Australian Government Considers Copying U.S. Ag-Gag Laws to Turn Animal Activists into Terrorists

by Will Potter at Green is the New Red:

When Amy Meyer saw a sick cow being pushed by a bulldozer outside a slaughterhouse, she did what any of us would in this age of iPhones and Instagram – she filmed it.

HSUS Press -- Undercover at Smithfield Foods B-roll - Pigs in cages
Undercover journalist filming at Smithfield Foods industrial pork operations … ag-gag laws are not only making this type of reporting illegal, but are classifying it as a form of terrorism. (Photo credit: HSUS)

Meyer, 25, knew it was not only cruel, it was a public safety risk.

Similar video footage had resulted in the largest meat recall in US history, when it was revealed that cows too sick to walk were being fed to school children as part of the national school lunch program.

Instead of being praised for exposing this, Meyer was prosecuted.

Even though she stood on public property, she was charged with violating a new law in Utah that makes it illegal to photograph or videotape factory farms and slaughterhouses.

This was the first prosecution of its kind in the United States, but if the agriculture industry has its way, it won’t be the last.

“Ag-gag” laws have spread rapidly, and today half a dozen states have made it illegal to film factory farms.

Now, the agriculture industry wants to bring ag-gag to Australia.

This legislation is a direct response to undercover investigations by animal welfare groups, which have exposed horrific animal cruelty.

For example, in Idaho this year, an undercover investigator with Mercy For Animals exposed workers beating, kicking and sexually abusing cows at Bettencourt dairy.

In response, the dairy industry supported SB 1337, an ag-gag bill that prohibits any “audio or video recording” at a farm facility.

It punishes those who expose animal abuse more harshly than those who commit the violence. The bill passed into law just weeks ago.

Time and again, wherever undercover investigators expose cruelty, the industry fights back with attempts to keep consumers in the dark.

Why? Because when people see the reality of factory farming, they demand change. For instance, one of the nation’s largest egg producers testified during an ag-gag hearing that, after an undercover video was posted online, 50 businesses quickly called and stopped buying their eggs.

And, according to the first study of its kind, published in the Journal of Agricultural Economics, when animal welfare issues are reported in the news, consumers respond by eating less meat.

Factory farmers have been so desperate to silence their critics that they have even called investigators “terrorists”.

Senator David Hinkins, the sponsor of Utah’s ag-gag bill, said it was needed to stop “terrorists” such as “the vegetarian people” who “are trying to kill the animal industry”.

This terrorism rhetoric has worked its way to the top levels of government.

FBI files have revealed that the government has even considered prosecuting those who film animal cruelty as “terrorists”.

Now, this is spreading to Australia.

New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson has said undercover investigators are “akin to terrorists”.

West Australian Liberal Senator Chris Back, and a number Australian federal politicians, have voiced support for US-style ag-gag laws.

Ag-gag is coming to Australia because animal advocates have been incredibly effective.

There is a long history of open rescues and undercover investigations here, and activists such as Patty Mark and Animal Liberation Victoria are known internationally for their pioneering work.

Meanwhile, national media exposes such as Four Corners’ “A Bloody Business” have outraged the public and created a national dialogue about live exports.

Australians have an opportunity that we lacked in the United States: you can stop these dangerous proposals before they ever become law.

If there is one thing I have learnt in my reporting on ag-gag laws, it is the power of an informed public to create change.

Amy Meyer stands as an example of that power. Just 24 hours after I broke the story of her prosecution, it had created such an uproar that prosecutors announced they were simply dropping all charges.

Meyer had never intended to face prosecution, or to lead by example, but she rose to the occasion. Australia has the power to do the same.

Three Elephants Released from Captivity in Zoo to 80-Acre Sanctuary

Via Yes Magazine:

On October 20, three female African elephants—Toka, Thika and Iringa—made the journey from Canada to California after the closing of their exhibit at the Toronto Zoo.

The elephants will not be displayed again, but will live out their lives at the Ark 2000 Sanctuary in San Andreas, Calif. The sanctuary is operated by the Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), a nonprofit that allows abused, abandoned, or retired performing animals to live “in peace and dignity.”

71 and Mara, two elephants who live at the PAWS sanctuary
71 and Mara, two elephants who live at the PAWS sanctuary. (Photo courtesy PAWSweb.org)

After public outcry and petitioning, the Toronto Zoo Board made the decision to close the exhibit in March 2011. That October, the Toronto City Council voted to move the elephants to the PAWS Sanctuary. Two years of deliberation later, the elephants have been moved from their 2-acre paddock to their new home. The sanctuary has dedicated 80 acres of rolling California hills to the African elephants.

Toka, Thika, and Iringa have joined the sanctuary’s resident African elephants Mara, Maggie, and Lulu. The six greeted one another with a range of distinctive vocalizations, according to Kim Gardner of PAWS. Gardner says that the ultimate goal is for them to become a family but that may take months or longer, since “elephant time” is substantially slower than what humans are used to.

After the move of Toka, Thika, and Iringa, about 600 elephants remain in captivity in North America.

“Captivity is an untenable situation,” says Dr. Lori Marino, founder and executive director at the Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy and senior lecturer at Emory University. “There is a fundamental incompatibility between captivity and natural behavior, even if intentions are good.”

While the fact that animals cannot use human language has been a factor in our willingness to keep them captive, Marino points out that cross-species communication plays a role in the growing awareness about this issue. She breaks communication down into two categories: emotion and content.

“Humans share emotional expression with other species, even if we haven’t translated the content,” she says. “When an elephant trumpets, or an orca calls out, we can understand the expression of emotion. We may not be able to think like another species, but as a mother, as a sibling, as a child, we share emotions of grief, love, hunger, fear and so on.”

Source: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/three-elephants-head-from-zoo-to-80-acre-sanctuary