Over 100 animal rights advocates gathered outside a Toronto courthouse Monday to voice support for a lawsuit filed by Animal Justice against the so-called “Ag-Gag Law.”
The law prohibits animal rights activists and journalists from conducting undercover investigations and filming animal cruelty at farms and slaughterhouses. Animal rights advocates argue the Security From Trespass and Animal Safety Act, as it is formally called, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Arguments in the case began Monday in Ontario Superior Court.
“Undercover exposés inside farms and slaughterhouses are one of the only sources of information that the public has regarding how animals are treated on farms,” said Camille Labchuk, a lawyer and the executive director of Animal Justice, explaining why the group went to court. “There is no transparency about what happens behind closed doors.”
The Security from Trespass and Animal Safety Act was enacted in 2020 by the Ford government and increased fines for individuals trespassing on Ontario farms and made it illegal to obstruct trucks carrying animals to slaughter.
According to Ontario’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the act reinforces protections for Ontario's food supply, farmers, agri-food businesses and farm animals against risks associated with trespass activities. On its website, the ministry says the law upholds the right for people to engage in lawful protests on public property as long as these protests do not pose harm and are conducted safely.
The ministry states the act provides additional safeguards against the specific risks that arise when individuals trespass onto farms and agri-food processing facilities or interfere with the transportation of livestock. These risks encompass potential food supply contamination, the creation of unsafe working conditions, stress caused to animals and the introduction of diseases.
The ministry argues protections established by the act enhance working conditions for farmers, farm families and agri-food sector employees. Additionally, they enable agri-businesses to concentrate on essential aspects of their operations, including the production of safe, high-quality food for Ontario families.
Labchuk argued the act merely serves to cloak the truth about abysmal conditions on farms. She said it's very difficult to get information on farm animals kept on private property and behind closed doors.
“The only time these violations and animal abuses are exposed is when a brave person goes undercover, wears the camera, and brings information from inside the farms to the public,” said Labchuk.
Labchuk told Canada's National Observer that for the past three years, the law has prohibited the public from seeing conditions inside farms.
“We continue our fight. We have a lot of evidence about animal cruelty on farms, which is why it is so important to allow these exposés to go undercover inside the farms,” she added.
According to Animal Justice, there is growing concern among Canadians about the treatment of animals on farms. Animal Justice believes governments should establish protective laws for farmed animals and implement regular monitoring systems.
“Employees and the public must be allowed to expose unlawful and unethical treatment of animals, even if this means not revealing their full intentions to their employer,” reads a statement shared online by Animal Justice.
Maher Abdurahman, spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, told Canada's National Observer that the application is scheduled to be heard before the Superior Court from Oct. 30 to Nov. 1, 2023.
"Ontario’s position is that the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and regulations are constitutional," said Abdurahman. "The legislation does not impede expression by activists, journalists, or anyone else, nor does it otherwise breach the charter."
As this matter is before the court, any further comment would be inappropriate, he added.
Under this law, fines of up to $15,000 can be imposed for a first offence and up to $25,000 for subsequent offences, as compared to a maximum of $10,000 under the Trespass to Property Act.
This story was produced in partnership with Journalists for Human Rights for the Afghan Journalists-in-Residence program funded by the Meta Journalism Project.
Comments
I have followed this issue for years--provincially & federally.
The authors are absolutely correct--and there's more.
Our animal cruelty legislation is around 100 years out of date. And completely biased towards animal farmers, transporters, "processors", and profit-makers, as well as comparable lobby groups like hunters & fishers.
And funding that flows from federal AND provincial coffers is almost entirely directed at animal farming. Grain and vegetable farmers are nearly entirely ignored.
All this despite the increasingly powerful evidence of the drastic harm to humans who consume animal products, and to our environment from that "business".
There is absolutely no sane or justifiable foundation for ag-gag laws. If the conditions uncovered were not so deeply and profoundly vicious and inexcusable, there would be no need for these distorted and totally biased laws.
Laws which block citizens' awareness of the horrible conditions, let alone our right to protest their cruelty.
How is this balanced? How is this just? How is this not legislated censorship of opinion?
If the backers of these laws want to prevent awareness among consumers, and then even a partial move away from consumption of animal "products", they are completely misguided.
We will find out. The people who take the videos, who air them--wherever--are astoundingly courageous, and humane. The videos have an effect--even if only on a few.
The information is available elsewhere, but the videos, the in-your-face confrontation of how cruel the "food chain" is, are highly effective. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such an organized & vocal opposition.
We'll find out, regardless. And as we do, there will be more and more opposition to animal cruelty, in all forms.