Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Animal Rights Activism and the Constitution: Are Ag-Gag Laws Justifiable Limits?

View more insights in Professional - Law - Property Law - Socio-legal Studies

View more figures from Dalhousie University

View the page of Jodi Lazare

Read the Study

It is a troubling time to be an animal rights activist in Canada. Recently, Alberta adopted legislation to create harsh penalties for trespassing onto private property, Ontario has adopted similar legislation aimed specifically at agricultural property. Jodi Lazare evaluates the legislation in both provinces.

Image courtesy of interviewee. August 13, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video is a transcription of a conversation focused on animal rights activism, animal law, and constitutional issues in Canada, particularly concerning "ag gag" laws. The speaker, Jody, discusses their academic background in animal law and family law, explaining their motivation to merge these fields. They highlight the rising attention to animal rights in Canada and the recently enacted ag gag laws, which restrict individuals from recording activities on industrial farms.

The conversation touches on the legal framework surrounding these laws, referencing the Oaks test from Canadian constitutional law, which assesses whether laws that limit constitutional freedoms are justifiable in a democratic society. Jody critiques the ag gag laws, arguing that they fail to serve legitimate objectives such as protecting mental health or biosecurity and do not rationally connect to their stated goals.

Furthermore, the speaker suggests that the enactment of ag gag laws has sparked discussions about animal treatment in agricultural settings, contributing to the discourse around animal rights. Jody concludes by advocating for the public's right to know about food production practices and hints at future work that may explore the implications of property law on animal rights and advocacy.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Area of Expertise**: The speaker teaches about animal law, focusing on how legal frameworks impact the treatment of non-human animals, and has a background in family law. This unique combination led to a specialization in the intersection of family breakdown and animal rights, particularly concerning the ownership of companion animals.

2. **Rise of Animal Law**: There is an increasing interest in animal law in Canada, evidenced by growing scholarship and legislative activity. People are becoming more aware of animal rights issues, fueled by social media and public visibility into animal treatment, particularly in industrial farming convideos.

3. **Ag Gag Laws**: The speaker discusses the introduction of ag gag laws in Canada, which are influenced by similar laws in the U.S. These laws aim to prevent the documentation and reporting of conditions on animal farms, thereby limiting free speech and animal rights activism. The speaker expresses concerns over the implications of these laws for constitutional rights.

4. **Constitutional Implications**: The discussion includes constitutional law, particularly how courts evaluate the justifications for laws that limit constitutional freedoms. The speaker argues that the ag gag laws do not sufficiently justify limiting rights related to freedom of expression, which is crucial for advocating animal rights.

5. **Call for Transparency**: The speaker advocates for the public's right to information about animal treatment and agricultural practices, emphasizing that citizens should be informed about how their food is produced. They highlight the need to rethink property rights in the convideo of animal rights advocacy and discuss the ethical implications of laws protecting industrial agriculture.

Export as PDF
Here are key quotes extracted from the video:

1. **Combination of Interests:**
- "I found a way to combine my interests in family law and animal law."

2. **Impact of Animal Law:**
- "Animal law has kind of been on the rise in Canada... people are really starting to pay attention to animal rights, the role of animals in society, how we treat them."

3. **About Ag-Gag Laws:**
- "Ag Gag Laws... have the effect of preventing people from recording what happens on industrialized animal farms."

4. **Freedom of Expression:**
- "I have been doing that since I started teaching at Dazi in 2014... freedom of expression, the charter, that kind of thing."

5. **High Value Speech:**
- "It's high value speech... animals rights advocacy... the types of messages that are trying to be... conveyed through video."

6. **Effects of Law on Activism:**
- "There are other aspects to the law in Ontario and other jurisdictions... the activities of what's called the save movement."

7. **Proportionality and Objectives of Law:**
- "The test is... whether the way the law is written and functions is proportionate to those objectives."
- "I do not think the law is proportionate in its objectives."

8. **Purpose of Laws:**
- "I see the objective it is... to protect industrial agriculture."

9. **Rationale Against Activism:**
- "Activists are not interested in interacting with farmers... they only enter barns and spaces where animals are kept."

10. **Right to Know:**
- "I think that Canadians... have the right to know how their food is produced, what goes on... the kinds of activities that their tax dollars are being used to support."

11. **Theoretical Perspective:**
- "I'm taking a look at... what these laws mean from a... property law... position or perspective."

12. **Reconceiving Property:**
- "If we maybe reconceive of... the purpose and function of private property, we might come to a different conclusion about... farms and animal rights advocacy."

These quotes reflect the main themes discussed in the video, including animal rights, legal implications of ag-gag laws, the intersection of animal law with family law, and beliefs about freedom of expression and activism.

Export as PDF
Here are some similar articles that you might find relevant to the video you , which focuses on animal rights, legal frameworks, and specific issues like "ag gag" laws in Canada:

1. **"The Rise of 'Ag Gag' Laws: Examining the Impact on Animal Rights Activism"**
This article analyzes the implications of ag gag laws on animal rights organizations and activists, discussing how legal restrictions affect transparency in animal farming practices.

