I'm finding the debate about 'ag-gag' laws interesting. These are laws designed to prosecute those who film farm operations involving livestock with a view to exposing animal cruelty,

Those on the right have been beating the drum around enhanced surveillance laws with the old mantra 'if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear' but seem to have done a complete back flip on this issue. But then so have those on the left who have railed against security laws but support those with cameras surveilling primary production facilities.

My own position is that 'ag-gag' laws are pretty unnecessary as laws against trespass are already in the books. If a farmer/producer employs some one to work on their property and that person sees something that is evidently against the law then obtaining evidence of that wrongdoing I would have thought was almost obligatory.

The grey are is of course where the farmer may well be within the law but graphic images of the conditions animals can be legally kept in can be distressing and detrimental to thier business. Again I don't have a problem with this as consumers should be aware of the process that ultimately delivers meat to their plates. From there it is their choice if they wish to eat food produced in a less than humane manner.

In the end the proposed laws may well be self defeating and I can already see the 'ag-gag free' stickers that will be appearing, possibly from places like this;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-09/open-gate-policy-true-free-range-measure-for-pork-farmer/5730768?WT.ac=localnews_melbourne

Dear SteeleRedux,

Another interesting topic.

Farmers have a right to say who comes onto their
properties. Animals have a right to be treated
with dignity and respect. Consumers have a right
to know where their products come from and under
what conditions. So this is a bit of a conundrum.
Whose rights come first?

I guess, that I have to go with - any bill or law
that punishes those who expose abusive conditions
on farms can't be good. The animal farming
industries need to be held accountable for their
actions and as you have already pointed out -
laws against trespassing do exist.

There are two sides to every story it is said,

<Animal libbers 'act like terrorists'
By Rachel Wells
August 28, 2005

RSPCA president Hugh Wirth believes extreme and violent tactics similar to those being used by animal rights activists in Britain and the USA are also being employed by some radical animal liberation groups in Australia.

"It's getting worse," said Dr Wirth, who, on the advice of Victoria Police, recently hired bodyguards after three members of Animal Liberation Victorian threw red paint over him at a charity dinner last October.

"Not only are they breaking into properties and causing damage, but in the last 12 months they have started attacking humans, too, and I've been one of them."

Dr Wirth said the animal liberation movement in Australia was moving from activism to terrorism.

"The truth is that a lot of these people are simply terrorist-minded renegades who dress up their behaviour as being quite acceptable because they are protecting animals," he said.

Dr Wirth said there were animal activists operating in Australia with links to Britain's notorious Animal Liberation Front, responsible for a campaign of intimidation against the owners of a Staffordshire guinea pig farm that culminated in desecration of the grave of a relative of the farm operator.>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/animal-libbers-act-like-terrorists/2005/08/27/1124563067500.html

There are indeed two sides to every story:

http://www.rspcawatchdog.org/articles/whatswrong.htm

While I hate the thought of any animal being mistreated, I am of the opinion that violent animal rights protesters can't be that interested in animal welfare if they are willing to advocate harm to other human beings.

These sorts of protesters must surely join these protests just so they can practice violence on others.....because they are violent people.
They should rightly be jailed.

Dear Suse,

I also am against the use of violence.
And agree that those who break our laws
should be punished. Violence should not
be tolerated. The Animal
Liberation group, which has five branches
around the country, each with their own
governing bodies - has always advocated
non-violence and I wasn't aware that this
had so drastically changed.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

Thank you for the replies.

The ag-gag laws seem to be only seriously considered in South Australia where legislation is before the house. The ACT has rejected them and the Victorian Premier has seemed to over rule his Agriculture minister to deny his government is considering this type of law.

The Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey said farmers did not want anti-whistle-blower US-style ag-gag laws, just better biosecurity protection. “We don’t want to steer anywhere near the ag-gag stuff”
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/politics/premier-says-there-are-no-aggag-laws-before-the-state-government/story-fnkerdda-1227021913479

There is certainly the Nationals to contend with and Barnaby Joyce appears to be one of the driving forces behind the laws but is trying to get the states to introduce them rather than drive them through federally.

I can just see the big 'Ag-Gag Free' labels on food and consumer backlash may well have the supermarket chains dictating the ultimate fate of these laws.

Foxy, I am not suggesting that the Australian animal liberation groups have changed at all.
I was merely making a general statement about some of the members of these groups world wide.
If violence is involved then I lose interest in whatever cause is advocated.

To follow the 'logic' of some here it would be quite OK for them to use a drone to observe their neighbours, to trespass upon their land peeping in windows and enter their bedrooms under the cover of darkness to see if they are doing anything that might offend their beliefs or infringe the law (in my opinion!).

Vigilantes are fine and can do whatever they like it appears, providing they are trampling on the rights of others and infringing their privacy. Yay for kangaroo courts and string up anyone you disagree with, huh?

Contrary to what some here seem to believe, there is very little cruelty to animals by farmers. Any normal, reasonable person would expect and know that farmers care for their animals and to do otherwise would be counterproductive for them. On the other hand, names and industries have been smeared by activists who are not appointed by any lawful process and regard themselves as accountable to no-one. What a power trip to be able to impose their belief system upon us!

Leaving that to one side, principles and ethics (not to mention logic) must be very flexible(sic) to approve of surveillance and trespass (and 'outing'!) that the same supporters (of activism) would not approve of government itself being allowed to do, even where lives are at stake from criminals and terrorists.

End of my first para above should be "..or infringe the law (in their opinion!)".

Dear Suse,

Within any organisations there
will be some people who will react inappropriately -
to the given charter and mission statements
and goals of the organisation. This goes both for
the RSPCA and the Animal Libbers. Unfortunately,
there's always a few in every group that give
the others a bad name. As SteeleRedux has pointed out,
it will be interesting to see what happens with these laws
in the future.

Perhaps there is a need for a levy/GST style tax on all fresh food from animal products.

The proceeds from this tax can then go in to searching out and rectifying any food producer who is not toeing the so called line then, if they refuse then they have their license canceled. The remainder of the proceeds could then go to producers to assist them with the increased costs they will incurr in their businesses.

while it's all well and good for consumers to want better treatment of food animals, such treatment comes at a cost, and such costs should be met by the consumer because after all, Woolworths don't care, unless the cameras are rolling, and the farmers don't care all that much either, so the consumers could then make a choice between animal welfare and costs, because after all said and done, it's the consumers who are making the noise. So put up, or shut up!

Sometimes it seems that the urban political 'Progressives' see farmers as a lower caste, not to be accorded the same rights that they self-righteously claim for themselves.

"urban political progressives see farmers as a lower
caste?"

Nah. its the "political regressives" who tend to make
these sort of illogical sweeping statements and generalisations.