The court case regarding the legal challenge of Ontario’s Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 (formerly Bill 156) took place from October 30th to November 1st, 2023 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. I want to share with you my impressions of the case while we wait for the decision of the court.
I also want to thank you for making our participation in the case possible.
This Act is what is commonly referred to as an “Ag-Gag” bill, because its apparent purpose is to make it difficult for undercover investigators to document and expose the harsh conditions that animals endure in animal agriculture.
The basis for the legal challenge is that the law violates the Charter rights of Canadians that guarantee the right to free expression.
The legal firm acting on behalf of Animal Alliance of Canada (AAC) made these points about the Act:
“The Act has the purpose and effect of frustrating the pursuit of truth about animal suffering, harm, and abuses in the poorly regulated factory farming industry.”
“The Act has the purpose and effect of delegitimizing and frustrating the political and community participation of animal advocates.”
Animal Alliance acted as intervenors on the case, meaning that we presented arguments along with the lead applicants: Animal Justice, Jessica Scott-Reid, and Louise Jorgensen. There were two other intervenors in addition to AAC: the Regan Russell Foundation, and the Centre for Free Expression.
The lawyer representing AAC spoke to the biased portrayal of animal advocates that was made during hearings and debate before the passing of Bill 156 where animal advocates were portrayed as aggressive and potentially dangerous. She said:
“Here, in addition to curtailing truths about harmful and abusive animal practices, the Act appears to be motivated by a desire to delegitimize the animal advocacy movement and community in the public sphere by branding them as dangerous and on the fringe.”
Unfair portrayal – “Dangerous and on the fringe”:
Our lawyer continued:
“In the legislative debates, animal agriculture industry representatives repeatedly and extensively referred to animal advocates as “activists”. They were also called “vigilante” and their behaviour was termed harassing, deplorable, aggressive, unwise, extreme bullying and threatening. In other correspondence with government, a mink farm owner also referenced animal advocates as animal extremists, terrorists and their actions as “continued terrorism”.
No case of farm workers being harmed by animal advocates:
It’s clear that there have been no cases of animal advocates harming farm workers or any other person involved in the animal agriculture industry. And, there is no evidence that those working to protect animals, have in any way harmed them as industry representatives have alleged. Our lawyer outlined the biased and unfounded ways that animal advocates were described, leaving the impression that farmers and other workers have reasons to fear us.
This unreasonable and unfair portrayal of animal advocates likely provided justification for the passing of Bill 156.
This unfounded and negative portrayal of those who work for animals in non-violent ways might have played a role in a tragic event in 2020 that still hurts us deeply, the killing of animal advocate Regan Russell as she was driven over by a semi-truck carrying live pigs at Fearman’s slaughterhouse in Burlington.
Divide and conquer – Divide to conquer:
When groups of people are slandered unfairly by those with political power, there can be very harmful consequences.
This is not the first time that those in authority have scapegoated a minority population. We can think back to the many times when minority groups, those with different beliefs, or who have less political or economic power, have been singled out to be maligned. ‘Divide and conquer’ is a common, though disgraceful, political tactic. It’s helpful for governments who are being pressured for change to try to separate the dissidents from the general public, stoking fear in the general population of those who want to change the status quo.
Animal advocates challenge the comfortable relationship among political parties and animal-using industries. It will require courage and a greater commitment to ethical governance for politicians to risk their relationships with agricultural organizations where votes and political support is traded for weak animal protection regulations and policies, and lack of meaningful oversight.
It seems apparent that this age-old tactic is what Ontario’s provincial government used when they facilitated the stoking of fear in the general public, allowing a picture to be painted that portrayed animal advocates as trouble-makers, extremists, people on the outside, people to fear. Once we have been defined this way, we can be ignored, even presented as ‘enemies’ of society. This scapegoating can be dangerous for advocates who are members of any social-action group pressing for change.
Who is really in danger? Of course, it is every farmed animal who is used and killed to generate profit. Their lives are, in most cases, filled with hardship and denial, often outright cruelty before the final suffering of a slaughterhouse death.
Previously, when animal advocates released under-cover video evidence of the conditions that farmed animals endure and the cruelties inflicted on them, the government of Ontario did not respond by instituting stronger animal protection laws and a vigorous system of farm inspections and enforcement. Instead, the provincial government passed a law intended to criminalize those who seek to expose the truth about animal-use in Ontario’s farming industry. They ‘shot’ the messenger, instead of addressing the information revealed in the message.
‘Silencing’ the messengers:
This shameful reality was referred to in the legal argument presented by the lawyer representing Animal Alliance:
“The Ontario government purported to pass the Act to protect food and animal safety. But the legislative debates did not outline evidence of harm committed by animal advocates. Rather, it is animal advocates who have been responsible for exposing inhumane and unsanitary practices in the largely self-regulated, minimally accountable, and opaque factory farming industry.
Yet, instead of addressing the central problem by enacting more stringent animal and food safety or biosecurity requirements applicable to farms and slaughterhouses, the Act turns whistleblowers, journalists, and protestors into criminals for their efforts to expose wrongdoings on matters of public concern. The Act thus curtails and punishes the dissemination of critical information on the condition of animals to the detriment of the public, academics, journalists, animal advocates and, ultimately, animals themselves.”
Our generous donors make it possible for animals to be represented:
We are enormously grateful to our donors who made it possible for us to take on the significant expense of hiring a respected law firm that deals in constitutional law to speak on behalf of our right to speak up for animals. Our costs are over $50,000 to date, and we consider this money well spent given the significant government misdirection and overreach.
I hope that you find comfort in knowing that your voices were represented in an Ontario court. Because of your generosity and support, animals were represented in a very public way. The applicants and intervenors on the side of animals addressed the court, speaking on the public record about the shameful realities of animal farming as conducted in Ontario.
We, the animals, and you, had our ‘day in court’. Governments across Canada were sent the message that when they enact bad laws that harm animals, there will be push back. We were honoured to stand with the other participants in this legal challenge, the lead applicants and the other intervenors. We are eagerly waiting to learn the decision of the court on the constitutionality of the Act.
The fight is not over. Please stand with us. Stand with the animals:
Along with my gratitude to you, I need to end by asking you for your continued support. Whatever the decision is made by the court, rest assured it will be appealed, by our side or the other.
Please, donate to help us cover the significant costs of our participation in this court challenge. Governments use our tax dollars to fight us in courts. We rely on the generosity of people like you who care about animals and fairness to fund our work, in and out of courts.
If you are not already a monthly donor, please sign up today. Monthly donations allow us to plan ahead, to anticipate resources so we know in advance if we can afford to take on commitments, like this court challenge. We appreciate every donation, one time or monthly, and thank you for your support.
I will let you know the decision of the court as soon as we are informed.
Farmed animals, and all animals who suffer, locked behind closed doors and out of public view, will be represented! That is our mandate, the reason that our organization exists. We will be their advocates until we finally convince our legislators that pigs, chickens, cows, and all other animals who are exploited are sentient beings, not biological machines, objects to be used and harmed by humans.
Together, we stand firm. This fight is not over.
With gratitude,
Liz White
