Ag-gag
Ag-gag laws operate to hide the truth about how animals are raised on factory farms by silencing advocates and stifling transparency. These laws effectively suppress the public’s right to question our present use and abuse of farmed animals while permitting the concealment of animal cruelty and neglect.
What is ag-gag?
The term “ag-gag” describes a variety of laws which seek to hinder or “gag” animal protection advocates by limiting or preventing them from recording the operations of commercial agricultural facilities, or from making those recordings public.
Ag-gag laws have been implemented in a number of states across the US.1 The precise details of the legislation vary from state to state, but the effect is always the same: to deter activists and journalists from documenting and making public the treatment of animals on factory farms and to obscure the truth about where our food comes from.
Ag-gag laws generally target undercover investigators, whistleblowers and journalists, and may take three forms:
Ag-gag in Australia
In recent years, Australian animal advocates have become increasingly effective in gathering and releasing undercover footage captured in agricultural facilities. Much of this footage exposes extreme examples of animal cruelty, neglect, violations of animal protection laws and legalised cruelty.2
Animal advocates have also begun collecting footage using unmanned aerial vehicles – also known as drones – to monitor the welfare of cattle in feedlots and to verify the welfare claims of ‘free range’ farms.3
As a result, politicians from both of the major political parties are calling for the introduction of ag-gag legislation.4
In 2013, the NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson observed that “it seems every week now where you’ve got animal activists breaking into intensive farms … these people are vandals. These people are akin to terrorists.”5 She labelled undercover activities by animal advocates as fanaticism, radicalism and terrorism – language that has featured prominently in the US – and said that she would do everything in her power to cease the activities of animal activists.6
Surveillance encourages transparency
Surveillance has long been used by animal advocates in Australia and abroad.
Most farmed animals are raised behind closed doors, their treatment and suffering hidden beyond public scrutiny. As such, surveillance footage, which is often graphic and confronting, promotes public awareness of these issues. This in turn leads to open dialogue, which is essential in shaping public opinion and encouraging law reform.
Such surveillance can be both lawful and unlawful. While Voiceless does not endorse unlawful behaviour, it acknowledges the benefit of surveillance in the areas of animal and consumer protection.
In his judgement in the High Court case of Lenah Game Meats Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Voiceless Patron and former Justice of the High Court of Australia the Hon. Michael Kirby, defended the media’s use of surveillance footage obtained by animal activists on public interest grounds:
“Parliamentary democracies, such as Australia, operate effectively when they are stimulated by debate promoted by community groups. To be successful, such debate often requires media attention. Improvements in the condition of circus animals, in the transport of live sheep for export and in the condition of battery hens followed such community debate.”9
Advocates expose illegal animal cruelty
Animal cruelty (including legalised cruelty), neglect and violations of animal protection laws are a reality of factory farming. In Australia, the vast majority of cruelty complaints are prosecuted by non-profit charitable organisations like the RSPCA, and in NSW, the Animal Welfare League. While the work of these organisations is commendable, resource constraints10 and limited funding directly impact on their ability to monitor and enforce the law effectively.
As a result, the vast majority of animal cruelty and welfare concerns go undetected.
Undercover surveillance is a key tool for improving the monitoring and enforcement of animal protection laws by exposing incidents that would otherwise not come to the attention of authorities. Surveillance footage – even when it is collected illegally – has the potential to be used in criminal prosecutions against individuals or corporations charged with animal cruelty.11
The enforcement of animal protection laws could easily be improved in the short term through the installation of compulsory CCTV cameras in all commercial animal facilities, allowing authorities to monitor and investigate all incidents of cruelty in farms and slaughterhouses. Additionally, an increase in government funding to regulatory authorities to monitor and enforce animal protection laws is needed, as well as a significant reduction in the overreliance on charitable organisations to perform these functions.
Until governments commit to effective enforcement, we will continue to see animal advocates risking prosecution and their lives to expose animal cruelty.
Privacy and undercover investigation
Surveillance by animal advocates specifically targets the treatment of animals in large scale commercial operations. It is focused on uncovering animal cruelty or neglect and does not aim to target individuals or to violate personal privacy. Voiceless considers such surveillance can be carried out without encroaching upon the private rights of individuals.
In saying that, corporations do not, and in Voiceless’s position should not, have any claim to privacy. Further, if an individual or corporation is found in violation of animal protection laws, they should not be permitted to hide behind a claim of invasion of privacy to avoid punishment or culpability.
Take Action
You can help us in the fight against ag-gag by:
Further resources
Last updated March 2015