Chinese group sues over shark fin ban

It's the debate that won't end: Seven months after a state ban on the importation of shark fins went into effect, Chinese merchants and leaders in the Bay Area this week announced a federal lawsuit challenging the law as discriminatory.

Comparing the ban to racist laws of the past - including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and San Francisco's bans in the 1870s of fireworks and gongs at Chinatown celebrations - critics such as Taylor Chow questioned whether the delicacy has actually contributed to the global decline in shark populations, and why state lawmakers singled out that dish instead of outlawing shark consumption altogether.

The federal suit by the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement accuses the state of violating equal protection laws, interfering with Congress' power over interstate commerce and pre-empting federal law. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Kamala Harris declined to comment.

"This law is discriminatory and anti-Chinese," said plaintiffs attorney Joseph Breall. "It will have no effect on anyone other than the Chinese community and the fishermen that now have to dispose of fins and are creating their own environmental impact."

Environmentalists who pushed the ban in California and elsewhere say that fishermen often kill sharks solely for the fins, which can fetch hundreds of dollars per pound.

The lawsuit comes just weeks after China announced that the country will begin prohibiting official banquets from serving shark fin soup.

In the meantime, you can still find the traditional Chinese dish at some California restaurants: The sale and use of fins that were already in California as of Jan. 1 are still legal until next July, and remain on some Chinatown menus.

A state lawsuit is also pending.

On his toes: Gov. Jerry Brown wasn't pulling any punches when questioned this week about criticism over the state's high-speed rail system at a Bay Area signing of a law allocating $7.9 billion for the project.

Asked about comments by retired Judge Quentin Kopp - the former head of the state's high-speed rail authority - that passengers may have to change trains up to three times to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco, Brown denied it.

"He also said I shouldn't run for attorney general, so I stopped listening or taking his advice," said the former attorney general. "No, you can run one car all the way. It will go a little slower when you are in the urban areas but that's the way it goes in France and Germany as well."

As for the Field Poll finding that 21 percent of voters likely to support his tax hike said they would consider changing their mind because of high-speed rail spending? Well, Brown didn't mention what we reported last week - that nearly 17 percent of tax supporters said they would be more likely to vote for the tax - but he did take a swipe at the eminently respected polling firm.

"I don't really believe in the Field Poll, and I'll tell you one reason I don't - they say high-speed rail is more popular than I am right now, so if I believe that, I might pack my bags and head back to the monastery," he said. "Hell, I've got 10 polls in my back pocket that tell me everything I want to know and don't want to know, so don't worry about the Field Poll."

As for how those much-awaited pension negotiations with Democratic lawmakers are going?

"I would say with deliberate speed," he said.

No word on which side is setting that speed.