2. **"Animal Rights in Canada: Legal Perspectives and Social Movements"**
This piece provides an overview of the evolution of animal rights in Canadian law, examining key legal cases and the role of activism in shaping policies related to animal welfare.

3. **"Constitutional Challenges to Ag Gag Laws: The Oaks Test and Beyond"**
An exploration of various legal challenges against ag gag laws in Canada, specifically focusing on constitutional arguments and the application of the Oaks test to assess justification for limiting freedoms.

4. **"The Intersection of Animal Law and Property Law: Implications for Animal Rights Advocacy"**
This article discusses how property law influences animal rights, focusing on legal definitions of animals as property and the potential for reform to enhance animal welfare protections.

5. **"Public Awareness and Animal Farming: The Role of Transparency in Food Production"**
Investigating how legislation affecting the transparency of farming practices impacts public awareness of animal welfare issues, urging for more access to information about the treatment of animals in agriculture.

6. **"Activism and Legal Reform: Challenges Facing Animal Rights Advocates"**
This article delves into the strategies employed by animal rights activists in light of restrictive laws like ag gag laws, exploring their legal and social campaigning efforts.

7. **"Animal Welfare Legislation and the Defense of Activism in Canada"**
An overview of current animal welfare laws in Canada, the challenges faced by activists under these laws, and the broader implications for social justice and constitutional rights.

These articles will provide deeper insights into the themes of animal rights, legal restrictions, activism, and the complexities of agricultural practices in Canada.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.165 --> 00:03.935
I teach animals and the law, which is, you know,

00:03.945 --> 00:08.815
every, everything about how the law, interacts with

00:08.955 --> 00:12.855
or impacts, the treatment of, non-human animals.

00:13.515 --> 00:16.535
Um, I also have a background in family law.

00:16.675 --> 00:18.255
Um, my doctorate was in family law.

00:19.075 --> 00:23.615
Um, and, the way I sort

00:23.615 --> 00:25.255
of came to this was

00:25.255 --> 00:30.135
because I found a way to combine my interests in family law

00:30.275 --> 00:31.295
and animal law.

00:31.715 --> 00:35.615
Um, I started, I don't know, a few years ago with,

00:35.895 --> 00:38.495
a paper about animals in the family

00:38.835 --> 00:41.935
and companion animals in the context of family breakdown.

00:42.115 --> 00:43.535
You know, who gets the dog right?

00:44.035 --> 00:45.735
Um, or cat or what have you.

00:46.315 --> 00:48.815
Um, and,

00:50.515 --> 00:54.815
animal law has kind of been on the rise in Canada,

00:56.165 --> 00:58.855
both with respect to sort of scholarship

00:58.875 --> 01:00.015
and academic inquiry,

01:00.195 --> 01:03.735
and also at the, at the legislature in parliament,

01:04.155 --> 01:05.895
and provincial legislatures.

01:06.055 --> 01:07.975
I think just because people are really starting

01:07.995 --> 01:10.935
to pay attention to animal rights, the role

01:10.935 --> 01:13.015
of animals in society, how we treat them, that kind

01:13.015 --> 01:16.295
of thing, you know, in the, world of social media

01:16.795 --> 01:20.815
and, you know, video on our phones, people are starting

01:20.835 --> 01:23.975
to see more than they ever have before.

01:24.755 --> 01:27.575
And, one of those legislative developments involved.

01:27.875 --> 01:31.695
Um, so-called, ag Gag Laws,

01:31.695 --> 01:36.495
which are an import from the us, which are

01:37.045 --> 01:40.855
laws, agricultural gag laws, let's say, which,

01:42.155 --> 01:47.055
in, in outcome, they all do this different ways,

01:47.685 --> 01:52.295
have the effect of preventing people from recording

01:52.365 --> 01:55.655
what happens on industrialized animal farms.

01:56.715 --> 02:00.715
Um, I also teach, constitutional law.

02:00.795 --> 02:03.075
I have been doing that since I started teaching at

02:03.345 --> 02:04.355
Dazi in 2014.

02:04.975 --> 02:07.515
So I'm quite well versed in, you know, freedom

02:07.535 --> 02:10.235
of expression, the charter, that kind of thing.

02:10.855 --> 02:14.875
Um, so for me, having already,

02:15.875 --> 02:18.535
started to do some writing in the animal law space

02:18.765 --> 02:20.815
with my background in constitutional law

02:20.915 --> 02:22.975
and with these laws,

02:22.975 --> 02:24.975
being adopted in different Canadian jurisdictions,

02:24.975 --> 02:27.135
it just seemed like a, you know, the ideal opportunity

02:27.555 --> 02:29.655
for me to kind of dive in.

