Humans' contact with other animals is chiefly organised around humans' own consumption and 'needs'. This article begins with an aspect of the human-non-human animal relationship that is connected to animals as social, not material beings -'petkeeping'. Over the past few years the pet industry has expanded enormously. I discuss how the keeping of companion animals can be understood, and the consequences for the animals involved; this practice leaves an increasing number vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, not the least dogs-the most common companion animal. The market for companion animals worldwide is fed by breeding, but also by the abduction of animals and birds from their habitats. Keeping companion animals contributes greatly to the endangerment of many species, parrots in particular. Therefore the focus of this paper especially concerns parrots and the consequences they and their species suffer from being abducted, trafficked and traded, whether the trade is criminalized or not. I will discuss implications of the CITES convention, whether it serves to legitimate rather than protect animals from trade, trafficking and suffering.

On 20 April 2015, five men were convicted in a Norwegian court for breaching the penal law, namely for attempting to reduce the natural population of a protected endangered species on 15 February 2014. One was also charged with having killed a wolf on 14 March 2014. The sentences were the strictest ever imposed for similar crimes in Norway, with 20 months' imprisonment for the main offender, partly because they were charged with organized crime-an aggravating circumstance. The verdict was appealed and a new conviction made on 5 April 2016, where the prison sentences for the five convicted men were considerably reduced, the strictest from 20 to 9 months, and with the law applied differently. The state appealed the decision from the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court [Høyesterett], concerning the application of law, and there four of the men were again found guilty of attempting to reduce the population of an endangered species. These verdicts invite discussion of how such crimes should be perceived-as serious organized crime or as "folk crimes". This article argues that either way such acts should be regarded as theriocides that breach the Animal Welfare Act and its statement that animals have intrinsic value, and further that they cannot be viewed in isolation but must be seen in the context of state policy towards large predators. The crimes are thus discussed from a green criminology perspective, concentrating on seeing these theriocides as crimes, not "only" harms.

This paper explores the reasons for the conflictual relationship between the police and ethnic minority men in stop and search encounters, which leads to the often heard allegation that ''All police are racists.'' It deals with stop and search practices in Oslo as described in interviews with ethnic minority informants and police officers, and as observed through fieldwork amongst the Oslo police rank and file. The approach is qualitative, and explores the perceptions of those stopped by the police, as well as the police's perception of stops and ethnic minority groups. The paper explores a few individual cases in depth to provide an alternative reading of stop and search that is lacking in the mainstay of quantitative studies. The first case analysed has a perspective which emphasises the interaction as it unfolds between the police and the ethnic minority man stopped, and explores the reasons for the resulting escalation. Elements of the stop which are analysed include the police's refusal to explain the stop; this in turn causes disrespect on both sides which results in invectives, resistance, bystander involvement, and the police officers' call for assistance. The other cases analysed in the paper are, to a higher degree, viewed in the light of police perceptions of and their contextual experiences regarding ethnic minorities. The complexity in the analysis corresponds to the complexity determining stop situations. Regular stop situations and their outcomes involve vague descriptions and the police's lack of discernment in consideration of suspects from different ethnic minority groups. Police stereotyping accounts for what ethnic minority men perceive as unjustified stop and search, with the findings suggesting that the Oslo police practice 'car profiling' as much as ethnic profiling. To this end it is suggested in the paper that the combination of having dark skin and driving a BMW exposes ethnic minority men to stop and search.Introducing the Research and the Norwegian Context 1 ''All police are racists.'' During the course of my research in Oslo I heard this often from ethnic minority males I interviewed. I intend to explore the basis for this allegation in order to throw some light on the conflictual relationship between the police and ethnic minority men so often observed (e.g.

Norway has a highly developed welfare system with increasing provi

No abstract