are now, more than ever, being called upon to justify or change their practices. However despite this change in perception, it is clear that Australia is still falling behind in the protection of intensively farmed animals. This can primarily be linked backed to the argument that animals can never gain adequate protection under the law without a fundamental reappraisal of their legal status as property. For example, according to the American lawyer Gary Francione, because their interests are evaluated against this status as property, the outcome is almost certain: people win and a nimals lose.  [17]  He takes the view that, although an animal treatment by its owner may ostensibly be limited by anticruelty laws, property rights are paramount in determining the ambit of protection accorded to animals by law.  [18]  If we say that an animal is property, he declares, we mean that the animal is to be treated under the law primarily as a means to human ends, and not as an end in herself.  [19]  Thus, to expand legal protection and remedy available to factory farmed animals, a uniform and settled approach on standing must be established upon the principle that animals are not merely a means to human ends but have by virtue of themselves, basic moral rights.  [20]  Ultimately, the treatment of animals as property inhibits the ability of the law to protect their rights as it would be extremely unlikely that standing can be established. As Cassuto argues, animals lack legal protections because they are commodified property whose worth emanates from thei r market value.  [21]  In other words, systematic abuse arises is sanctioned in the discourse of property because such animals are not considered as individual, sentient beings but a mere commodity.  [22]  Granting standing to a plaintiff to sue to enforce an animal welfare statue therefore can serve to interfere in another individuals property right. The conflict of interest that arises is therefore an inherent problem within this body of law. The continuation of animals being associated as mere commodities will essentially inhibit the development of animal rights and ultimately will ensure Australia remains behind the rest of the world. The notion that factory farmed animals are mere commodities with no measurable rights is made apparent especially in our NSW legislation. The legislative framework governing the lives of animals on factory farms is indicative of the dichotomy drawn between farm animals on the one hand and companion animals or endangered species on the other. As already pointed out by Wolfson, public consideration of the issue of cruelty to animals tends to focus on the treatment of companion animals and animals used in research. This is made no more apparent than in our legislation. Firstly, NSW implemented the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW).  [23]  The Companion Animals Act covers the responsibilities and rights of the owners of companion animals, such as cats and dogs. The aim of the legislation is to protect the rights of animals and their owners in balance with the rights and needs of others in the community. Thus, where NSW attempts to convey to the public that it is serious about animal r ights, it appears that this is only with respect to companion animals. It is an unfortunate occurrence as it has created a sense of security amongst the public that our state is serious about animal protection, yet the truth of the matter is that we are neglecting the primary group of animals that are in need the most. In NSW, the key piece of legislation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA).  [24]  One would assume that this may provide some protection to farmed animals. However, this is clearly not the case as Peter Sankoff suggests An examination of POCTAA as a stand-alone document further supports the suggestion that the animals best protected by NSW animal welfare law are animals the community has the most immediate and intimate relationship with.  [25]  Provisions in the Act establish stringent definitions of cruelty contained in sections 4(2) and 5 in which the following is an act of cruelty whereby an animal is unreasonably, unnecessarily or unju stifiably beaten, kicked, killed, wounded, pinioned, mutilated, maimed, abused, tormented, tortured, terrified or infuriated, over-loaded, over-worked, over-driven, over-ridden or over-used, exposed to excessive heat or excessive cold, or inflicted with pain. In section 4 of the POCTA Act, animals used for the production of food and industry are defined as stock animals comprising cattle, horses, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, and poultry. By virtue of this definition they are exempt from numerous acts that would come under the definition of cruelty if these acts were committed against an animal not defined as a stock animal.  [26]  Such exemptions are facilitated by the establishment of a legal defense to an alleged cruel practice through section 24 of the POCTA Act whereby a person is not guilty of the offence if the court is satisfied that the act or omission in respect of which the proceedings are being taken was done to a stock animal in the course of various industry practices.   [27]  Such practices sustaining the defense include ear tagging or branding and all acts if an animal is less than two to six months of age depending on the species of animals. Stock animals are also exempted from section 9 of the POCTA Act which stipulates that confined animals are to be exercised. Under 34A the POCTA Act, Industry codes of Practice can be adopted as guidelines, relating to the welfare of farm animals meaning that it is the Industries themselves regulating animal welfare in factory farms. This essentially creates a clear conflict of interest because rather than establish independent bodies or legislative frameworks, removed from subjective bias such as monetary concerns it appears that the government is content with self regulation that is clearly ineffective. Further to this, an examination of the other regulatory instruments that work alongside POCTAA further support the suggestion that being a high visibility animal is legislatively beneficial. Exhibited a nimals, the highest visibility animals, are granted the full range of protections available under POCTAA, and then they have their own piece of additional legislation in the form of the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 (NSW).  [28]  The protections available to animals in circuses, zoos, and those used in theatre and film, are strong and comprehensive. The reason EAPA was created was due to the public outcry over the poor conditions being provided for animals exhibited in some circuses and fauna parks.  [29]  This demonstrates how important visibility is to good legal protections, and essentially this highlights the chronic issue plaguing farmed animals as they are completely removed from the spotlight. Thus it is clear this is an extremely underdeveloped area of law, as Wolfson identifies, it is farmed animals that account for almost all animals killed by humans (in the order of 98 in every 100 killed).  [30]  Thus, how can Australia possibly consider itself at the forefront of animal welfare rights, when the core group of animals remains unprotected by any form of solid legislation? Essentially, Australia is still lagging behind significantly and this will be further highlighted by a comparative analysis below of the developments taking place in the United States and Europe. The underdevelopment of our legal system with respect to animals is not confined to NSW only. If one were to take an analytical view of our Victorian legislation for instance, the public would indeed see that this is a nationwide issue. Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 Victoria, and its state and territory equivalents, exclude production animals (the vast majority of animals in Australia) from the legislations protection. If production industries follow a code of practice for their particular animal, they are exempted from prosecution for cruelty, despite the fact the codes are barely enforced, or allow very cruel practices. However, as discussed above, such codes of practice are clearly a form of appeasement rather than a serious attempt at protecting our animals. As a result, millions of factory-farmed animals daily endure conditions that would be illegal if they involved a companion animal such as a cat or dog. As Katrina Sharman, corporate counsel for animal advocacy group Voiceless says: Most never see the light of day, feel the earth beneath their feet, walk freely, stretch their wings or limbs, forage for food or engage in normal socialisation.  [31]  Even the limited legislative protection that Australia offers animals is inadequately enforced. Under section 24 of the act, charges may be laid by a member of the police force, a public servant in the Department of Primary Industries, municipal council officer or RSPCA officer.  [32]  But in reality, all bodies are under-resourced, meaning most breaches of the law are not detected or investigated, let alone prosecuted, even if there is genuine will to do so.  [33]  And even if someone is convicted, penalties are woeful. Under section 10 of the act, for example, the maximum penalty for aggravated cruelty is 12 months jail. In this regard, greater deterrence through the form of a more imposing legislative framework is crucial to ensure that industries and individuals refrain from continuing such acts. Ultimately, education has been an insufficient tool to protect our animals and from an industry perspective, unless penalties become harsher, they are going to continue to practice in a way that is focused on efficiency alone and not in a way that would be in the animals interest. According to a publication issued by the Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc: Concern for bird welfare is backed by Government and Industry Standards which ensure birds are kept comfortable and treated humanely.  [34]  Similarly, Australian Pork Limiteds website tells us that: Australian consumers can have every confidence in the animal welfare standards applied by Australian pork producers [because] our farmers all abide by the standards as set out in the Model Code.  [35]  Despite such positive sentiments, the issue at hand here is that most farm animals fall largely outside the protective reach of animal welfare legislation. They are classified in law as property or commodities as discussed above. The Codes mirror this approach, which has drastic ramifications for the way farm animals are treated. For example, the Codes permit permanent indoor confinement of female pigs, layer hens and meat chickens in circumstances which severely limit their ability to carry out their normal behaviours. They also provide for certain Management Practices or Elective Husbandry Procedures to be performed on farm animals. The Pig Code  [36]  sanctions the docking of piglets tails, while the Poultry Code  [37]  provides for layer hens to be subjected to appropriate beak trimming. These procedures are both permitted to be carried out without pain relief, notwithstanding the fact that scientific research points to the fact that they are likely to cause acute and chronic pain.  [38]  Most animals in factory farms live a life of confinement. They spend their time crammed into cages, sheds or feedlots and they never see the sun. Take, for example, the breeding pigs (sows), numbering about 300,000.  [39]  These intelligent, emotionally complex beings spend the bulk of their reproductive lives in stalls so small they cannot turn around.  [40]  The sole purpose of their existence, as determined by us, is to produce the five million pigs slaughtered every y ear to fill the mouths of our pork, ham and bacon lovers.  [41]  This industry is so fixated on profits and meeting the demands of society that from an economic perspective no other form of treatment is feasible. Thus, it is clear that the industry has taken advantage of the laxity of the legislative framework and incorporated this into its own practice codes and industry standards. Through this, it is clear that Australia desperately needs to change to ensure that it ceases to lag behind the rest of the world and become a leader at the forefront of animal welfare. As argued, Australia is clearly lagging behind in the development of animal law, and the primary area is that of factory farmed animals. Despite Australian Pork Limited Claiming that Australian pig farmers are leading the way in making positive changes in the way pigs are raised, such claims are largely a falsity. As can be seen from the discussion above, in Australia, there are State and Territory animal welfare laws that are intended to protect animals but in reality, the fundamental interests of most farm animals, including pigs, are not protected in law. As already discussed, National Model Codes of Practice apply in addition to some animal welfare laws; however, these Codes also fail to provide true protection. To make matters worse, they are often used to justify many cruel factory farming practices. The current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals- Pigs (revised) (2006) (the Revised Code)  is no exception. Continuing on from the above discussion, some of the cru el practices it permits are: Pregnant sows may be confined for the duration of their 16 week pregnancy in individual sow stalls, measuring no more than 0.6 x 2.2m. These stalls, which have been associated with physical disorders, chronic stress and depression, are so small that female pigs cannot even turn around.  [42]   From about 2017: The maximum time for holding pregnant pigs in sow stalls will reduce to 6 weeks. This is two weeks more than the minimum standard being introduced by the European Union and New Zealand. Sow stalls are already banned  in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Finland. They are also banned in Florida and are being phased out in Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan and Oregon in the United States. Two of the largest pork producers in the US and Canada also recently announced their plans to phase out sow stalls.  Ã‚  [43]   Heavily pregnant and nursing sows will be confined for up to 6 weeks of each reproductive cycle in farrowing crates, before their young are prematurely weaned. These crates, which measure 0.5 x 2.2m, are even smaller than sow stalls.  [44]   Pig producers  are not obligated to provide access to the outdoors where pigs can engage in natural behaviours such as grazing, wallowing in mud, walking around and nosing or manipulating their environment.  [45]   Painful mutilations of young piglets, including tail docking, teeth clipping and castration without pain relief, continue to be permitted.  [46]   Natural materials such as straw for sleeping and nesting, while encouraged,  are not mandatory, rendering many pigs subject to a miserable life on concrete floors.  [47]   Thus, whilst it is correct to say that the Pig Code has recently been reviewed, the upshot of that review, other than largely reinstating the existing system, was to defer phasing out sow stalls for a decade. If sow stalls are phased out in 2017 as mentioned above, then Australia will still be 14 years behind the EU which hasnt allowed new stalls to be built since 2003. Australia will also be markedly behind eight US States including, most recently, Michigan, which is scheduled to phase out sow stalls over the next decade. No Australian jurisdiction has even meaningfully debated a ban on sow stalls. Their spin on the Poultry Code appears to have overlooked the section conveniently titled hatchery management which allows approximately ten million culled or surplus hatchlings (predominately male chicks) to be disposed of by carbon dioxide gassing or quick maceration as if they are trash, which technically they are in industry terms, since they are of no economic utility.  [48]  AE CLs press release also failed to mention that conventional battery cages are scheduled to be phased out across the European Union by 2012, whereas several attempts to introduce a ban in Australia have met considerable resistance.  [49]   Further to the above, a number of European countries have taken a leadership role in the area of chicken meat

Lenin And Problems After The October Revolution Essay -- History Histo

Lenin and Problems After the October Revolution   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The initial difficulties faced by the new Soviet Union were to severe that its survival seemed almost miraculous. The remains of the czarist regime left Lenin to face a country wrought with war, devastated economically. Russia's involvement in World War I, followed by its Civil War, wide spread famine and a change in political and social ideology were the problems confronting Lenin after the October Revolution. Lenin did succeed in ending both the war with Germany and the Civil War for Russia. Yet, the economic and social aspects of the revolution can be more critically assessed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Lenin knew the importance of ending Russian involvement in World War I. On March 3, 1918 Russia lost 1/3 of its fertile farm lands, 1/3 of its population, 2/3 of its coal mines and oil fields and 1/2 of its heavy industry to German peace terms. Though the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was harsh, the terms were annulled once the Allied powers defeated Germany. Lenin managed to end the war that had for so long depressed Russia's resources and morale. He succeeded in focusing on the severe internal problems of the new government, and in â€Å" saving the socialist republic† . One of the largest problems that Russia faced prior to the October Revolution was finally ended, though its effects were still to be felt.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Almost immediately afterwards, in 1918, Civil War begins. The battling White Army divided amongst different leader...