02:30.235 --> 02:34.385
So I did, a short application, a, an application

02:34.385 --> 02:36.585
for government funding, to do this work

02:36.695 --> 02:37.825
that was successful

02:38.645 --> 02:42.145
and, set out to write these papers

02:42.375 --> 02:45.105
because this, kind of law was

02:45.165 --> 02:47.665
so new in Canada when it first started,

02:47.675 --> 02:49.905
being talked about in about 2019.

02:50.645 --> 02:54.065
Um, there was no literature on,

02:55.085 --> 02:57.465
the constitutional dimension of animal rights advocacy.

02:58.085 --> 02:59.085
Uh,

02:59.395 --> 03:04.055
And I, I wanna say no literature at all in the,

03:04.275 --> 03:08.935
legal space about animal rights,

03:10.075 --> 03:11.875
advocacy, freedom of expression.

03:12.325 --> 03:16.515
There was some writing, there is some writing about,

03:17.975 --> 03:21.595
the laws as they affect animals and animal rights

03:21.815 --> 03:23.755
and, personhood

03:23.855 --> 03:26.755
and, sort of legal status of animals.

03:27.295 --> 03:28.995
But there was very little, if any,

03:29.015 --> 03:31.355
in Canada on the constitutional dimensions

03:31.355 --> 03:32.475
of animal rights advocacy.

03:33.135 --> 03:34.135
Um, however,

03:34.245 --> 03:38.655
because these laws were an import from the states,

03:39.065 --> 03:43.175
there is an abundance of literature, there,

03:44.845 --> 03:48.585
on, free speech and the First amendment

03:49.085 --> 03:50.985
and, ag gag laws

03:51.165 --> 03:55.345
and how they have been, struck down in,

03:56.105 --> 03:58.505
a number of US jurisdictions

03:59.015 --> 04:01.905
because of their impact on free speech.

04:02.405 --> 04:05.985
And because of the idea that,

04:07.815 --> 04:09.075
animal rights advocacy

04:09.335 --> 04:13.195
and the types of messages that are trying to be,

04:13.715 --> 04:16.675
conveyed through video,

04:17.565 --> 04:21.595
undercover investigations, employee whistleblower activism,

04:21.665 --> 04:25.235
that kind of thing, trespass,

04:25.505 --> 04:30.185
farm occupations, all that information, is

04:30.905 --> 04:32.345
accepted that it's high value speech.

04:33.245 --> 04:37.105
Uh, so in the us, you know,

04:37.215 --> 04:39.105
that combination of factors, the fact

04:39.105 --> 04:41.425
that it's high value speech, the fact that, you know,

04:41.425 --> 04:44.345
free speech is paramount in the US governments cannot,

04:44.685 --> 04:46.945
you know, not in the same way justify limits.

04:47.205 --> 04:48.545
Um, they do, there are different tests,

04:48.685 --> 04:52.945
but, as in Canada, there,

04:52.955 --> 04:56.145
there was a lot to draw on from the us.

04:56.405 --> 05:01.305
The first, law that was adopted, was in Alberta,

05:01.645 --> 05:03.505
which is not insignificant

05:03.505 --> 05:05.465
because Alberta is farm country.

05:06.165 --> 05:10.385
Um, there's a lot, you know, Alberta beef is well known,

05:11.125 --> 05:14.865
and it's, a sort of more,

05:16.555 --> 05:21.445
farm rural based economy than others.

05:21.765 --> 05:23.725
Although I don't wanna undermine the importance of farming

05:23.785 --> 05:25.245
and agriculture in other places like

05:25.245 --> 05:26.485
Ontario and even the Maritimes.

05:26.485 --> 05:29.285
But Alberta is well known for, for that kind of stuff.

05:29.785 --> 05:33.605
Um, and the law that was,

05:34.475 --> 05:39.245
adopted in Alberta actually went beyond, farms.

05:39.465 --> 05:44.005
It was like a critical infrastructure act that basically

05:44.645 --> 05:47.405
prohibited, trespass

05:48.145 --> 05:51.125
by making a lie.

05:52.195 --> 05:56.825
Um, by, it's not criminalizing 'cause criminal law is

05:56.825 --> 06:01.205
Federal, but by quasi criminalizing, telling a lie

06:01.385 --> 06:06.275
to gain entry to certain types of private property,

06:07.585 --> 06:09.865
not limited to farms,

06:10.155 --> 06:14.985
which in a way was useful in, kind

06:14.985 --> 06:16.145
of analyzing these laws

06:16.145 --> 06:19.705
because it would also apply to daycares,

06:20.265 --> 06:24.585
assisted living facilities, prisons, you know, the types

06:24.605 --> 06:28.985
of places that we would want to know,

06:29.605 --> 06:31.025
what's going on inside of them.

06:31.895 --> 06:33.835
So that was a legislative background in Alberta.

06:33.835 --> 06:36.715
And, and why that happened, was

06:36.715 --> 06:40.675
because of the things I mentioned earlier about, more

06:40.675 --> 06:41.995
and more animal rights activism.

