Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here
The proposed Ag-Gag bill gives us a scary insight into the workings of the Coalition and the behaviour they are willing to not only accept, but also protect. All in the quest for the almighty dollar.
The Coalition have never been ones to shy away from hypocrisy on a grand scale and what is occurring now in NSW is certainly no exception. However what is scary is that the agenda being pushed by the Coalition in NSW has a national target firmly in its sights.
Debate is currently raging as to whether the Trade Union Royal Commission is a witch-hunt or an expensive government sponsored promotion for a Liberal Party fundraiser that George Brandis can’t wait to charge the taxpayer to attend.
Many may remember that the Coalition were seeking to bestow special powers to the Royal Commission to protect whistle-blowers. Among the things that were to be on offer to whistle-blowers was the possibility of immunity from prosecution for criminal acts.
Those familiar with my Jacksonville investigation would be only too aware that possibly the most notorious of those claiming to be a whistle-blower, Kathy Jackson, is looking shadier than a Bronwyn Bishop expense claim.
However while the Coalition at federal level are seeking to protect whistle-blowers, in NSW the Coalition are looking to pass legislation that would see them face harsher persecution and increased penalties. In fact in NSW it is safe to say that whistle-blowers are the ones who will be the subject of Coalition witch-hunts.
So why the double standards?
The Federal Coalition are happy to help whistle-blowers if they will damage the labour movement. The NSW Coalition seek to do as much damage as possible to whistle-blowers that report acts of animal cruelty that take place on farms or in the agriculture industry.
The bill being pushed is known as Ag-Gag and it seeks to provide safe-haven for those who commit acts of animal cruelty.
Below is a link to a Coalition policy outline however this is just a draft and the final legislation will likely go further.
NSW farm trespass policy protecting our farms
What is should say is “NSW farm exposure policy protecting abusive behaviour by farmers”.
As you can see in the policy document the spin that the Coalition are putting on this is that there is a bio-security issue. Somehow exposure of animal cruelty puts us all at risk of doom and death by some sort of hideous disease in the Coalition’s eyes.
It is easy to see how they have come to this conclusion given all of the bio-security cases that have come from the acts involved in reporting animal cruelty. None. Not a single one. That is why the document doesn’t refer to an actual case.
But like the policy outline says, there could be.
There is also the possibility of a meteor shower raining down on the countries major cities, however the Coalition have no policy in the pipeline on that front.
The Coalition suggest that animal advocates with camera’s carry disease onto farms where these is livestock despite there never having been a single case. However I accept that there is a remote possibility of this occurring, however I’ll probably win the lottery before I see a proven case.
Given the Coalitions apparent concern for bio-security I am assuming that there is legislation on the way that prevents farmers from having visitors? I assume that they will not be banning couriers and the postman from going near farms. I also assume that there will be laws passed that will ensure that livestock food will be delivered in airtight vacuum-sealed containers in medical supply type vans, rather than loose in the back of utes and trucks. The Coalition must also be planning to see livestock transported by sterilised buses or similar, rather than jammed onto the back of semi-trailers open to the weather and exhaust fumes as they stand crammed together in each others piss and shit.
But no, apparently a camera will be the death of us.
What this has to do with whistleblowers I’m not sure I understand. I assume that if a whistleblower worked on the property than they would be a bio-security risk whether they were reporting cruelty or keeping it secret, after all having a conscience is not a disease.
Another hypocritical aspect of this bill being backed by the Coalition is its intent to censor and gag the media.
Remember the attempts to change section 18C of the discrimination act? The Coalition were up in arms screaming about freedom of the press saying the media should not be restricted when it comes to matters of race.
The Ag-Gag bill seeks to impose harsh penalties on journalists and media outlets for running footage or publishing images that show animal cruelty by individuals or by a company. It will also seek to hold media outlets and individuals accountable for loss of income due to the exposure of what is a criminal act.
The simple fact is that if the criminal act of cruelty were not committed then there would be no loss of income as there would be no footage to show.
Apparently freedom of the press is only valid if you are promoting a racist point of view.
