May 20, 2006
The Honorable Dennis M. Kehoe
Wayne County Court
Wayne County Hall of Justice, Rm. 106
54 Broad St.
Lyons, NY 14489
Re: Sentencing of Adam Durand
Dear Judge Kehoe:
In passing sentence on Adam Durand of Compassionate Consumers, you
stated that Mr. Durand, convicted for trespassing on Wegmans'
Wolcott, New York egg farm in order to film conditions there, behaved in a
manner that indicated he felt he was "above the law."
It is difficult not to take this statement ironically: What
else, one feels compelled to ask, could Mr. Durand have done in order to
expose the truth? He requested to be given a tour of
Wegmans' egg-laying facility; that request was denied. And
while it's true that officials involved in this case (State
Police Investigator Frank D'Aurizio and District Attorney Rick
Healy, both of whom were instrumental in bringing charges against Mr.
Durand) found no proof of animal cruelty, it is also true that
chickens confined on egg-laying farms are excluded from protections
offered by the Animal Welfare Act, and that the Animal Care Certified
(ACC) program, whose seal Wegmans proudly displayed on its egg
cartons, placed no prohibitions on the cruelest of standard industry practices.
In fact, there is little to no protection afforded to battery-farmed
hens, either under the law or by the egg industry itself; whatever is
found to be "standard practice" is considered acceptable.
The Better Business Bureau, on the other hand, ruled that the ACC
certification program was deceptive to consumers. That a deception
was being foisted upon the public by Wegmans, and by other owners of battery
farms, is what Adam Durand set out to prove.
The film Mr. Durand made at Wegmans' egg farm offers ample evidence
as to the allegation of neglect; indeed, the evidence was so convincing that
Investigator D'Aurizio himself was unable to deny it. It
validated as well the charge that the "Animal Care
Certified" seal used by Wegmans misled the public into
believing that hens confined to egg-laying facilities are not subject
to what would, were these not farmed animals, be considered abusive treatment.
As to the fact that Wegmans has expressed doubt as to whether or not
the entirety of Mr. Durand's video footage was taken at their
property, charging him with trespassing based on that same footage
hardly lends credence to their claim.
Since Mr. Durand was found guilty of trespassing, you had no recourse
but to levy punishment. However, the fact that you chose to
make that punishment as severe as possible – six months in jail
to be followed by a years probation, a $1,500 fine, and 100 hours of
community service – indicates a clear moral choice to place property
rights above the suffering of living, sentient beings. Indeed,
you have done more even than that: for you have given Mr.
Durand a more severe punishment than that normally meted out to those
convicted of animal cruelty.
I am writing you to protest this decision, and to ask that you
consider reducing or commuting Mr. Durand's sentence. He
has never before been convicted of a crime, and behaved as he did not
because he believes himself to be "above the law," but
because the law, in this case, not only condones but actively
supports the inhumane treatment of nonhuman animals. Mr.
Durand, in my opinion, is to be applauded for his actions, not condemned.
Yours sincerely & etc. . . .
|