06:42.815 --> 06:47.555
Um, more people gaining entry onto farms, whether

06:48.265 --> 06:51.675
legally or illegally more,

06:51.935 --> 06:54.955
whistleblowers more undercover investigations

06:55.575 --> 06:59.275
and more people seeing the reality of industrial farming,

06:59.765 --> 07:04.565
which, is not pretty, Ontario,

07:05.795 --> 07:07.605
similar, similar in Ontario.

07:08.345 --> 07:12.525
Um, I, I, I will be honest that these are

07:12.665 --> 07:16.765
of course driven by conservative governments whose,

07:18.125 --> 07:22.165
constituencies are formed, you know, in substantial part

07:22.425 --> 07:25.965
of, rural voters, farmers.

07:26.945 --> 07:31.085
Uh, and there was a drive on behalf of

07:31.935 --> 07:36.245
those groups to, do something about

07:37.065 --> 07:40.445
the increasing levels of activism on farms.

07:40.505 --> 07:42.085
The Supreme Court of Canada came up

07:42.085 --> 07:44.005
with a test in a case called RV Oaks,

07:44.045 --> 07:46.885
a criminal law case about, the criminalization

07:46.885 --> 07:48.685
of certain forms of narcotics,

07:49.545 --> 07:54.285
and, set out the factors that governments need to

07:54.845 --> 07:58.125
demonstrate in order to prove that a, a law

07:58.125 --> 08:01.405
that limits constitutional freedoms is in fact,

08:01.755 --> 08:03.725
justifiable in a freeing democratic society.

08:03.985 --> 08:08.325
And that includes, the objectives of the law

08:09.345 --> 08:13.485
and, whether, the,

08:14.665 --> 08:16.205
the way the law is written

08:16.665 --> 08:20.445
and functions is proportionate to those objectives.

08:20.445 --> 08:22.525
So basically, a proportionality

08:22.625 --> 08:26.525
or cost benefit analysis about, the impact

08:26.745 --> 08:31.445
of limiting certain freedoms versus the, collective,

08:31.445 --> 08:33.325
the pursuit of the collective good.

08:33.865 --> 08:37.525
And the, types of things that impact the rigor

08:37.525 --> 08:41.935
with which a court will, measure

08:42.115 --> 08:43.415
or evaluate those laws,

08:43.475 --> 08:45.615
or the standard to which they'll hold the government in

08:45.615 --> 08:50.495
justifying them is the importance of the speech,

08:50.705 --> 08:51.855
being protected.

08:52.275 --> 08:55.820
So, for example, when governments limit commercial speech,

08:56.075 --> 08:58.805
like, advertising against children un

08:59.445 --> 09:02.485
advertising toward children, under the age of 13,

09:02.575 --> 09:07.005
let's say, the test is,

09:07.345 --> 09:08.605
easier to meet.

09:09.305 --> 09:11.965
Um, commercial speech is,

09:11.965 --> 09:13.685
while there's value in commercial speech

09:13.825 --> 09:18.125
for informational purposes, is not the same as,

09:18.425 --> 09:22.725
the kind of speech at stake here, in my view.

09:23.145 --> 09:26.165
Um, and in the view of courts in other jurisdictions,

09:26.535 --> 09:30.125
which really gets to the heart of people's fundamental

09:30.945 --> 09:32.845
values and beliefs

09:33.225 --> 09:37.685
and informs, political discourse,

09:37.705 --> 09:39.965
the way people vote, the way people eat,

09:40.105 --> 09:42.605
the way people shop, the way they feed their children.

09:43.385 --> 09:48.045
Um, so the impacts of the law would go toward the rigor

09:48.045 --> 09:50.965
with which it would be evaluated in court, as well as

09:51.065 --> 09:53.445
of course, the, objectives.

09:53.445 --> 09:55.445
You know, who was the law trying to protect?

09:55.625 --> 09:59.125
Are they a vulnerable group, et cetera, et cetera.

09:59.375 --> 10:03.445
Today, the state of the law out of the courts in Canada

10:04.625 --> 10:07.005
is based on one trial decision in Ontario,

10:07.005 --> 10:10.765
which the government will appeal, is that certain parts

10:10.865 --> 10:14.135
of Ontario's ag gag laws,

10:15.495 --> 10:19.195
are not, rationally connected,

10:19.195 --> 10:22.035
or at least not minimally impairing with respect

10:22.035 --> 10:23.035
to their objective.

10:23.535 --> 10:28.035
Um, a few months ago, the Ontario

10:28.555 --> 10:32.725
Superior Court, which is our trial level court

10:32.725 --> 10:35.925
that would deal with constitutional questions,

10:38.725 --> 10:41.975
invalidated the, regulation

10:42.315 --> 10:45.655
or provision of Ontario's law that,

10:47.955 --> 10:50.945
deems, entry under false

10:51.175 --> 10:53.385
pretenses a trespass.

10:54.925 --> 10:57.985
So, according to one judge in Ontario,

10:58.715 --> 11:01.345
there is a problem at the level of minimal impairment.