Media is supposed to report on what is in the public interest. It is abundantly clear given the size of the organisations involved in animal advocacy that the public are passionate about this matter. Add to that there are not many things greater in the public interest than where the food they live off comes from.
The Coalition may be comfortable with their pork chop arriving after the sow has been bashed to death with a sledgehammer but most of the country hope for something just a little more humane.
Dinner with the Nat’s?
Also unclear is that if exposure of the cruelty means criminal charges are laid or fines issued for breach of industry codes and council permits will the media be expected to pay these penalties? After all these penalties do represent a loss of income.
If exposure results in animals being seized or euthanised due to action by the RSPCA, will the media be expected to pay compensation to the perpetrator? This would also be loss of income due to the loss of stock.
Both of these scenario’s may seem ridiculous and obscene but given the proposed bill both are well and truly on the cards.
This proposed Ag-Gag bill represents hypocrisy on a grand scale and is a vivid display of the National Party pushing an extreme agenda within the Coalition with the Liberals being forced to support them.
This is the tail wagging the dog.
Wixxy Wixxy Wixxy,I thought you knew better
Of course it`s a bio-security issue because people trespassing on farms my have bio diseases on the soles of their shoes,especially if they work for or are going to whistle blow to the RSPCA.
It`s not so much of a problem for MSM folk as unlike their RSPCA/Indie counterparts they never tread in any truth so they can`t spread it around,biologically.
Meanwhile the Jacksonville STENCH spreads and becomes more openly repugnant
It seem a RC into Justice Heydon is called for all on it`s own
http://www.photoonica.com/media-temp/mA125NH-0.jpg
This type of legislation has been the latest trend in the U.S. so of course the Libs are jumping on it. Over there it has been overturned in some places because it violates 1st Amendment protection. Of course, in Australia we don’t have a Bill of Rights so it’s open slather on civil liberties.
Using their logic, could a drug dealer claim for loss of income if someone dobs them in? It shouldn’t matter which particular law you are breaking.
Should have guessed you were anti Coalition.
Get a real job and stop the crap.
So is most of the country…
So how is a bill that make reporting animal cruelty to authority’s within a reasonable ammount of time against animal welfare? Imagine if rspca were given the greyhound footage a year earlier when it was first shot? Hundreds of animals would have been saved but the catch would be animal activists wouldn’t get money selling the story to the media first.
As for bio security you only need to look as far as your great animal justice party elected member. Remember that little scandal where he contaminated a whole heard of sheep the day before transport? Or what about severe crippling diseases like Pavo and distemper not to mention the recent QLD horse virus outbreak but I guess your too busy making your story’s to actually see what’s happening around you
There has never been a case of a bio-security threat from an animal activist in Australia, I have received a response from Barnaby Joyce and he has been unable to think of one at any rate
As for reporting within 24hrs that is totally unmanageable as anybody knows, it will also mean activists with hidden cameras will need to revisit the site daily, which idiots pushing these bills say is a bio security risk?
The 24hr requirement is to make it impossible to show a pattern of behaviours so abuse can be written off as isolated incidents
Moses you wrote
Imagine if rspca were given the greyhound footage a year earlier when it was first shot? Hundreds of animals would have been saved but the catch would be animal activists wouldn’t get money selling the story to the media first.
So how do you come to the conclusion that activists do this to get money by selling the story?
I see that your assumption is part of the RWNJ problem and it is also part of the cause which shows the open insanity that Liberal/Nationals foster on everyone.
No one ever said 24 hours what was debated by parliament and a general concensus was 14 days even if it were 24 hours it would be from the time the individual obtained the information not the time it was filmed.
As for a threat every time your friends at oscars law break into a property they put all animals at risk of Pavo/distemper so all you need to do is site every time oscars law animals Aust ect have broken into property’s. I’m sure if you mentioned out animal justice league friend to Barnaby he may remember a particular activist incident of contamination
Clearly you know more than Barnaby Joyce then who states 24 hours in his response to me and he has spoken of on numerous occasions