Fighting ‘Illegitimacy’ with Illegitimacy:
An Analysis of How Legislative Attempts to Silence Animal Activists are Counterproductive
F
Simon Brannigan
or those concerned about the plight of farmed animals in Australia, it is easy to be sceptical about a brighter future when one considers the current inadequacies in the legal framework. Animal welfare laws are both substantively weak and poorly enforced in Australia, owing primarily to the Department of Primary Industry’s position as ‘regulator’ and ‘promoter’ of the agricultural industry (‘the industry’) – responsibilities which inevitably conflict. Fortunately, animal activist organisations play an integral role in ensuring animal welfare standards are enforced by uncovering and publicising systematic breaches to our community – and this often stimulates subsequent law reform. However, Ed.3 2020
State and Federal governments have recently introduced controversial laws that bear important similarities to US style ‘ag-gag laws’, as the laws seek to ‘gag’ the ability of activists to record and publicise industry breaches. This is because the industry and the Government perceive these acts of activists as ‘illegitimate’. This article, however, will argue that legislative attempts to silence activists are even less ‘legitimate’, as the effect of the legislation dismisses (rather than serve) the public interest in high animal welfare standards. Additionally, these laws also signify an undue departure from industry accountability and transparency, leaving us, the consumers, to question what it is that the industry has to hide. Taken together, these issues suggest that it may thebrief.muls.org | 25