11:01.435 --> 11:03.465
There are other aspects to the law in Ontario

11:03.525 --> 11:05.025
and other jurisdictions as well.

11:05.645 --> 11:09.665
Um, part of the, impetus

11:09.665 --> 11:13.945
to adopt these laws was not just, trespass onto farms,

11:13.945 --> 11:16.665
but the activities of what's called the save movement.

11:16.725 --> 11:20.585
And similar groups who, basically protest

11:20.765 --> 11:24.345
and advocate outside of slaughterhouses,

11:25.245 --> 11:28.225
and,

11:30.265 --> 11:33.405
stand alongside trucks,

11:33.685 --> 11:36.125
bringing animals into slaughterhouses

11:36.305 --> 11:40.245
and in some cases give the animals water, hand out leaflets,

11:41.245 --> 11:43.655
talk to the animals, that kind of thing.

11:43.915 --> 11:48.015
Um, so that aspect of the law was not,

11:48.635 --> 11:50.655
was not, invalidated,

11:51.455 --> 11:53.925
although, it will be, you know,

11:53.925 --> 11:55.445
the case is being appealed by the government,

11:55.445 --> 11:57.165
and I'm sure the arguments will beheard again.

11:57.665 --> 12:02.165
Um, I don't think, of course, I don't think

12:02.355 --> 12:06.325
that the, limits are rationally connected

12:06.325 --> 12:08.205
to their objective, and that's

12:08.205 --> 12:12.245
because based on the debates and the information

12:12.245 --> 12:14.045
and the background and everything that I have read,

12:14.105 --> 12:16.765
and I have been through the Ontario legislative debates

12:16.765 --> 12:19.365
with a fine tooth comb, these laws

12:19.425 --> 12:20.605
are not what they claim to be.

12:20.865 --> 12:24.125
The government claims that they are about, well,

12:24.125 --> 12:25.805
about protecting farm safety

12:26.265 --> 12:28.525
to a certain degree about protecting the mental health

12:28.525 --> 12:30.725
of farmers and their families, sure,

12:31.065 --> 12:32.765
but also about biosecurity

12:33.315 --> 12:36.725
that preventing people from going on to farms, illegally

12:37.365 --> 12:40.085
trespassing, deemed trespass, what have you,

12:40.585 --> 12:43.645
has a bios would create a biosecurity threat

12:43.785 --> 12:45.165
of disease on farms.

12:45.385 --> 12:46.605
But if you look at the evidence

12:47.145 --> 12:49.645
and, the organization, animal justice

12:49.985 --> 12:53.725
and, has read all the data, based on,

12:54.325 --> 12:55.845
CFIA investigations

12:55.905 --> 12:59.925
and reports, which is the Canadian Food, inspection Act,

13:00.105 --> 13:04.035
agency, there is no

13:05.315 --> 13:09.955
evidence of a undercover investigator, a journalist,

13:10.275 --> 13:12.275
a protestor, an activist,

13:13.565 --> 13:16.525
creating a biosecurity hazard on a farm.

13:17.235 --> 13:20.825
Biosecurity standards,

13:22.155 --> 13:25.465
apply to or biosecurity risks typically

13:26.215 --> 13:30.145
come from workers, vets, other animals,

13:30.695 --> 13:33.385
wild animals, and,

13:34.925 --> 13:36.745
not from activists.

13:37.405 --> 13:41.065
If this law was really about protecting biosecurity,

13:41.565 --> 13:44.705
it would actually create biosecurity measures,

13:45.265 --> 13:46.335
which it does not.

13:46.955 --> 13:49.935
An employee or an undercover investigator who goes

13:49.935 --> 13:53.895
to work on a farm in order to film the

13:54.655 --> 13:57.975
violence against animals on industrial farms is going

13:57.975 --> 14:00.375
to follow all biosecurity protocols.

14:01.505 --> 14:04.405
So I don't think there is a rational connection,

14:04.465 --> 14:06.085
the positive impacts of the law,

14:06.085 --> 14:09.085
or its expected positive, expected positive impacts

14:09.665 --> 14:14.325
versus its impact on, so-called charter values.

14:15.145 --> 14:19.125
Um, whether the law leaves people a meaningful choice,

14:19.505 --> 14:22.805
for example, not surprisingly,

14:22.965 --> 14:25.805
I do not think the law is proportionate in its objectives,

14:26.025 --> 14:28.325
and or in its effects, mostly

14:28.325 --> 14:29.565
because,

14:31.955 --> 14:34.415
as I see the objective it is,

14:35.675 --> 14:38.455
to protect industrial agriculture.

14:39.035 --> 14:42.815
And, I'm really not convinced based on our

14:43.295 --> 14:47.855
constitutional, jurisprudence that the protection of,

14:48.195 --> 14:49.255
a business

14:49.315 --> 14:53.245
or an industry is a constitutionally valid objective.

