The only ban we need

I don't track the activities of many other city councils, but I certainly hope that the activities of the Minneapolis city council are not the norm around the nation. The last time I attended a Minneapolis council meeting was to testify against the imposition of silly new restrictions on home-based businesses. Despite testimony from a number of people, and admission from council members that the proposed changes would be harmful if enforced, they passed them anyway with the disclaimer that they wouldn't be enforced unless needed. That's one way that local government increases their arbitrary power over citizens... by having powers to use when they want to, or to ignore when they choose. Such powers are an open invitation to discrimination, and the root of many of the stories we've heard about preferential treatment for friends and campaign contributors or vendettas against opponents.

There are times, though, when councils just do truly dumb things for what have to be dumb reasons. Such is the proposal from two Minneapolis city council members. Council members Ralph Remington and Cam Gordon want to bar elephants, tigers and other exotic critters from circuses coming into Minneapolis.

Gordon said the proposed ban in Minneapolis is the result of a long-term lobbying effort by animal rights activists. He said "It's arisen organically. It is an issue coming from some active constituents and some people in my ward. But it's not a groundswell of people who are impatiently pounding on doors."

I have no idea what he means by "arisen organically", but he's a Green, and they love the word "organic". His comment is certainly an admission that only a few activists and some other ward dwellers have generated this issue. But... the proposal is for the whole city... affecting all residents. Why would two city council members carry a proposal that is likely to be opposed by most citizens? Of course, as often is the case, Gordon and Remington could be making the proposal just to satisfy a few of their own ward constituents, believing that other council members will refuse to go along. That will leave them to say that they "tried", but others, less enlightened, denied them.

Silly as that motive may be, I hope they're right... that the proposal will fail to gain any traction. But... it's dangerous to propose something you really don't want to happen. Council members can be goofy as hell, and Minneapolis could actually end up losing circus performances such as the big Shrine Circus. A circus without "wild" animals just isn't a circus at all.

If "wild" animals are being harmed by being in a circus and losing their freedom, shouldn't zoo animals be freed too? How about all the pet cats and dogs? We have leash laws, licensing, and almost mandatory sterilization of cats and dogs. Surely pets are no more free than circus animals. The fact that most pets are extremely domesticated simply means that we've kept them confined and controlled for much longer. We've destroyed their ability and desire to be wild and free. Which is more objectionable... wild animals in captivity but retaining some of their "wildness", or animals that have been so suppressed that they've even lost their desire to be wild? Perhaps pet animals should be banned as well.

We could go on to ban farm animals, whose living conditions are certainly worse than circus animals. That would of course eliminate all meats from our diets, all leathers and furs, and many other derived products.

Naturally, if most of us agreed with all that, it would simply happen over time. We might decide that pet rocks are lovable enough, that a vegetarian diet will suffice, and that materials derived from chemicals are good enough. Obviously, very few of us would agree to all that, but that doesn't stop nannies from trying to force us into compliance. That, of course, is what bans are all about... force... making everyone comply with the desires of a few.

There is one ban I would be in favor of... a nanny ban.