Last spring, Representative Rod Hamilton and Senator Doug Magnus introduced so-called "ag gag" bills in their respective chambers that would criminalize photographing, videotaping or audiotaping livestock and farm fields as well as the possession and distribution of these images and sounds.
A metro paper pointed out that following an early hailstorm of criticism:
Needless to say, this kind of flies in the face of First Amendment law as most people understand it. The bill has been widely ridiculed in the press, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota has deemed the bill unconstitutional.
So maybe it's no surprise that the authors of the bill, Rep. Rod Hamilton and Sen. Doug Magnus, wouldn't speak to City Pages to defend their hideous and unloved offspring.
Months later looks as if Representative Rod Hamilton is still a bit sensitive about his bill, but at least now he's willing to misrepresent its contents in southwest Minnesota's biggest daily.
In Hamilton responds to letter writer's criticism, published in the July 28, 2011, issue of the Worthington Globe, he writes:
The allegations leveled in a recent letter authored by Jerry Giefer couldn’t be further from the truth.
Mr. Giefer believes animal abuse may (may being the key word here) be happening on our farms, and is upset with a bill I’ve sponsored that would prevent people from tampering at an animal facility.
Producers care for their animals and most have animal welfare policy statements, a thorough training and audit plan in place to address animal abuse and neglect. If a person then chooses to violate the policy and abuse an animal, then that person will be dealt with accordingly.
The problem with a person secretly coming onto a farm and capturing video of an alleged abuser is twofold. One, they break bio-security protocols, which jeopardizes the safety of our nation’s food supply. Secondly, they are just as guilty of animal abuse and neglect, because they do not immediately report the abuse. I think the person who records it and does nothing should be prosecuted along with the abuser. [emphasis added]
This bill protects the safety of the animal and the consumer. . . .
This is a most curious defense of his legislation on Hamilton's part since he mentions "tampering." The Giefer letter objected to a section of the bill with the title "Animal Facility Interference," not the language in the bill addressing tampering.
Here's the relevant language about visual and audio recordings from HF 136:
ANIMAL FACILITY INTERFERENCE.
4.28 Subdivision 1. Prohibited acts. A person who acts without the consent of the
4.29owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following is guilty of animal facility
4.30interference:
4.31(1) produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal
4.32facility if:
4.33(i) the record is created by the person while at the animal facility; and
4.34(ii) the record is a reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the
4.35animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium;
5.1(2) possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the
5.2animal facility which was produced as provided in clause (1);
5.3(3) exercise control over the animal facility including an animal maintained at the
5.4animal facility or other property kept at the animal facility, with intent to deprive the
5.5animal facility of the animal or property; and
5.6(4) enter onto the animal facility, or remain at the animal facility, if the person has
5.7notice that the facility is not open to the public. A person has notice that an animal facility
5.8is not open to the public if the person is provided notice before entering onto the facility,
5.9or the person refuses to immediately leave the facility after being instructed to leave. The
5.10notice may be in the form of a written or verbal communication by the owner, a fence
5.11or other enclosure designed to exclude intruders or contain animals, or a sign posted
5.12that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder and which indicates that
5.13entry is forbidden.
There's nothing in his bill that exempts those who tape abuse in order to provide evidence of the crime to law enforcement. Anyone wishing to record animal abuse and neglect to turn in an abuser is just as guilty under the proposed language as the demented person who'd videotape these horrors for later private jollies.
Had Hamilton wanted to exempt whistleblowers, he could have done so. He did not. The City Pages looked into the controversy more in Daryn McBeth, agribiz lobbyist: People who photograph farms should be felons. And while McBeth mentions the bio-security concern, that appear to be a secondary issue to this:
Daryn McBeth, the council's president, told City Pages the bill is necessary because existing laws just don't seem to be adequate to keep pictures of what goes on at farms from reaching the public.
"Minnesota has trespassing laws, but that's proving not to be a strong enough deterrent," McBeth said.
Besides, trespassing laws don't do anything to protect against farm workers who take pictures of their own farm's operations. . . .
It's an anti-whistleblower bill along with an anti-trespass and tampering bill.
There's also a section in the bill prohibiting video and audio taping crops, or "crop operation interference" but apparently both Giefer and Hamilton are much less worried about field corn and soybean abuse and neglect.
Bluestem doesn't know of a state statute that makes torturing barley a crime, although the county weed inspectors are seriously on the look out for the sort of neglect that breeds thistles. Nor is it clear why taking photos of cornfields should be a felony.
On Wednesday, Daryl McBeth will be on a Farmfest panel considering "Finding A Common Message for Agriculture," so perhaps someone could ask him what was up about criminalizing alfalfa photo albums.
Jerry Giefer's letter
Jerry Giefer of Worthington wrote in Hamilton, Magnus put own interests first on farms:
Back in April, Rep. Rod Hamilton and Sen. Doug Magnus authored/introduced two bills: (S.F. 1118/HF 1369) that would have criminalized anyone who blows the whistle on animal cruelty, food and worker safety, labor abuses, and environmental crimes etc. These two Republicans were trying to make it a crime to videotape the appalling conditions and abuses that may exist on Minnesota farms and factories.
How is this going to protect us from E.coli- or salmonella-tainted food products? What is happening on these farms that they don’t want you to see? Why is their number-one priority elevating the corporate farm industry above the law, thus guaranteeing them special protections? Shouldn’t their top priority be the protection of workers and consumer safety?
This shouldn’t surprise anyone, since they both list their occupation as farmers. They’re just looking out for themselves at the expense of the majority of their constituents. The people of southwest Minnesota better wake up. The people you elected as your representative/senator are robbing you of your rights as citizens of Minnesota. . . .
Giefer is assuming that conditions are appalling, and frankly, pointing out that Hamilton and Magnus are engaged in agriculture is something of an ad hominem attack. A more recent letter on the bill underscores why.
A conservative farm woman: ethical producers have nothing to hide
In the latest round, Elaine Ahlers, a conservative family farmer, responds to Hamilton that Farmers should have nothing to hide:
In Jerry Giefer’s July 26 letter to the editor, he commented on Rep. Rod Hamilton and Sen. Doug Magnus supporting bills that would-have made it a crime for anyone to videotape conditions on farms and in factories. I generally agree with Republicans on social issues and on budget issues. We need to quit spending more money then we are bringing in in revenue. There should be no new taxes and no increase in tax rates. The only way we should be bringing in more tax revenue should be by people and companies earning more, thus paying tax on more earnings.
However, I did not agree with these bills on videotaping, and my husband and I are also farmers who raise beef when it is profitable. I believe that if you are raising and slaughtering livestock in an ethical manner (which everyone should be), you should have nothing to hide from anyone videotaping your operation. . . .
This is the point made by a number of rural newspapers. Bluestem went a step further in saying in Consumers are stupid: Agri-Growth Council touts Babe in a Blender Restoration Act that consumer information is an important part of the marketplace. Knowing that producers can't hide behind laws that restrict consumers' ability to make informed choices will strengthen confidence in the food supply.
Photo: Representative Rod Hamilton, fudger of facts about his own bill. Shame on him!
Related posts:Consumers are stupid: Agri-Growth Council touts Babe in a Blender Restoration Act
Not getting behind it: ag country daily newspapers reject anti-whistleblowing bill
More greater Minnesota newpapers trash ag whistleblowers bill
Senator Julie Rosen withdraws as sponsor of ag-gag bill
Recent Comments