Michael KingstonUniversity of California, RiversideRiverside, CaliforniaIn reaction to the Vietnamese-American practice of raising canines for food, Section 598b of the California Penal Code was recently amended to read as follows: (a) Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who possesses, imports into this state, sells, buys, gives away, or accepts any carcass or part of any carcass of any animal traditionallyor commonly kept as a pet or companion with the sole intent of using or having another person use any part of that carcass for food.(b) Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who possesses, imports into this state, sells, buys, gives away, or accepts any animal traditionally or commonly kept as a pet or companion with the sole intent of killing or having another person kill that animal for the purpose of using or having another person use any part of the animal for food. This is a fascinating new law, one that brings up a complex set of moral, political, and social questions. For example: What constitutes a "pet"? Do pets have special "rights" that other animals aren’t entitled to? How should these "rights" be balanced with the real political rights of the human populace? How do we define the civil rights of an ethnic minority whose actions reflect cultural values that are at odds with those of the majority? Section 598b does not mention these issues. Rather, it seems to simply walk around them, leaving us to figure out for ourselves whose interests (if any) are being served by this strange new law.The first thing one might wonder is whether the purpose of Section 598b is to improve the lot of pets throughout California. What we do know is that it seeks to prevent people from eating animals traditionally regarded as pets (dogs and cats). But for the most part, the only people who eat dogs or cats are Vietnamese-Americans. Furthermore, they don’t consider these animals "pets" at all. So, pets aren’t really being protected. Maybe Section 598b means to say (in a roundabout manner) that all dogs and cats are special and therefore deserve protection. Yet, it doesn’t protect them from being "put to sleep" in government facilities by owners who are no longer willing to have them. Nor does it protect them from being subjected to painful, lethal experiments designed to make cosmetics safe for human use. Nor does it protect them from unscrupulous veterinarians who sometimes keep one or two on hand to supply blood for anemic pets of paying customers. No, the new law simply prevents Vietnamese-Americans from using them as food.Is the consumption of dogs or cats so horrible that it merits its own law? One possible answer is that these practices pose a special threat to the trust that the pet-trading network relies upon. Or in other words: that strange man who buys one or more of your puppies might just be one of those dog-eaters. But this scenario just doesn’t square with reality. A Vietnamese-American, canine-eating family is no more a threat to the pet-trading industry than is a family of European heritage that chooses to raise rabbits (another popular pet) for its food. Predictably, there is a loophole in Section 598b that allows for the continued eating of pet rabbits. Its circular logic exempts from the new law any animal that is part of an established agricultural industry.It seems as though Vietnamese-Americans are the only ones who can’t eat what they want, and so it is hard not to think of the issue in terms of racial discrimination. And why shouldn’t we? After all, the Vietnamese community in California has long been subjected to bigotry. Isn’t it conceivable that latent xenophobia and racism have found their way into the issue of dog-eating?One needs only to look at the law itself for the answer. This law protects animals "traditionally…kept as a pet." Whose traditions? Certainly not the Vietnamese’s.Of course, the typical defense for racially discriminatory laws such as this one is that they actually protect minorities by forcing assimilation. The reasoning here is that everything will run much smoother if we can all just manage to fall in step with the dominant culture. This argument has big problems. First, it is morally bankrupt. How does robbing a culture of its uniqueness constitute a protection? Second, it doesn’t defuse racial tensions at all. Racists will always find reasons for hating the Vietnamese. Finally, any policy that seeks to label minorities as the cause of the violence leveled against them is inherently racist itself.Whatever the motives behind Section 598b, the consequences of the new law are all too clear. The government, not content with policing personal sexual behavior, has taken a large step toward dictating what a person can or cannot eat. This is no small infringement. I may never have the desire to eat a dog, but I’m rankled that the choice is no longer mine, and that the choicewas made in a climate of racial intolerance. Whatever happened to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?Unfortunately, we may suffer more than just a reduction in personal choice. Crimes such as dog-eating require a certain amount of vigilance to detect. More than likely, the police will rely upon such dubious measures as sifting through garbage left at curbside, or soliciting anonymous tips. Laws that regulate private behavior, after all, carry with them a reduction in privacy.We sure are giving up a lot for this new law. It’s sad that we receive only more criminals in