14:54.075 --> 14:57.655
Um, if we accept that it's about the protection

14:57.655 --> 14:59.495
of the mental health of farmers and their families

14:59.495 --> 15:03.335
and their safety, there is no evidence of,

15:04.615 --> 15:07.535
a threat to a person on the part of activists.

15:07.725 --> 15:10.135
Activists are not interested in interacting with farmers.

15:10.205 --> 15:11.455
They don't go near their homes.

15:12.165 --> 15:15.935
They only, enter barns

15:16.115 --> 15:18.255
and spaces where animals are kept.

15:18.395 --> 15:22.655
If we accept the, biosecurity

15:23.245 --> 15:25.615
objective, again, there is no evidence

15:25.885 --> 15:30.255
that the laws would be, effective at doing that.

15:30.365 --> 15:34.015
Whereas there is lots of evidence,

15:34.145 --> 15:36.855
maybe in a different form of the impacts

15:36.955 --> 15:40.495
of limiting this kind of speech on people

15:40.875 --> 15:42.135
who find real meaning

15:42.235 --> 15:45.975
and value in advocating on behalf of farmed animals.

15:47.025 --> 15:51.245
Um, this law leaves people with no meaningful choice between

15:52.845 --> 15:56.885
carrying out, the activities that,

15:57.265 --> 15:59.725
enable them to, you know, experience meaning

15:59.745 --> 16:01.885
and human flourishing, which is part of the test for freedom

16:01.885 --> 16:06.365
of expression, and being arrested, or fined.

16:06.905 --> 16:08.325
Uh, so no, I don't think

16:08.325 --> 16:09.685
that these laws are proportionate in their

16:09.685 --> 16:11.205
objectives or in their effects.

16:11.605 --> 16:15.655
I think, you know, in some way, the adoption of these laws,

16:16.385 --> 16:19.815
while I don't support them, has opened up a discussion.

16:20.555 --> 16:25.015
Um, this stuff is now, on the legislative record,

16:25.435 --> 16:27.255
people are talking about the ways

16:27.255 --> 16:29.175
that animals are treated on farms.

16:29.795 --> 16:32.175
If you read the, decision

16:32.235 --> 16:35.735
by the Superior Court in Ontario, it talks about the types

16:35.755 --> 16:39.655
of things that are done to, animals on farms, you know,

16:39.655 --> 16:43.135
without their consent that cause intense suffering like,

16:43.335 --> 16:45.895
cropping tails with no anesthetic

16:46.075 --> 16:49.655
or so-called piglet thumping, which, I will leave you to

16:50.225 --> 16:51.375
think about what that is,

16:51.435 --> 16:55.255
but is an accepted form of so-called euthanasia,

16:55.395 --> 16:56.815
for a diseased piglet.

16:57.275 --> 17:01.195
Um, so, you know, in that respect,

17:02.285 --> 17:06.155
maybe there's some value in opening these discussions.

17:07.005 --> 17:10.745
Um, do I think that these laws should exist? Of course not.

17:10.945 --> 17:12.065
I think that Canadians

17:12.065 --> 17:13.465
and everyone has the right to know

17:13.765 --> 17:18.105
how their food is produced, what goes on, ha the kinds

17:18.105 --> 17:20.865
of activities that their tax dollars are being used

17:21.005 --> 17:25.385
to support because, agriculture gets, you know, massive

17:26.055 --> 17:28.865
subsidies in all kinds of different forms, tax exemptions,

17:29.045 --> 17:31.265
et cetera, and actual subsidies.

17:31.685 --> 17:35.725
Um, so, no, I think people deserve to

17:36.275 --> 17:37.525
have a right to information

17:37.705 --> 17:42.605
and a right to make informed choices, going forward.

17:43.225 --> 17:45.765
Um, my work is

17:46.885 --> 17:50.215
a little more, let's say, theoretical.

17:50.795 --> 17:55.755
Uh, I'm taking a look at, what these

17:56.545 --> 18:01.235
laws mean from a, property law,

18:01.695 --> 18:04.715
position or perspective,

18:05.495 --> 18:09.755
and the idea that if we maybe reconceive

18:10.495 --> 18:12.075
of, the purpose

18:12.455 --> 18:15.515
and function of private property, we might come

18:15.515 --> 18:19.355
to a different conclusion about, farms

18:19.655 --> 18:24.035
and, trespass and animal rights advocacy.

18:24.935 --> 18:28.755
Um, open rescue where people go onto farms and,

18:29.055 --> 18:32.275
and, try to rescue suffering animals

18:32.295 --> 18:33.995
who have no economic value to the farmers.

18:34.895 --> 18:38.275
Um, and whether imprisoning people

18:38.935 --> 18:43.155
for trespass on private property, given the

18:43.985 --> 18:48.115
role and purpose of that property is really the direction

18:48.115 --> 18:48.835
that we want to be going in.

00:00 - I teach animals and the law, which is, you know, every, everything about how the law, interacts with or impacts, the treatment of, non-human animals. I also have a background in family law. my doctorate was in family law. and, the way I sort

00:23 - of came to this was because I found a way to combine my interests in family law and animal law. I started, I don't know, a few years ago with, a paper about animals in the family and companion animals in the context of family breakdown. You know, who gets the dog right? or cat or what have you. and, animal law has kind of been on the rise in Canada,

00:56 - both with respect to sort of scholarship and academic inquiry, and also at the, at the legislature in parliament, and provincial legislatures. I think just because people are really starting to pay attention to animal rights, the role of animals in society, how we treat them, that kind of thing, you know, in the, world of social media and, you know, video on our phones, people are starting to see more than they ever have before.

01:24 - And, one of those legislative developments involved. so-called, ag Gag Laws, which are an import from the us, which are laws, agricultural gag laws, let's say, which, in, in outcome, they all do this different ways, have the effect of preventing people from recording what happens on industrialized animal farms. I also teach, constitutional law. I have been doing that since I started teaching at Dazi in 2014.

02:04 - So I'm quite well versed in, you know, freedom of expression, the charter, that kind of thing. so for me, having already, started to do some writing in the animal law space with my background in constitutional law and with these laws, being adopted in different Canadian jurisdictions, it just seemed like a, you know, the ideal opportunity for me to kind of dive in. So I did, a short application, a, an application

02:34 - for government funding, to do this work that was successful and, set out to write these papers because this, kind of law was so new in Canada when it first started, being talked about in about 2019. there was no literature on, the constitutional dimension of animal rights advocacy. And I, I wanna say no literature at all in the,

03:04 - legal space about animal rights, advocacy, freedom of expression. There was some writing, there is some writing about, the laws as they affect animals and animal rights and, personhood and, sort of legal status of animals. But there was very little, if any, in Canada on the constitutional dimensions of animal rights advocacy. however,

03:34 - because these laws were an import from the states, there is an abundance of literature, there, on, free speech and the First amendment and, ag gag laws and how they have been, struck down in, a number of US jurisdictions because of their impact on free speech. And because of the idea that, animal rights advocacy and the types of messages that are trying to be,

04:13 - conveyed through video, undercover investigations, employee whistleblower activism, that kind of thing, trespass, farm occupations, all that information, is accepted that it's high value speech. so in the us, you know, that combination of factors, the fact that it's high value speech, the fact that, you know, free speech is paramount in the US governments cannot, you know, not in the same way justify limits.

04:47 - they do, there are different tests, but, as in Canada, there, there was a lot to draw on from the us. The first, law that was adopted, was in Alberta, which is not insignificant because Alberta is farm country. there's a lot, you know, Alberta beef is well known, and it's, a sort of more, farm rural based economy than others. Although I don't wanna undermine the importance of farming

05:23 - and agriculture in other places like Ontario and even the Maritimes. But Alberta is well known for, for that kind of stuff. and the law that was, adopted in Alberta actually went beyond, farms. It was like a critical infrastructure act that basically prohibited, trespass by making a lie. by, it's not criminalizing 'cause criminal law is Federal, but by quasi criminalizing, telling a lie

06:01 - to gain entry to certain types of private property, not limited to farms, which in a way was useful in, kind of analyzing these laws because it would also apply to daycares, assisted living facilities, prisons, you know, the types of places that we would want to know, what's going on inside of them. So that was a legislative background in Alberta. And, and why that happened, was

06:36 - because of the things I mentioned earlier about, more and more animal rights activism. more people gaining entry onto farms, whether legally or illegally more, whistleblowers more undercover investigations and more people seeing the reality of industrial farming, which, is not pretty, Ontario, similar, similar in Ontario. I, I, I will be honest that these are of course driven by conservative governments whose,

07:18 - constituencies are formed, you know, in substantial part of, rural voters, farmers. and there was a drive on behalf of those groups to, do something about the increasing levels of activism on farms. The Supreme Court of Canada came up with a test in a case called RV Oaks, a criminal law case about, the criminalization of certain forms of narcotics, and, set out the factors that governments need to

07:54 - demonstrate in order to prove that a, a law that limits constitutional freedoms is in fact, justifiable in a freeing democratic society. And that includes, the objectives of the law and, whether, the, the way the law is written and functions is proportionate to those objectives. So basically, a proportionality or cost benefit analysis about, the impact of limiting certain freedoms versus the, collective,

08:31 - the pursuit of the collective good. And the, types of things that impact the rigor with which a court will, measure or evaluate those laws, or the standard to which they'll hold the government in justifying them is the importance of the speech, being protected. So, for example, when governments limit commercial speech, like, advertising against children un advertising toward children, under the age of 13,

09:02 - let's say, the test is, easier to meet. commercial speech is, while there's value in commercial speech for informational purposes, is not the same as, the kind of speech at stake here, in my view. and in the view of courts in other jurisdictions, which really gets to the heart of people's fundamental values and beliefs and informs, political discourse,

09:37 - the way people vote, the way people eat, the way people shop, the way they feed their children. so the impacts of the law would go toward the rigor with which it would be evaluated in court, as well as of course, the, objectives. You know, who was the law trying to protect? Are they a vulnerable group, et cetera, et cetera. Today, the state of the law out of the courts in Canada is based on one trial decision in Ontario, which the government will appeal, is that certain parts

10:10 - of Ontario's ag gag laws, are not, rationally connected, or at least not minimally impairing with respect to their objective. a few months ago, the Ontario Superior Court, which is our trial level court that would deal with constitutional questions, invalidated the, regulation or provision of Ontario's law that, deems, entry under false

10:51 - pretenses a trespass. So, according to one judge in Ontario, there is a problem at the level of minimal impairment. There are other aspects to the law in Ontario and other jurisdictions as well. part of the, impetus to adopt these laws was not just, trespass onto farms, but the activities of what's called the save movement. And similar groups who, basically protest and advocate outside of slaughterhouses,

11:25 - and, stand alongside trucks, bringing animals into slaughterhouses and in some cases give the animals water, hand out leaflets, talk to the animals, that kind of thing. so that aspect of the law was not, was not, invalidated, although, it will be, you know, the case is being appealed by the government, and I'm sure the arguments will beheard again.

11:57 - I don't think, of course, I don't think that the, limits are rationally connected to their objective, and that's because based on the debates and the information and the background and everything that I have read, and I have been through the Ontario legislative debates with a fine tooth comb, these laws are not what they claim to be. The government claims that they are about, well, about protecting farm safety

12:26 - to a certain degree about protecting the mental health of farmers and their families, sure, but also about biosecurity that preventing people from going on to farms, illegally trespassing, deemed trespass, what have you, has a bios would create a biosecurity threat of disease on farms. But if you look at the evidence and, the organization, animal justice and, has read all the data, based on,

12:54 - CFIA investigations and reports, which is the Canadian Food, inspection Act, agency, there is no evidence of a undercover investigator, a journalist, a protestor, an activist, creating a biosecurity hazard on a farm. Biosecurity standards, apply to or biosecurity risks typically come from workers, vets, other animals, wild animals, and,

13:34 - not from activists. If this law was really about protecting biosecurity, it would actually create biosecurity measures, which it does not. An employee or an undercover investigator who goes to work on a farm in order to film the violence against animals on industrial farms is going to follow all biosecurity protocols. So I don't think there is a rational connection, the positive impacts of the law,

14:06 - or its expected positive, expected positive impacts versus its impact on, so-called charter values. whether the law leaves people a meaningful choice, for example, not surprisingly, I do not think the law is proportionate in its objectives, and or in its effects, mostly because, as I see the objective it is, to protect industrial agriculture. And, I'm really not convinced based on our

14:43 - constitutional, jurisprudence that the protection of, a business or an industry is a constitutionally valid objective. if we accept that it's about the protection of the mental health of farmers and their families and their safety, there is no evidence of, a threat to a person on the part of activists. Activists are not interested in interacting with farmers. They don't go near their homes. They only, enter barns

15:16 - and spaces where animals are kept. If we accept the, biosecurity objective, again, there is no evidence that the laws would be, effective at doing that. Whereas there is lots of evidence, maybe in a different form of the impacts of limiting this kind of speech on people who find real meaning and value in advocating on behalf of farmed animals. this law leaves people with no meaningful choice between

15:52 - carrying out, the activities that, enable them to, you know, experience meaning and human flourishing, which is part of the test for freedom of expression, and being arrested, or fined. so no, I don't think that these laws are proportionate in their objectives or in their effects. I think, you know, in some way, the adoption of these laws, while I don't support them, has opened up a discussion. this stuff is now, on the legislative record,

16:25 - people are talking about the ways that animals are treated on farms. If you read the, decision by the Superior Court in Ontario, it talks about the types of things that are done to, animals on farms, you know, without their consent that cause intense suffering like, cropping tails with no anesthetic or so-called piglet thumping, which, I will leave you to think about what that is, but is an accepted form of so-called euthanasia,

16:55 - for a diseased piglet. so, you know, in that respect, maybe there's some value in opening these discussions. do I think that these laws should exist? Of course not. I think that Canadians and everyone has the right to know how their food is produced, what goes on, ha the kinds of activities that their tax dollars are being used to support because, agriculture gets, you know, massive subsidies in all kinds of different forms, tax exemptions,

17:29 - et cetera, and actual subsidies. so, no, I think people deserve to have a right to information and a right to make informed choices, going forward. my work is a little more, let's say, theoretical. I'm taking a look at, what these laws mean from a, property law, position or perspective, and the idea that if we maybe reconceive

18:10 - of, the purpose and function of private property, we might come to a different conclusion about, farms and, trespass and animal rights advocacy. open rescue where people go onto farms and, and, try to rescue suffering animals who have no economic value to the farmers. and whether imprisoning people for trespass on private property, given the role and purpose of that property is really the direction

18:48 - that we want to be going in.

Faculti AI can make mistakes